May 25, 2011

'Room for Debate" (but not for Jared Taylor)

On May 22, the NYT ran one of their "Room for Debate" symposiums, this one on "Is Anti-White Bias a Problem?"

Debaters

Notice anybody missing? Oh, yeah, the guy, Jared Taylor, who has a brand new book out on precisely this topic: White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. It's quite likely, indeed, that the NYT's topic was inspired in part or indirectly by Taylor's book, which I reviewed 7 days earlier. (A lot of topics I bring up get quickly laundered into the high end blogosphere by Matthew Yglesias, among others.)

But, evidently, there's no room for debate when it comes to Jared Taylor.

40 comments:

Not RKU said...

RKU at Mangan's had this LOL comment:

So, on the controversial social question of whether (non-Jewish) whites are subject to racial discrimination in America something like one or two of the eight participants are non-Jewish whites. Next up: a debate on Protestant rights in Ulster between Cardinal O'Sullivan, Bishop O'Connor, Father O'Malley, and Sean Shaemas O'Rourke.

Anonymous said...

"White Folks Shouldn't Worry"

Sure, affluent liberal white folks shouldn't worry, but then WE are not talking about Bill Gates but people whose houses get broken into.

Similarly, what do rich blacks have to worry about? They got it made. There's no discrimination against them and they also benefit from affirmative action. So, since rich blacks are doing fine, does it mean ALL blacks have no reason to worry?
Using this logic, why do Jews whine 365 days a yr? They are richer and more powerful than all others.

We need to do away with the notion of 'white people' because all white people are then associated with rich Jews and wasps at the top who have most of the power and indeed have little to worry about(except for stuff like 'did my 5 yr old get accepted to some fancy kindergarten costing $20,000 a year?) . Most whites are not so lucky, and rich whites don't look out for the interests of lower class whites.
If anything, rich whites work against middle class white interests.

We need to call the masses of white people something else. Maybe just RIGHT PEOPLE. Right people have a reason to be angry.

Most pitiful of all, too many middle clas whites or rights will passionately stand up for Israel, American Jews, and black conservatives(all five of them), but they will not stand up for their own rights. That must change.

Btw, who the hell are the Jewish liberals at NYT to be telling us what we need to think and feel. WE WILL THINK AND FEEL ON OUR OWN, AND WE DON'T NEED NO FREAKING LECTURE, APPROVAL, OR ACCEPTANCE FROM THE LIKES OF PATRICIA WILLIAMS OR LIBERAL JEWS!!! WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT AND NEED!!

Has to be said...

Having looked through the theses I can see that they excluded not just Jared Taylor but any conventional conservatives as well, or even centrists. This is a purely intra-liberal debate: "The peasants are revolting. What's wrong with them?" Nor was it inspired by Taylor's book. In their world that book simply doesn't exist, as well as Taylor himself.

By the way, these theses are a great source of unintentionally hilarious quotes. I'll leave it to others to mine it.

Tanstaafl said...

Two blacks and four jews, none of whom, including the other two, side with Whites. It perfectly typifies the anti-White bias supposedly being debated.

Anonymous said...

sommers, bernstein,rosner

...and no white gentile males - does the NYT KNOW they are doing this?

is it my imagination or have they become MORE bias since the advent of the internet and bloggers exposing how bias they are??

Sad thing is SWPL liberals who read the NYT think they are actually watching a 'debate' like when Wolf Blitzer has William Kristol and Tom Friedman on to discuss middle east policy.

Anonymous said...

@Not RKU
LOL!

bjdubbs said...

There was another recent Room for Debate on "should there be a latino museum on the mall" (prob occasioned by Rep. Moran's comment "it's unamerican to have a separate museum for each group")in which everybody agreed there should be a latino museum on the mall. Glad we cleared that up.

TH said...

The debate was inspired by this study, not Taylor's book, which has gone completely unnoticed outside of the WN/paleocon/HBD circles. As Taylor himself has pointed out, he has never been more marginal than today. It is not even possible for him to organize Amren conferences anymore, nor would anyone publish his book. It's a pity. In a different era, Taylor might have become a leading statesman.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, the comments that seemed to have gained the most support obviously believe in anti-white discrimination. Surprising for a NYT audience unless Sailer readers are heading over to the 'symposium" and doing most of the voting.

Anonymous said...

even this is about the Jews? Ugh.

slumber_j said...

The substance and tone of Abigail Thernstrom's piece is (unsurprisingly) at odds with the comments I've read so far. Take this passage, for example:

'Likewise, preferential admissions at the University of Michigan occasioned legal challenges to racial double standards at the law school and in the college. There are only a fixed number of seats in the freshman class at each school. Blacks with dramatically weaker academic qualifications than their white classmates had been given some of those places; whites and Asians, who had to meet higher admission standards than minority applicants, lost out. The result: a perception of what authors Norton and Sommers call “anti-white bias.”'

'Is it really a perception that requires exploration and explanation — resting as it does on the reality of bias built into public policies?'

Maybe I'm misreading her, but what's unreasonable or dismissive about that?

Anonymous said...

You sound like such a jackass taking credit for inspiring stories without any proof.

Tom in VA said...

Silly me, I thought that in a debate, TWO opposing viewpoints are presented.

Anonymous said...

"even this is about the Jews? Ugh."

Are you serious?

For 60 years the NYT has been one of the main champions of attacking white people for racism where disparate impact is taken as proof of said racism.

Look at the panel.

Four Jews in a panel of eight saying white people aren't being discriminated against.

The NYT is a sick joke.

Anonymous said...

Jared Taylor is evil. Al Sharpton is good. No more to explain.

Anonymous said...

"Four Jews in a panel of eight saying white people aren't being discriminated agai"

OK? Conspiracy detected, I guess?

lololdright, being irrelevant

Max R said...

Notice that virtually no one on the panel would be likely to identify themselves first as "white", instead of black, Jewish, etc. Yet they are all experts on whether anti-white bias is a problem for whites.

Anonymous said...

"even this is about the Jews? Ugh."

Correction:

Even this is BY and FROM Jews.

Kylie said...

Diversity is our strength!

Anonymous said...

"Is Anti-White Bias a Problem?"

NY TIMES is correct in this sense. It is indeed NOT a problem but a POLICY of Jews and blacks.

It is a problem for whites, but why should our problems be their problems?
When the Cowboys are losing to the Steelers, is that a problem? Yes for the Cowboys, No for the Steelers. What is a curse for one people is a blessing for another.

Similarly, is it a problem that Palestinians are being evicted from their own homes? Yes for Palestinians, but No for Jews taking over the territory.

David said...

>even this is about the Jews? Ugh.<

Yes, it is. Look at all those Jews talking about it...and taking sides against whites.

Ugh, indeed.

agnostic said...

"OK? Conspiracy detected, I guess?

lololdright, being irrelevant"

Millennials talk like 5 year-old girls.

David said...

>lololdright, being irrelevant<

Shouldn't you be on a beach right now, celebrating your graduation from community college?

Tanstaafl said...

"The substance and tone of Abigail Thernstrom's piece is (unsurprisingly) at odds with the comments I've read so far."

What she says amounts to "so what, nothing new here". She goes through the motions of neutral, objective understanding, mouthing a few rhetorical questions, showing no sign of having any concern about the answers.

Tanstaafl said...

"Notice that virtually no one on the panel would be likely to identify themselves first as "white""

A panel supposedly debating anti-X bias but consisting of a majority non-Xs who take positions ranging anywhere from "what problem?" to "non-Xs have it worse!" pretty well demonstrates anti-X bias. Never mind that this kind of non-debate is only regarded non-debatable when X=White.

Thomas said...

Not that any fan of the NY Times would stoop to this sort of crimethink, but how delicious is the irony of a bunch of black and Jewish professors lecturing at middle or lower class white people for feeling biased against? How meta.

AmericanGoy said...

Tim Naylor
Brooklyn, NY
May 22nd, 2011 9:59 pm
wrote in comment number 6 on the page:


"As an Asian, I find it outrageous that if I were applying to an Ivy College today, on average, I'd have to get higher marks and scores on my SAT than either black or white to get accepted. Does something seem wrong with this picture? It's not like our people were welcomed to these shores with open arms. An equivalent black admission can score approximately 20 % lower in standardized test and have the same chance of acceptance as an Asian fresh off the boat. In short, people are being penalized for excellence while other are given on hall pass on mediocrity. It does no one favors. It creates resentment on the part of the rejected who has a higher score than the accepted who is ill prepared for what lay ahead."


Rookout!!!!!

Gozilla is waaaakin uuuuuupppp!

Anonymous said...

I don't know, I thought that, despite his equivocating, David Bernstein made a very strong statement here:

By contrast, discrimination in favor of African-Americans (and other minorities) is protected by law in some contexts, and is often not just explicit, but proudly trumpeted.

To me, that just nails it. We are lectured endlessly about what an awful thing racial discrimination is, but then the lecturers turn around and endorse racial discrimination against whites that is above board and proud. Never mind the tricky question of comparing the severity of the "hidden" discrimination against minorities against the open discrimination against whites. The openness in itself enough to provoke resentment, and rightly so.

AmericanGoy said...

How did I miss this gem by the esteemed, learned eruditor woman in chief from NYT:


"data show that white Americans remain the most privileged human beings on the planet.".

Intelligence, respect for science and scientific method, deep perception and, dare I say it, BRILLIANCE,

just OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE out of this quote.

Data show, indeed.

who? what? said...

"like such a jackass taking credit for inspiring stories without any proof."

I'm sorry but sometimes comments responding to another comment are not clear in what they mean. You are not in tete-a-tete. Please quote that to which you are repsonding or you just confuse.

Hacienda said...

"WE WILL THINK AND FEEL ON OUR OWN, AND WE DON'T NEED NO FREAKING LECTURE, APPROVAL, OR ACCEPTANCE FROM THE LIKES OF PATRICIA WILLIAMS OR LIBERAL JEWS!!! WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT AND NEED!!"

You're scaring the children. All the little children with big dreams.

Chris Anderson said...

+1 to TH on Jared Taylor's marginalized status now. He has (for the time being) become an unperson to the NYT and the rest of the media.

Kudos to Steve for bringing Taylor back up, and standing up for him. Steve's stubbornness (I think we've all seen it) and his media-elite readership (I believe this to be absolutely true) may get Taylor get some penetration into the so-called mainstream, even if it's crypto-style, similar to the way that Steve's own insights have disseminated.

Anonymous said...

Please stop reading the NYTimes, everyone.

You make those people relevant.

Kiwiguy said...

Aside from Taylor, they could have invited HBD aware philosopher Michael Levin for his perspective.

Why Race Matters.

jody said...

what was missing? obviously the new york times "right think" editor was missing the day these articles were published. if said editor had not been missing work that day, he would have noticed that a christian european man was allowed to give his opinion on the topic.

that's not allowed. how did michael norton slip past the editors?

rest of the authors:
woman
jewish guy
african guy
woman
jewish guy
woman
jewish guy

ha! come on stupid euro american men, what do you have to be afraid of? clearly as these sagacious professors and authors can tell you, EVERYTHING IS GOING GREAT. there is nothing to worry about. do not notice that your country is deliberately being taken away from you.

Simon from Ulster, in London said...

Is that panel 100% black or Jewish?

Not RKU:
"Next up: a debate on Protestant rights in Ulster between Cardinal O'Sullivan, Bishop O'Connor, Father O'Malley, and Sean Shaemas O'Rourke."

Heh heh. :)

Marc B said...

"The finding that white Americans see blacks’ progress as an insult or a diminishment of their status is not entirely surprising."

Glad she didn't start off this well-researched article with a patronizing tone...

White's grievance with blacks has more to do with de facto scapegoating for what ails them as a race than their "rise" to affluence. I have never, ever heard white people discussing how their quality of life has been diminished by such a large and stable black middle or professional class. This is a phoney argument that negates rightful claims of unfairness that exist in the area of government and DWL enforced NAM favoritism.

ATBOTL said...

"The debate was inspired by this study, not Taylor's book, which has gone completely unnoticed outside of the WN/paleocon/HBD circles. As Taylor himself has pointed out, he has never been more marginal than today. It is not even possible for him to organize Amren conferences anymore, nor would anyone publish his book. It's a pity. In a different era, Taylor might have become a leading statesman."

Taylor's strategy has always been to make alliances with conservatives, Republicans and Jews and to position white nationalism as mainstream. He seemed to be having some success back in the 90's, probably peaking about 15 years ago, but since then, his influence has gone steadily down. He doesn't seem to have any support outside of white nationalist circles anymore.

Does anyone see any chance that the mainstream conservative movement will embrace racialism anytime soon?

As for the panel:

Is this impression of the debater's ethnicities correct?

Willaims - black
Berstein - Jewish
Butler - black
Thernstrom - Jewish
Rosen - Jewish
Plaut - Jewish
Norton - white
Sommers - Jewish

Anonymous said...

Demeritocracy is just what we need.

Anonymous said...

Judeocracy and Afrocracy.

Btw, wasn't there an NYRB article about how lots of whites/Jews at NY Times felt they were being passed over in favor of less qualified blacks like Jayson Blair?

Well, well.