:0)

Find his reasoning to be sound?

Jared Taylor examines a dynamic process, selects a single aspect of it that fits his biases, and implies causality. He conveniently ignores the circular impact of racism/racial profiling on the individuals being "profiled", and instead suggests that the problem is, those black men are just inclined to violence.

I found his reasoning on the episode of Queen Latifah to be sound. I understand the negative impact it has, but at the same time if such profiling and searchers were going on continually in troubled communities, violence and other problems would be controlled. Black men in specific communities could and for the betterment of the members of those communities as a whole, should be profiled and searched randomly. It's why I also don't object to airports keeping a closer watch on people of Arab decent. It's an inconvenience and at times probably seemingly humiliating, but it is they, at present, who tend to hijack planes.

By the same token I think other types of crimes rightfully involve other types of profiles - mass murderers, insurance fraud, and so forth. These are of the White variety. The difference is that one is more immediate and prevalent than the other, so the profiling is more extensive.

Jared Taylor pretends to be part of the solution, but he is, in fact, part of the problem. We have a Unitarian minister in town who happens to be black. He testified in front of the State Legislature that he was pulled over eight times the prior month - yet he never received a citation (he was breaking no law, except the unwritten one hereabouts of driving while black). It's a good thing he's such a fine man - otherwise, what impact do you think this would have on his sense of belonging in the community? Jared was summarily rousted from a debate in Canada recently, and complained of unconscionable treatment - he objects to being considered a racist. Yet this minister objects to being considered a criminal. What is the difference?

I don't know where he lives or what his community is like. I take this issue on a case by case basis.

As for most of Taylor's other convictions, I find them rather trite and unrealistic.

Very much so, in fact.

We have a long history of racial profiling in this country, and some clear examples of how it fosters alienation and undermines perception of mutual self-interest. You know about the Zoot Suit riots? This was a seminal series of events leading to the formation of street gangs in California, begun when US servicemen were routinely entering ethnic neighborhoods adjacent the naval base and raping girls, and an LA police force that was unwilling to provide protection. PBS has a great documentary on the subject.

Events of this type introduce a profound schism between a dominant culture and ethnic subculture that fosters the very alienation decried by everyone on this topic, as it relates to the educational priorities of young people. In order to address them, it is terribly important we don't exacerbate it. Cultural stereotypes are powerful, and difficult to overcome. When you add the element of personal threat, the probability that someone will aggressively cross the line goes way up.

Race is so salient - it's a highly visible attribute, and it's visibility likely underlies most of the most intractable problems. A less visible attribute upon which we might "profile" people involves political positions. Suppose I were to tell you that people who openly espouse racist beliefs were 30 times as likely to commit a hate crime. Shall we take Jared Taylor in for questioning when he enters any new city? I mean, statistically speaking, it'd be a good idea, wouldn't it? Perform a cavity search, just to make sure he's not hiding a little c4 in some unlikely place?

If it's fair for the goose, it ought to be fair for the gander, right? But Jared Taylor would never stand for it - he'd argue violation of his fourth amendment rights.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Being black does not constitute probable cause any more than openly speaking about the rationality of granting less rights to black men than we do other people constitutes probable cause.

But when someone is treated as guilty because of status, it dramatically increases the likelihood that they will eventually become guilty of the type of crime you are accused them. Social relationships are very stabilizing (particularly during formative years), and one of the things that keeps us honest is that we do not want to be socially sanctioned. When you're already socially sanctioning people because of their appearance, do you understand how this undermines their motivation to maintain their behavior within socially desirable boundaries?

Of course, all of this is very complicated, and difficult to address. It's probably much more expedient to throw all the black men in prison - which is pretty much what we're doing right now.

[Thanks Jared Taylor, for doing your part to exacerbate the problem, rather than becoming part of the solution.]

I have attended every American Renaissance Conference since the first one in 1994 and an assure you that neither Don Black nor David Duke has ever been a speaker at the conferences. Most speakers have been college professors or otherwise Ph.D.s. At least three were religious leaders, including a rabbi, and orthodox priest, and a Jesuit priest. AIR, only two were political leaders, one from France and one from England. The conferences are always a fun occasion where the participants (and speakers) get to meet people with a *diverse* range of opinions on race and ethnic issues.

You should pay your money and attend. Maybe you would learn something that would cure your ignorance about what you have written about. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, we are all ignorant about some things. The nice thing about ignorance is that it can be cured by education.

Louis Andrews

What are your thoughts about the Duke anti-Semitic diatribe from the floor last year? There weren't people cheering the prospect that Israel could be "wiped off the map"?

Is that a civil war revisionist I see listed on this year's agenda? Funny, I don't see a picture of Mr. O'Toole, however.

I don't think I'll attend the conference. Fortunately, there are other people willing to attend and provide a report.

We are all ignorant about some things, that's true. What will it take for you to abandon yours?

The issue was your ignorance over the nature of the AR conferences. You made comments that were untrue about them. Since I have attended all of them, their nature is hardly something that I could be ignorant about nor something that I could or should "abandon."

Louis Andrews, Realist

"The conferences are always a fun occasion where the participants (and speakers) get to meet people with a *diverse* range of opinions on race and ethnic issues." Louis Andrews

You think Martin Hart was having fun at the last conference? I mean, you were there - what was your take on that situation?

I made comments about American Renaissance that are untrue? Where?

Did I say you were ignorant about the nature of the American Renaissance conference? No, I agreed we are ignorant about many things, and asked what it would take for you to abandon yours.

See, even though education is a tonic against ignorance, no amount of it will cure ignorance of the willful sort.

GeneralDisarray, Misogynicist

But his reasoning throughout his literature involves just that, eg, racial profiling. Since white people who cozy up to David Duke tend to be racists, it's most like Taylor is one.

Isonomist:

But his reasoning throughout his literature involves just that, eg, racial profiling. Since white people who cozy up to David Duke tend to be racists, it's most like Taylor is one.

Isn't that a form of profiling?

Oh wait - Taylor says this is entirely reasonable. Never mind.

I should've signed that,

GeneralDisarray, Bigotrealist

I should have said "it's most likely that Jared Taylor is a dangerous racist con artist."

we all misspeak from time to time.

His name is Michael Hart, not Martin Hart. I talk with him on the phone several times a week so I should know. In fact, I published his most recent book, Understanding Human History.

Louis Andrews, Realist

The guy who called him that word (it's one that's used on my folks as well, so I'm going to spare myself typing it) is also black. I didn't read anything by him or the person who called him a self hating black man, that indicated either was a leftist or a liberal. Nor did I see much from Metellus that indicated he is a black conservative.

I dont' consider Clarence Thomas to be a representative black conservative (he did, after all help himself to affirmative action program, which no true conservative would, and he's not as brilliant a thinker as the black conservatives I know personally). But Harry Reid didn't criticize his decisions, he criticized his writing as second rate, which is actually true. He has essentially done little writing on his own, nothing particularly creatively argued, and in fact, mostly just agrees with Scalia's opinions.

And in fact, when Reid made the comment you're talking about, on Meet the Press on Dec 5 2004, Tim Russert did not ask him a follow up question about naming any of the cases he had in mind, so why on earth would Reid recite them? Reid did in fact praise Scalia as a brilliant legal thinker, and if Scalia went any further to the right, he'd be in the Atlantic.

of your lack of ignorance, at least regarding the events occurring at American Renaissance conferences.

So, what is your take on the Michael (my mistake) Hart / David Duke dispute? As someone who was there, I was hoping you'd give us your take. Will he be coming back this year?

Also - if the American Renaissance conference is the dispassionate, unbiased forum for free intellectual inquiry that you present it to be, how many presenters have there been making the counterarguments - that the observed group differences between races on the matter of intelligence and criminality are not the result of innate biological differences, and that there are viable, inclusive solutions attainable for the social problems discussed?

GeneralDisarray, Prejudicialist

At the 1996 conference a speaker (a Jewish newspaper editor) who opposed the AR position on race and genetics was given a full hour to offer his opposition. At another conference, one of the speakers who generally agreed about race and ethnic differences nevertheless opposed the AR position.

I doubt you could find a left/egalitarian conference on race that has ever allowed an opposition speaker such as Jared Taylor or Michael Levin.

Louis Andrews, Realist