Monday, March 22, 2010

Controlled Controversy at Dalhousie With Jared Taylor

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

There is a growing trend in this country to challenge our hate crime laws, by inviting some of the most controversial speakers to our universities in the hopes that there will be protests.

And when the inevitable protest happens, the news becomes about that, rather than the message that is being delivered, that got people so riled up in the first place.

Most recently it was Ann Coulter and the "controlled controversy" surrounding her visit became the debate, ignoring the question of whether or not it was OK to Muslim-bait.

What we should have also questioned was why a Danish hate group was sponsoring her visit, and why a member of Stephen Harper's staff was arranging the pre-show party.

Forget that Ezra Levant and David Frum had their fingers it, both bosom buddies of Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day.

These 'free speech' gurus love it when the hateful messages are not directed at them or their beliefs, but when they are they scream bloody murder. George Galloway is an excellent example of that.

However, before Coulter's visit there was another 'controlled controversy" on a University campus, when Jared Taylor, a notorious white supremacist was invited to debate a professor of black studies. Why they purposely chose Dalhousie, I don't know, perhaps it's because there is rather large black community in Halifax.

The organizer, Brian Boothe, claimed that he had hoped that the Dalhousie professor David Devine would win the debate, thereby proving that racism is wrong. Divine was under the impression that Taylor was a legitimate expert, and wasn't prepared to debate a devoted racist, who had honed his skill, by simply not listening to a thing anyone had to say that would contradict his already firmly entrenched opinions.

When word of the debate circulated around Halifax, the public outcry forced the professor to cancel the debate, but Taylor showed up anyway, garnering a lot of media attention, especially when after handing out hate literature on the street corners, he was attacked by a group who clearly wanted him out of town.

In its reaction to Mr. Taylor's brief visit last week, Halifax failed on almost every measure. Prof. Divine did not check his background before agreeing to debate him as an intellectual peer, an omission that later forced him to publicly refuse to debate. The media courted Mr. Taylor, then shunned him, then courted him again, turning a non-story into a near-scandal; and citizens stooped to mob violence and an anonymous e-mail that read: "Next time he comes, we're going to cut off his head." "Must be Muslims," Mr. Taylor said.

Literally overnight, this coincidence of failures transformed a harmless kook handing out fliers in a Maritime snowstorm into the hottest interview in Halifax. He is now hailed on the Internet among like-minded American "paleoconservatives" as a martyr for free speech in the face of aggressive Canadian political correctness. Even the local papers that refused his ads turned around and defended his right to get his message out.

"I felt very sad that someone of the calibre of Prof. Divine, with all the best of intentions, fell into that trap," said Dr. Mock, a psychologist who was once dubbed the "hate hunter" for her expert testimony on neo-Nazi tattoos. "It's an old Klan trick.... They can't be refuted because their lies are propaganda and the arguments are circular and conspiratorial." (1)
See how easily the story shifted from being about a white supremacist visiting Canada and handing out hate literature, to being about the actions of those who protested his racist messages, and Canada's arbitrary laws against freedom of speech.

The situation was handled all wrong and Jared Taylor was made a hero.

The anti-defamation League has actually covered similar situations involving Taylor and the company he keeps. Mobs follow him everywhere, and he knows just the right bombastic comments to fuel their ire. You can listen to the Taylor in the following video.

Jared Taylor and the Leadership Institute

Taylor has been linked with the Youth for Western Civilization movement, funded by Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute. He regularly gives them a plug in his American Renaissance newsletter.

However, he was also supposed to speak at a conference they were holding at the Institute on race and conservatism:

The forum was titled "Race and Conservatism" and was sponsored by the Robert A. Taft Club, a paleoconservative organization that was run by fellow Leadership Institute member Marcus Epstein. It was held at a satellite building for the Georgetown University Law School in Claredon, Va., having been moved at the last minute from its original location at the Leadership Institute building after calls from the Southern Poverty Law Center and One People's Project gave reason for concern. The panel included Jared Taylor, the editor of the white supremacist American Renaissance newsletter who is planning a conference of white supremacists in the Washington DC area next month, and John Derbyshire of the conservative periodical National Review.

According to a post on the white supremacist website Stormfront* at the time when it was still planned to be held at the Leadership Institute, it was just going to be Taylor and Derbyshire discussing the role of race in policy decisions and the racial future of the Republican party. After the controversy that prompted the Leadership Institute to close its doors to the forum, Kevin Martin of the black conservative organization Project 21 became a last-minute addition to the panel.

Approximately 40 persons attended this forum, the majority of whom, among them a longtime associate of Taylor's, Professor Michael Hart, were well-known in white supremacist circles. Other Leadership Institute members were also in attendance. (2)

We have to be vigilant here, because freedom of speech is one thing, but speech promoting hatred is something altogether different. Someone argued with me once that that our soldiers had fought and died for our freedom, so that we could speak our minds. But I'm pretty sure they didn't enter battle so that we could call each other names. It was hatred that put them on those battlefields in the first place.

Jared Taylor was told that the debate had been cancelled, but came to Canada anyway, with the intent of stirring up trouble. Then when trouble did find him, the media glorified him as a martyr for free speech. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.


*Stormfront has a hate forum and a radio show that is a favourite with white nationalists.


1. How not to handle a genteel racist. Fussing over his last-minute travel plans, David Divine, James R. Johnston chair of Black Canadian studies at Dalhousie University, seems a worldly fellow, not at all the poster child for naivete on racism, By National Post, January 27, 2007

2. HEY JAMES O'KEEFE, ABOUT THAT WHITE RACIST FORUM YOU ATTENDED IN 2006... By Dan Smeriglio, New Rogue's Gallery, January 30, 2010


  1. Liberals must be very careful not to devolve to a state of fascism, as have they seem to have done whenever a conservative speaks on campuses. I did a little research on Jared Taylor, the person that this blogger, Emily, calls a "notorious white supremacist," and I find that I disagree with most of his views, however, I have found nothing "supremacist," about them. It has been the trump card used by the left to immediately throw out the "racist," or "white supremacist," term instead of dealing with the facts. This trick works very well b/c as soon as the term racist is used, legitimate debate stops. Given this, the race debate has not truly been allowed and the effect is more misunderstanding, and more racism (racism from blacks, hispanics, whites, all parties). This horrific effect is precisely due to the paranoid behavior of "progressives," who claim they want free speech, yet want to shut it down as soon as the speech makes them feel uncomfortable. One thing that liberals do not fully understand is that, the protection of speech is not to protect polite speech, it is to protect impolite and OFFENSIVE speech, otherwise there is zero need for such a measure.

    Although the liberals physically attacked Taylor, and, like good Nazis, shut down Taylor's speech, Taylor did return to Canada and debated a liberal professor named Peter March. Disgustingly, the new debate had to be conducted under locked door, and no audience was allowed enter. Welcome to George Orwell's "1984" - thank you liberals. The debate was astute and cordial (watch debate here Analyzing the debate, you find that, despite what Emily/liberals want you to believe, there is no supremacist talk, no hatred, etc. Taylor merely provides hard data as to how non whites in Canada have behaved and continue to behave. Taylor raises the issue of diversity being a net negative not positive, and cites government statistics, etc. While Taylor's data might be indisputable, I disagree with his solutions. That is what is great about hearing Taylor's side, i.e., I'm allowed to form MY OWN opinions and reach my OWN conclusions, without liberals like Emily telling me he is a "notorious white supremacist." You see how the liberals twist information to stop legitimate discourse friends? This is "New Speak," straight of or Orwell's "1984." I say, No More.

    Friends, I beg of you: when someone tells you a debate or speech should not happen, shout the person down. Free speech is what has made the West the apex of all civilization, and it is no coincidence that as the liberals want to destroy it, our societies are degrading to 2nd and 3rd world standards. This de-evolution is not alarmist speak. I implore you to analyze the crime and poverty rate of Canada's major cities from 1960 to today and look at what liberal policies of diversification and welfare have done to your once shining cities. This is the same in Chicago, LA, New York, Miami, Detroit, etc., etc. It is staring us in the face, and the ones ignoring it are the liberals who do not have to live the reality b/c they are tucked away in their comfortable neighborhoods, secluded and secure. That kind of diversity is reserved for the blue color folks, you see.

    I am for diversity, and I love it, WHEN, it is responsible, peaceful, and a benefit to the West. The way we are going about it today is an abomination and ensures the increases we already see in crime, violence, gangs, welfare, illegitimacy, scholastic failure, poverty, etc. To be against that kind of diversity is not to be racist, but is to be a responsible steward of your beloved country, a protector of it. As the reigns of this crime, and poverty are managed, then may we and SHOULD we lovingly and gently welcome all races and religions into our great countries, but in a new way with a new understanding that they will in the same way love us and respect us.

    Thank you

  2. Thank you for all of that and while I do support freedom of speech, I don't support "hate" speech.

    And while you make compelling points, we were forbidden from listening to what George Galloway had to say and no one can speak ill of Israel the country without being called anti-Semitic.

    We can't speak out against the war, without being called Taliban dupes, and Amy Goodman from Democracy Now was stopped at the border, had her car searched and had to present her speech ahead of time, before she was allowed to deliver it.

    So it's not really a left/right thing but a judgement call.

    I also watched Taylor's debate with March on YouTube. There was not really anything new there and it felt more like a speech than a debate.

    I guess you and I both want the same things for our country, but just disagree on the kind of country we want to live in. If you google "Jared Taylor and white supremacist", you'll find that many people agree with me, and if you google "Not a white supremacist" there would no doubt be just as many who disagree with me.

    I guess that's what freedom is really about.

  3. Part 1

    Thanks for the reply Emily. I do understand where you're coming from when you suggest, hate speech should not be protected. I know that this doesn't come from a place of malicious intent. You have been conditioned to believe that ANY argument which even questions the role of diversity and multiculturalism must be "hate speech." I too have been raised to never question it, and if I did, then I was taught I must be a racist. This lie has festered and ironically is the hurdle to positive race relations, i.e., if we're not allowed to ask questions and have the debate then we're not allowed a real and sincere solution. Our "solutions" today are birthed in a politically correct, woe-is-me minority vantage that whites have bought hook line and sinker, and permeates all from the class room to congress. It is a tremendous misunderstanding of how race should be handled and this miscalculation can be seen in the effects of its application, i.e., more racism, more division, self segregation, angry minorities with agendas. In medical terms, whites have misdiagnosed the problem, therefore their treatment/solution is reckless and the prognosis grim.

    The suggestion that hate speech should not be allowed is dangerous because what you call hate isn't hate at all, and you can generalize that to any issue race related or not. For instance, you classify Taylor's debate as "hate speech," when, after analyzing his audio speeches (Taylor vs March; Taylor vs Gutierrez; Taylor vs Wise, etc.) we find no hate, we find no supremacism, just facts, figures, which reinforce his proposition that diversity is demonstratively harmful to the West. People should see these figures and know them because they are their people, nations, and lands that are at stake here.

  4. Part 2

    As someone who understands social science and group dynamics, I can say that, without a doubt, the way that diversity is being practiced in Canada, the US, and Europe, it is a disaster. PLEASE NOTE that I DO NOT agree with Jared Taylor's white separatism (separatism is not supremacism) as a solution. Unlike Talyor, I like diversity and multiculturalism WHEN it works (and it does work in many places, but these places are unfortunately the exception). The exception because, we find that in virtually all social statistics from effects on education, poverty, AIDS rate, crime, illegitimacy, etc., diversity is a huge problem. Even worse is the cultural effect, a la, racial programs installed by our governments and their role in polarizing already broiling minorities and further emasculating confused self doubting whites (affirmative action, undeserved college placement, free housing programs, undeserved renters agreements, loaning programs by banks to unqualified minorities [this loaning helped cause the US market crash of 2008] on and on). These racial handouts have proven only to make whites resent minorities, while at the same time divorce many minorities from the spirit of self reliance and come uppance - self reliance being the very ingredient that has made any nation and people great.

    So, if we allowed Emily to be the liberal arbitrator of what "can be heard in a "free" society," then we would find that our society isn't so free after all. Emily says Taylor is hate speech, so the public is *disallowed* from hearing him. Though the opposite is true, Emily protects society with her liberal ideals. Do you see why and how liberalism, when left to its logical conclusion, becomes fascism? Again, our founders were so brilliant and ahead of the curve that they predicted people like you, and wanted to protect future generations from you. They wanted to avoid the fist of the monarchy deciding what people could read or say or do in privacy. In this, they made it so OFFENSIVE, not polite speech, was protected. Unfortunately, with Obama, and the liberals in Canada's and the West's governments, we see censorship initiatives sprouting up EVERYWHERE. Censorship is the life blood of liberal movements, whether banana republics or Germany's National Socialism.

  5. Part 3

    That to the side, you, Emily, should ask yourself - Is a Canada in which the people who built it are replaced by Haitians, Chinese, Muslims, etc., the Canada that you want to live in? What if the shoe were on the other foot and we told the Haitians and Chinese that we were going to start sending millions of uneducated baby making whites to their countries where they will celebrate traditionally white holidays, and demand welfare services. Would the Chinese stand for it? No. No non-western nation would. It is only the defeated white nations and their emasculated culture which tells them that taking on the poorest, most racist, and most unappreciated populations of the world is somehow a "benefit." Yes, we're told that diversity is a "strength." The data proves the opposite and it's time to realize this and fix it.

    The stock in Canada whose forefathers built her as one of the best western nations, if not THE best western nation, in the world, with blood and tears are dying and will be totally replaced in just a few decades. No civilization have ever replaced itself when its birthrate is 1.8 children per household and Canada's founding stock is reproducing at 1.3. You're dead. The West is dead, and unfortunately, they are people like you who will not even allow a discussion as to whether dying is a benefit or a tragedy. Think of how bizarre we Westerners have become that we would EVEN HAVE TO ASK whether our being replaced is a benefit or tragedy. We live in the twilight zone.

    These issues smack of racism b/c, as I said, you and I have been conditioned to never bring them up. I implore you, shake off your politically correct inculcation. I know that your opinions come from a place of sincerity and peace, but, as all goodly intended liberals, your notions, at least as far as protecting speech, and race relations, are a massive miscalculation and adding to the inter group strife we have been trying to eliminate for the past 60 years.

    Thank you for being a good sport Emily

  6. I know what you're saying and I hear the arguments. Some people want to be able to feel proud of being white as part of being proud of their heritage. But we already do that. Whether it's Scottish, Irish, German ... whatever our ancestry. But skin colour is not a race or a heritage. Maybe "hate" is too strong a word, but I don't think any of us want to go back to a time of segregation.

  7. I don't know about censorship. I grew up in a time when it was tough for women to be considered for jobs even when she had the same education, and sometimes better than her male counterpart. That is changing. Affirmative action was needed temporarily to "catch up". I don't think it's needed now.

    Most places no longer have "quotas" (which I hated by the way) My point with Taylor was that he was turned down but showed up anyway. He thrives on the controversy. Sometimes I think his bombastic statements are more for effect.

    I was outlining several "controlled controversy" situations, a technique they teach at Morton Blackwell's leadership institute. I just wanted to warn some university students to watch out for it becasue the one who wears it is the one who reacts.

  8. I like all debate. Your thoughts are concise. However, we have really only been in this country for a very small percentage of it's growth. This is a vast land and there's room for everyone. I know that might sound like a fairy tale, but I don't really think of it in that way.

    My first ancestors arrived almost 400 years ago in Acadia. They would not have survived had it not been for the natives here before them who taught them how. And yes we over ran them, but never conquered them.

    Do I just want our gates open? Of course not. That wouldn't be fair to anyone, including the immigrants. But this country is underpopulated and we are aging.

    Two world wars took their toll, losing generations. We can't make that up.

  9. Thanks for the quick reply, Emily. I agree with most in your last reply to me except, I don't believe we have plenty of room in our countries. Of the more than 6 billion people in the world, over half live in cities. Third world immigrants naturally gravitate to our cities. The negative effect is a function of the amount that flood in. In Amsterdam there are parts of the city in which Muslim immigrants live, called, "no go zones," in which even police cannot go because they could be killed. In Chicago, whether its, "Little Mexico," area or its north side Puerto Rican area, the police dare not tread. Los Angeles, Detroit, NYC, Glasgow, etc., have similar areas. So, though Canada's land is vast, they are not rural areas in which good Muslims want to continue farming that are being soaked up, they are our cities. Our cities are the centers of our crime and poverty. Is the solution to tell those committing a disproportionate level of this to invite their cousins and aunts and uncles because there is much more room? Of course not. The solution is to curb the problem by first owning up to it.

    The reason I can paint such a stark picture of today's immigrants groups, yet then say I'm for diversity is because, Chicago or NYC, etc., before the massive waves of immigrants had small waves of third world immigrants which added to and enriched us. These immigrants had no foreign enclave to escape to where they could reject the English language. They kept their traditions while not demanding we keep them too. They were proud Americans, and understood the importance of purging themselves of any foreign loyalties. That diversity is enriching. History shows us that once critical mass happens, this rosy picture dissappears, and we're left w/ self segregated Amsterdam, Chicago, LA, etc.

    The bright side is that if diversity is managed as it was, we can enjoy its full potential and honestly be able to call it a benefit. To call it so now, is at the very best being naive, and at its worst telling a blatant lie. Let's make diversity work again.

  10. I don't completely disagree with you, however, since the priority for immigration is professional and better educated, they would naturally flock to the larger centers.

    Refugees, of course, are different and so they would want to go where others knew their language and customs.

    But this situation isn't new. Little Italy in New York created in part the Mafia, but we aren't going to forbid Italians from coming into the country because of a small handful.

    I think there's a misconception that immigrants are creating all the crime. When Lee Richardson suggested that the police were quick to tell him that statistics show otherwise.

    Crime rate overall in Canada is actually down, and that was with a fairly free immigration policy.

  11. Part 2

    Yes, Italians started the mafia here, and the Japanese who came to America brought their mafia, the Yakuza, also. All race groups have their criminals. That's a moot point. The point is, "to what extent are Italian and Japanese Americans a drag on society (crime, poverty, etc.) compared to other groups. We find that the Italians are, in large, model citizens, and the Japanese fair better than all. It's a question of extent, disproportionality, and how we fix it.

    If crime goes down in Canada, I think that's wonderful. But that does not mean that immigrant crime is any less disproportionate. Since Canada is a tad too liberal thus Orwellian in some respects, it is very squeamish about compiling crime data about race groups. This mistake almost ensures there would be no way to solve the race problems of Canada, and again, the liberals with great intentions, consign the population to another stupid foible. Thankfully, there is some immigrant data which we can go by, and so there is hope to get this people identified and helped.

    Some Canadian statistics come from Health and Human Services, in which we find Toronto's AIDS rate rising dramatically after brilliant city leaders decided it a good idea to import hundreds of Haitians. Is this good for Canada? from education, we find that Canadian blacks and descendants of black immigrants are not learning at the rate of whites, and so education has taken a dive. Is this good for Canada? Of course not. Well, let's fix it then. Slow down the immigration process, relieve the bottle neck effect and lets assimilate these folks so we can enjoy diversity for what it could be. I've seen the good side of diversity, and I'd like it to come back, you see. If we weren't kidding ourselves, and we were true lovers of diversity, then we'd fight to stop the reckless immigration today which is destroying progress and diversity.

    Just today, there was a report of dozens of Afghanis who were American citizens that are now missing, some waging Islamic war. Dozens are now living in Canada - liberal, naive, Canada. As you sleep, these vermin not only eat the food you buy for them via welfare, but they also plot. They smile as they pass you on the street. The Canadian? He thinks, "ah, diversity, is great!" You're dead, and you don't even know it.

    Thanks for putting up with me Em.

    Your pal,