Taylor/Sailer Debate Rages on

The latest volley in the white nationalism vs. citizenism debate.

I'm still in favor of citizenism, and I see white nationalism as carrying with it a whole host of problems for the U.S., however, Taylor does make some interesting points, most importantly this one:

You don’t have to have black friends, you don’t have to have Mexican neighbors, you don’t have to send your children to schools where no one speaks English, and you don’t have to invite Hmong refugees to your dinner parties. You can be racially respectable without doing anything. Just gush about the things you, yourself, carefully avoid: integration, multi-culturalism, and diversity...

...People get away with it because everyone is in on the charade. By any real racial test, by any measure that requires sacrifice, everyone fails, so whites never apply real tests to each other. Mouth the right clichés and you’re on the side of the angels. Racial rectitude is therefore the most cheaply bought virtue in American history— and also the most easily forfeited. Because only words matter, not deeds, a single sentence can wreck a career.

I fin this interesting because of how it fits in with the charges of "institutional racism." In general, the goal of talking about "white privilege" is to makes whites feel guilty and racist and to convince them that nothing they do or say can take away from the fact that they are part of the evil white hierarchy (the general goal, it seems to me, is to suggest that because of their "privilege," they are so corrupt that their opinions ought not to count as much those of minorities, at least not on racial issues; meaning that all of our racial policies ought to be set by minorities).

But the parallel here is that neither the anti-racist nor Jared Taylor lets anyone off the hook for their "moral rectitude" when discussing matters of race.

What the import of that is, I'll have to consider more before making a longer post.

That is all.