The Face Of Ugly …

Jared Taylor.  Name ring any bells?  No, it didn’t with me either, though perhaps it should have.  I am conflicted on this story, and will be asking your opinion at the end.


Jared Taylor – 2008

Jared Taylor is a racist.  He calls himself a “white nationalist”, which is just a glossed way of saying ‘white supremacist’, which is merely a varnished way of saying racist, bigot.  Taylor is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a white supremacist online magazine. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance’s parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is also the former director of the National Policy Institute, the same organization that Richard Spencer is now President and Director over.  In other words, this is one nasty specimen of the human species.

Taylor claims he is not a racist, but instead is a ‘racialist’ and claims his views are “consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America’s past”. He calls himself a “proponent of scientific racism” and “believes that there are racial differences in intelligence among the various ethno-racial groups across the world.”

Just researching for this piece has made me ill.  This is not a man, this is a monster. Taylor argues that Blacks are generally less intelligent than Hispanics, while Hispanics are generally less intelligent than whites. To be fair, he also believes that Asians are intellectually superior to whites, saying …

“I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn’t mean that I want America to become Asian.”

About African-Americans, he says …

“Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.”

Okay, so now you have a pretty good idea of how this monster thinks, right.  Well, what brought him onto my radar today is the fact that he has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, for Twitter shuttered his accounts for ‘abusive content’.  The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Feb. 20, argues that Twitter suspended the accounts because it didn’t like the nature of Taylor’s and American Renaissance’s tweets, not because they violated its rules.

Twitters latest updated policy includes a ban on promoting violence and hate in usernames or bios, possible permanent suspension of accounts that threaten violence or death and a ban on accounts that feature hate symbols and images. Twitter said the suspensions are in line with its “terms of service” and that the accounts are “affiliated with a violent extremist group.”

Now this is where I am conflicted.  I have no love, no use for people like Mr. Taylor and his organization of racists and bigots.  I would spit in his face if I ever came that close to him.  But … there is the 1st Amendment which protects freedom of speech, and I have always been in support of those protections.  As I have said before on this blog, once we try to narrow the definition of precisely what speech is protected, once we try to exclude one type of speech, we run onto a slippery slope where … well, where does it stop?  If, for example, we wish to ban hate speech such as Mr. Taylor’s or Mr. Spencer’s, then do we ban my posts ranting about Donald Trump?

Frankly, I am to the point that I could easily support a re-writing of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  But, there is no one person, no one body of lawmakers that I would trust to do those re-writes, so I suppose they are better left alone.

But back to the point.  I do not support people like Mr. Taylor or any other promoter of racism or any form of bigotry.  I do not wish to see them on Twitter or Facebook, or in my corner supermarket.  But … does that mean that anybody has a right to ban them or put fences around their freedom of speech?  I. Don’t. Know.  I do know that in most of the EU there is free speech, but there are limitations, particularly in areas of Nazi symbols and speech, for the Europeans still have fresh memories of Hitler and his Third Reich.  Here in the U.S., the average citizen was largely unaffected and even today, neo-Nazi’s are widely tolerated in certain parts of the country, brushed off as if they are nothing but children playing at war.

I think that hate speech is wrong.  I think that bigotry in any form is wrong.  No one person is better than another based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identification, or any other superficial criteria.  I think that any form of hatred against a group of people has no place on social media, for its only goal is to stir people up and potentially lead to violence.  Thus, I support the ban, but not without some reservations.

Help me out here.  Weigh in on this topic and let me know your thoughts.

Thank you for your input!


30 thoughts on “The Face Of Ugly …

  1. I think Twitter is within its rights as a privately owned business entity. If I don’t wish to employ Taylor, that’s my right. If he writes a Letter to my newspaper, I don’t have to print it on the Editorial Page. Same thing here, I believe. If Twitter was owned by the government somehow, ok.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mr Taylor is a clever man but a very short – sighted one , as we all were until biology recently opened our eyes to the subject of race.
    The human race are one species they can all interbreed actually if we could magic up a long lost Neanderthal we could also mate successfully with it. We carry Neanderthal genes and other early hominid genes as DNA has shown. Skin colour and other differences of appearance are superficial —to crack a joke skin deep only.
    The mule is sterile and a cross between a donkey and a horse because they are close but separate species this separation has not had time to take place in the human race. All dogs come from the wolf and it is we humans who have produced an the different types by our interference in their breeding. Many of our beloved dogs could not survive in the wild.
    Not long ago America was filled with native Indians and Australia with European throwouts called convicts. Take a short step further back and Europe was speaking Latin while Roman armies struggled with what we term barbarians.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wow, Kertsen! I always learn from you, and tonight I learned in spades! I had to Google the part about mules being sterile, but I should have just trusted you, for you were right. Science was never my strong suit, and I spent most of high school biology in the boys’ bathroom smoking. But back to the point … yes, Taylor thinks himself clever, but there are no biological reasons for discrimination among races. However, I am certain that there are those who will believe this pseudo science he puts forth.


  3. Just briefly, free speech means in public, and twitter is a private company that can set its own rules, right? Thta seems likely to me, and would mean that they can outlaw anything they want, whether rightly or wrongly, as a matter of policy. They don’t pretend to be the news or the government. I may be wrong, but that popped up for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Welllllll …. that’s where it gets messy. The lawsuit is filed in California, and their basis is a California Civil Rights law called Unruh, that extends the prohibition of discrimination of ANY sort to private companies. I have no idea how the courts will rule, other than to say that this case is likely to set a precedent, for it is the first time the Unruh law has been tested on a case involving the internet. If I had to make a guess, I would guess that Taylor has a fair chance of winning the suit, but I hope I’m wrong.


  4. I have a similar view of free speech as Jerry Coyne, professor emeritus, Department of Ecology and Evolution of the University of Chicago. I wish I could say it better than he has, and address all the issues as he has, but I can not. He answers to my mind the questions you ask. While he has many posts on the subject I would like to link you to one of them, and to his letter to the student newspaper on the subject of free speech. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for sharing those links, Scottie! On one hand, I agree with Mr. Coyne, albeit reluctantly, for there is the other hand that sees the divisiveness in this nation, sees the hate and violence that barely simmers under the surface, and that hand says, “whoa … we really don’t need this right now”. I said at the beginning of my post that I was conflicted on this issue, and I remain so. I know what would be the right thing if all other things were equal, but they are not. We are living in a tinderbox just waiting for the right spark, and I fear that spark. Sigh. There are no easy answers, my friend. Hugs!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Quite so. I have never seen this level of divisiveness and hatred in my 66 years, and even in my studies of history, the Civil War era was the last time we had this level of polarization. And … we still haven’t completely healed from THAT one! Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Dear Jill,

    I recoil from those who espouse “fake news,” and/ or perpetuate stereotypes based on prejudice like our president does against immigrants.

    But as long as the site does not espouse violence, I have mixed feelings. But if any entity or individual crosses that line even 1x, then they should be barred.
    If twitter bans all hate speech from left or right and this is one of their published rules, then it will get tested in the courts which is what is happening.

    Let’s see what happens.

    Hugs, Gronda

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Yes, he is undoubtedly a racist.

    On Twitter: The first amendment applies to government. It does not apply to private groups such as Twitter.

    In this case, I applaud Twitter for at least attempting to control the bots that are attempting to manipulate us.

    As for free speech on Internet: I think it should be similar to free speech in real life. That is to say, free speech for real people, but strong restrictions for anonymous participants. Anonymity on the Internet is a huge problem. It encourages people to misbehave, thinking that they won’t be found out.

    To say that differently, homo sapiens is a species of vicious and dangerous apes who wear a thin veneer of sociality. Anonymity removes that veneer and brings out the worst of anti-social behavior.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Well, I agree with you all the way. However, he has filed his suit in California for a reason, for he has filed based on a California Civil Rights law called Unruh, that prohibits ANY form of discrimination even in private businesses. How the courts will rule is anybody’s guess, and frankly I would not want to be the one to have to decide this case. It will set a precedent, whichever way it goes, I think.

      Yes, the human species, if it survives another 1,000 years, will not be any smarter nor any kinder then. We simply do not learn from our history, and we are undoubtedly the most self-focused, self-serving species on the planet. Next life, I’m coming back as a wolf. I’m done with mankind.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. there are already restrictions on “free speech”. We can not yell fire in a public place if there is no fire. We can not advocate for the destruction of public property, or groups of people. We can not incite riots. We can not libel or slander. It IS permissible to criticize, to object, to rant…Considering that mr Taylor proposition about racial inequality of intelligence has been completely debunked, it is designed to anger and group whites together in a “cause” that inevitably becomes violent, that speech should be censored. Our rights dissolve when they infringe upon the rights of others.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree, and from the comments and poll results so far, so do most of the readers, but … I’m not sure how the courts in California will interpret it. As it happens, Taylor is basing his suit on a California Civil Rights law called Unruh, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses. I suspect this case will set a precedent, whichever way it goes. Common sense does not always take priority. Sadly.


  8. I think free speech ends where it abuses or threatens others. – Your rants against the Trumpet are a model of how one can utter criticism without violating the boundaries! – And, one a side note, what the heck is a “racialist” supposed to be??? Do we try to make up words to sound more acceptable or what? As for the nonsense about different intelligence in different races: There was a wonderful article about that in my Dutch newspaper, doing away with that pseudo-scientific idiocies. I would love to send it to Mr. Taylor, but I doubt he can read Dutch. Not intelligent enough maybe? (What did he say? It has nothing to do with intelligence? He was not taught that language?… Ahh….here we go… )

    Liked by 4 people

    • I agree … my right ends where it infringes on somebody else’s. From what I read, a ‘racialist’ is supposed to be one who is not prejudiced without cause, but makes his assumptions based on “science”. But, as you say, it is a pseudo-science, at best. I’m sure he cannot read Dutch (but then, neither can I! 🙂 ) What is sad is how many followers this man has, as well as Richard Spencer and all the other supremacists. I … will simply never understand it, but Ive lived long enough and seen enough to understand that it will never go away. I thought it would, back when I was younger and evidently naive, but now … I think that if the human species lasts for another 1,000 years, which seems doubtful, there will still be racism and bigotry. I will be coming back as a wolf, thank you. 🐺

      Liked by 1 person

  9. This may sound crazy but free speech has its restrictions. I can’t walk into my employers very open to the public place of business and say whatever I want without regard to who may be offended by my actions. Irresponsible “free speech” can also be considered threatening to those who are hurt by it, creating a hostile work environment, which no employer should tolerate. Free speech comes with some responsibility, when it doesn’t you could end up with a narcissistic man-child leading your country.

    Liked by 3 people

    • True that there are some limitations, but few enough. And even employers who choose not to tolerate certain speech that incites others must be careful, for he may be sued. The nation has gone ‘sue’ crazy. I was once sued for terminating an employee who had failed to show up for work without calling in for three straight days. He didn’t win the suit, but almost did, simply because he said he had a dental appointment on one of those days! But to the point, yes, every ‘right’ comes with accompanying responsibilities, but there are far too many who don’t see it that way. I always think that my rights end when they begin to infringe on another’s. And perish the thought of ending up with such a creature as you mention in the White House!!! 😀


  10. Whereas I can appreciate how highly many people value free speech, I have strong feelings that free speech is a right earned not something you are gifted born with. An open public view which denigrates another race, religion, community or social grouping is divisive, leads to hate and in turn threatens the society, as much as some waving a gun or setting off a bomb. There is no room for it.
    If you do not embrace compassion, respect and tolerance your are a potential danger and the state has the duty to protect the majority from you. So either learn to change your ways, get out, or accept your punishment.
    If you want to play the intolerant game, you have to accept the price.
    Thus speaks a hard-line socialist.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s