Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Jared Taylor, a racist in the guise of 'expert'
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
rox63
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05023/446341.stm

Jared Taylor, a racist in the guise of 'expert'
Sunday, January 23, 2005

By Dennis Roddy

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day last week, when much of the nation took a holiday, "race-relations expert" Jared Taylor was hard at work. He began at 6:45 a.m. with an interview with a Columbus radio station. At 7:05 he was on the air in Orlando. An hour later his voice greeted morning commuters in Huntingdon, W.Va.

At 10:10 a.m., he was introduced no fewer than four times as "race relations expert Jared Taylor" on Fred Honsberger's call-in show on the Pittsburgh Cable News Channel. Four hours later, he was back on the air with Honsberger on KDKA radio, where he repeated the message he'd been thumping all day: Martin Luther King Jr. was a philanderer, a plagiarist and a drinker who left a legacy of division and resentment, and was unworthy of a national holiday.

What Taylor did not say, and what Honsberger didn't seem to know until I picked up the phone and called in myself, was that Jared Taylor believes black people are genetically predisposed to lower IQs that whites, are sexually promiscuous because of hyperactive sex drives. Race-relations expert Jared Taylor keeps company with a collection of racists, racial "separatists" and far-right extremists.

Taylor heads the Virginia-based New Century Foundation. Its board of directors has included a leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor to the White Citizens Councils of the 1960s. A former board member represented the American Friends of the British National Party, a neo-fascist and anti-Semitic far-right group in England. Another board member is an anti-immigration author who has also reviewed books for a Holocaust denial journal.

Race-relations expert Jared Taylor publishes American Renaissance magazine, which features an array of pseudoscientific studies that purport to show the folly of multiculturalism and the inherent failure of the races to live together. Or, as Taylor once wrote, "If whites permit themselves to be displaced, it is not just the high culture of the West that could disappear but such things as representative government, rule of law and freedom of speech, which whites usually get right and everyone else usually gets wrong."

What Taylor represents and how he got himself on no fewer than a half-dozen radio and television stations in large markets to denounce Martin Luther King illustrates the new tactics of white supremacy. Employing the dispassionate language of sociological and genetic studies, and under the veneer of academic inquiry, an assortment of highly educated people now push the theory that everything from unwed motherhood in Atlanta to economic collapse in Gambia can be explained by the genetic code imprinted on the races.

With a magazine that sounds as if it might be found on a coffee table in Mt. Lebanon, a degree from Yale, and fluency in three languages, Taylor easily found takers when his assistants blasted e-mails to scores of radio stations offering a Martin Luther King Day guest.

"Not everyone celebrates the legacy of Martin Luther King," the pitch reads. "Editor of American Renaissance magazine and race-relations expert Jared Taylor would be pleased to offer your listeners a view of Dr. King that challenges conventional wisdom."

Taylor's resume, conveniently linked to the e-mail, was formidable: bachelor's from Yale, master's in economics from the Institute for Political Study in Paris, business consultant in Japan, author of a quartet of books, two of them on race. It was all true, but gave nary a hint of what Taylor is really about.

"Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy," said Mark Potok, editor of Intelligence Report, the magazine of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen."

Taylor insists leftists are simply using that language to demonize intellectuals who take on sensitive issues.

"I've never been a member of the Klan. I've never known a person who is a member of the Klan," Taylor told Honsberger.

It's hard to say if Taylor knows any Klansmen, but they certainly know him. When conservative author Dinesh D'Souza attended one of Taylor's American Renaissance conferences, he bumped into David Duke, former Klansman and segregationist, chatting with Taylor. Another Klan stalwart is Don Black, whose neo-Nazi Web site, Stormfront.org, is a clearinghouse for extremist literature. Black gained celebrity in 1981 when he was arrested as he boarded a boat for Dominica where he and nine other mercenaries planned to overthrow that predominantly black island's government and install a white colonial junta. Potok, whose group occasional infiltrates Taylor's gatherings, sent me a photo of Black sitting at Jared Taylor's kitchen table, a beer in hand.

Maybe Taylor doesn't know any Klansmen, but before selling his house he might have to spray for them.

Taylor's strategy when I confronted him was to deny things that are easily proven. He insisted American Renaissance had never published an article in which theocratic writer Rousas J. Rushdoony denounced interracial marriage as Biblically unsound.

I refer Taylor to the July 2001 edition of his own magazine, in which H.A. Scott Trask calls intermarriage "racial suicide" and observes: "The Late Rousas J. Rushdoony points out that Biblical law and example is against all kinds of unequal yoking. 'The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, interracial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."

One of the more tendentious exchanges took place when I challenged Taylor to state whether he had published articles in "the quarterly of the British National Party."

"I don't believe the BNP has a quarterly," Taylor replied.

He's right. They have a monthly. It's called "Spearhead," and it carried Taylor's writings in the early 1990s, under his other name, Samuel Taylor. This relationship is no accident. Taylor's conferences have included speeches on white nationalism by none other than Nick Griffin, a Holocaust denier and leader of the BNP. Spearhead's editor, John Tyndall, toured the United States last year. After stops to visit David Duke in New Orleans, where Tyndall noted with disapproval the large number of racial minorities, he moved on to Oakton, Va., where he stayed at Taylor's home.

Before that, Tyndall was treated to lunch by Samuel Francis, one of the board members of Taylor's New Century Foundation.

A decade ago, Francis was fired by The Washington Times for a racist speech he delivered at an American Renaissance Conference. Since then he has busied himself as editor of The Citizens Informer, monthly paper of The Council of Conservative Citizens. The paper features regular accounts of invasions by non-white immigrants, black-on-white crime and the need for racial purity.

Those who would suggest that the Council's connections to Francis and Francis's ties to Taylor are guilt-by-association might want to consider the New Century Foundation's own tax filings for 1999. On line 80 of their IRS Form 990, Taylor's foundation lists the Council of Conservative Citizens as an organization to which it is "related ... through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc."

This was the very year that the Council of Conservative Citizens included a link on its Web site to the Free Market Party. The link was quickly cancelled when the Free Market Party's founder and sole member, Richard Baumhammers, left his Mt. Lebanon home with a pistol in hand, killed his Jewish neighbor, set her house afire, then embarked on a two-county rampage that targeted Asians, Indians and blacks. In all, five people died. Baumhammers was concerned, like those who circle Jared Taylor's planet of intellect, about the expansion of non-white races.

None of this, of course, would meet with the approval of Jared Taylor, race-relations expert, who took the pains to tell Honsberger that people should be free to marry whomever they want, and that suggestions he is a racist are meant simply to shut up anyone who wants to rationally discuss race outside the norms of safe politics.

Such assurances would be more comforting if the audience that orbits planet Jared did not include members of the National Alliance, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the British National Party, Don Black, and David Duke. Taylor says he doesn't know any Klansmen. What is scarier is that he doesn't know his audience -- and the radio stations that gave him a platform on Martin Luther King Jr. Day didn't really know their guest.
so angry I could spit
OMG I just checked out his web-site http://www.amren.com/

The cover story of the Nov '92 American Renaissance issue starts out with Race & Intelligence how science show the difference and is writen by Samuel Taylor (I think Jared Taylor's full name is Samuel Jared Taylor) and has wonderful quotes like:
QUOTE
Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “gifted” range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “retarded” range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.

Not even the most reckless egalitarians can deny the differences in test scores. Instead, they claim that the scores are either meaningless or do not measure intelligence. It is true that intelligence cannot be defined to everyone's liking, but that does not mean it cannot be measured. IQ correlates almost perfectly with subjective impressions of intelligence. If you were to talk to five strangers for twenty minutes each and then rank them by intelligence, there is an excellent chance that you would give them the same rank order that an IQ test would


There's an article "Don't Write off Liberals" in the April 00 issue. This one is sweet:

QUOTE
To read AR is to get the impression that racial consciousness is a package deal based mostly on opposition; opposition to welfare, gun control, big government, women's liberation, homosexuals, the United Nations, free trade, and maybe even public schools and social security. There is no logical reason racial consciousness has to be tied to these things, and to do so as explicitly as AR does risks failing to be – dare I say it? – inclusive. It is true that a clear understanding of race is today more likely to be found among people who also take certain positions generally called "conservative," but there is nothing inherent or inevitable about this.

As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually every aspect of what is today called "racism" was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be necessary to note that that fabric has always been made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were "liberal" by today's standards. "Liberalism," in that sense, was perfectly compatible with a healthy understanding of the meaning of race.

Although it probably saddens the hearts of most AR readers, it is possible to view American history as the steady triumph of "liberalism," defined as the steady dismantling of tradition, hierarchy, and inequality in the search for equality. The very establishment of the country as a republic rather than a monarchy was in this sense liberal, as were a long list of Constitutional and legal changes: abolition of the property qualification for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, compulsory education, the income tax, social security, organized labor, inheritance taxes, etc., etc., all the way up to the Americans With Disabilities Act and homosexual marriage.

Whether one sees this as the march of progress or the march of folly, my point is that however bitter the debates may have been over these policies, up until just a few decades ago neither side doubted that America was a European nation that could not survive if it ceased to be European. The suffragettes, for example, wanted votes for women – a radical idea at the time – but they were not "liberal" about race. And of course, many abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to free the slaves and then expel them from the country. In that sense, he was more "conservative" on race than the supporters of slavery; he didn't want blacks in the country under any circumstances. My point is that ever since the founding of this country, it has been possible to work for far-reaching, even revolutionary change without upsetting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.


And let's not forget the Feb 2003 issue with it's ode to eugenics (the scientific basis for racial activism) and includes the follwing box statement:
QUOTE
Here is finally an objective, scientific justification for the defense by whites of their own ethno-racial interests.
and the following wonderful, support:
QUOTE

Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying capacity.
For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion will be the descendants of genetically alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually.

Nearly 30 years ago Garrett Hardin (BioScience, October 1974) wrote that over-population will limit population growth (as we see today in China), and he also pointed out that the cost of immigration falls “most heavily on potential parents, some of whom would have to postpone or forgo having their (next) child because of the influx of immigrants.” Immigration may not limit your decisions about having children, but some day it will limit the choices of your descendants.


Jared Taylor's not a Klansman, he's a bona fide Nazi!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.