This of course is nothing new; it's happened to Tancredo in the past, as at a Michigan law school:
Note the last sentence; what did the signs say? ''Ignorant Racist."
Violence erupted at a Michigan law school Thursday when protestors tried to block a speech by Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo.
Police were called after protestors pulled a fire alarm prior to the speech on immigration policies. There were at least three violent incidents with protestors targeting student backers of the event, Tancredo, R-Littleton, said today.
"One was spit on, one was kicked, and one was punched," Tancredo said in an e-mail. "Tires were also slashed."
Michigan State University College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom sponsored the event.
Tancredo went to Michigan State University College of Law as part of a visit to the state to talk about immigration. He leads the group that opposes legal status for illegal immigrants.
Protestors interrupted the speech with loud shouting.
College newspaper The State News reported that protesters carried signs reading "Ignorant Racist" outside the room where the speech was held.
Similarly when Jared Taylor attempted to speak at Dalhousie University in Canada, he met with disruptive protesters who would not let him be heard.
Mr. Taylor was originally slated to debate David Divine, who holds Dalhousie’s chair in black Canadian studies. But Dalhousie cancelled that Jan. 15 appearance after a story about the controversial debate, and how it was being touted on a white supremacist website, appeared in The Chronicle Herald.
On Jan. 16, Mr. Taylor tried giving a talk at the Lord Nelson Hotel. But he was shouted down and roughed up by masked protesters.
“People like Jared Taylor turn up in every generation and you have to answer them and you have to be firm about it and you have to be courageous about it,” Mr. March said.
“You don’t do it by bullying them and making them look good. You don’t do it by putting on a mask and playing Ku Klux Klan.”
Mr. March will argue there’s no such thing as racial diversity because there aren’t races.
“It’s just not true that there are races in Canada,” he said. “There are human beings and they’re all one race.”
Dalhousie failed to uphold standards of academic freedom when it cancelled the January debate, Mr. March said.
“My job is to give sharp, efficient, fair, informed argument against a highly obnoxious philosophy,” he said.
The Anti-Defamation League describes the ideology of Mr. Taylor’s New Century Foundation as “intellectualized, pseudo-scientific white supremacy.” It’s a charge the Virginia man denies.
These stories fit right in with the DHS 'extremists' propaganda. It takes very little to be labeled an 'ignorant racist' or a 'white supremacist' by the left and by their indoctrinated parrots in the media. Anyone, be he ever so genteel and civilized and restrained, will wear the 'racist' label or the 'extremist' label if he stands up for White America even in an implicit way. It does not have to be explicit at all; in our racially-charged society, any questioning of mass immigration and the demographic transformation of our country is seen as implicitly racist, like it or not.
Tancredo, for one, has been very careful to avoid any racial rhetoric; I don't think this is mere political calculation on his part. I think he probably is one of those well-intentioned gentlemen who does not see this issue in racial terms. He has usually carefully focused only on illegal immigration, although in the past he did broach the subject of an immigration moratorium. But the fact that even discussing immigration restriction at all is grounds enough for the left to cry 'racism' is an admission that immigration to our country is very much a nonwhite phenomenon; if most of our immigrants were White, there could be no race card to play in the immigration debate. So we have the left implicitly acknowledging that most immigrants are of nonwhite races.
One quibble: one of the useful idiots in the quote from the Taylor article linked above says that there are no races in Canada, just the human race. So how can 'racism' exist without races? The question has been asked, rhetorically, before, but no leftist is willing to answer.
Still, I believe Tancredo is opposed to mass immigration, or perhaps mostly illegal immigration, on principle, and not because he harbors hatred or antipathy towards any other race. Still, he is labeled as a racist, and an 'ignorant' one at that, ironically, by some truly ignorant leftists.
Jared Taylor, by contrast, does speak and write rather honestly about race, although he has his limits; he keeps the discourse polite and genteel. I see him as a Southron gentleman of the old school, and I can find little fault with that, but it does leave one at a disadvantage when dealing with gloves-off thugs and brownshirts like the ones who showed up to shout him down, and the ones who plague Tancredo.
There is always an ongoing debate on our side about how best to get our message across, in an environment where free speech is limited. We have freedom of speech under our First Amendment, but the straitjacketing rules of political correctness have severely affected our ability to speak the truth. The truth is not always flattering to everybody, and flattery and whitewashing is what makes political correctness what it is; it is a way of hiding unpretty realities, realities that fly in the face of the officially-imposed orthodoxies on race and on certain religions.
Political correctness is a way of protecting certain classes of people, a required system of flattery and euphemism and verbal obeisance.
The government does not even have to act to prevent people from speaking their minds; the populace have been so indoctrinated, so accustomed to censoring themselves that it is almost never necessary for the government to take any action, as they did in the old Communist countries. The people themselves have become snitches, as in the old Eastern bloc dictatorships, and will quickly start the hue and cry if someone errs from the party line; they themselves become enforcers on behalf of the official orthodoxy. The brownshirt types at the universities, if they but knew it, are simply acting as unwitting agents for 'the system' which they claim to despise. They see themselves as some kind of brave dissidents, fighting against the 'fascists' and 'nazis' on the right, when they in fact are slavish followers of the powers-that-be, doing their dirty work for them.
This goes for certain segments of the right-blogosphere, too, as described in the Gates Of Vienna link in the blog entry below this one. Now some people on the ''right'' eagerly attempt to silence those further right than themselves, thus further marginalizing those who represent nothing more radical than old American ideas and standards, nothing worse than what the majority of my parents' and grandparents' generations, and those before them, believed.
The obvious point here, among several points that could be made, is that extremism is in the eye of the beholder, these days; even men who present a clean-cut appearance, speak well, and play by Marquis of Queensberry rules get called 'extremist' and 'nazi.' Those terms have become so cheapened, much like the 'r-word', by their overuse and their misapplication to people who are nothing of the kind.
Am I advising that the respectable route to persuasion is of no use? Well, in the sense that it in no way ensures immunity from the race-baiters and the politically correct vigilantes, it is not much use as a strategy. However, I don't believe that Tom Tancredo or Jared Taylor are cynically using a polished image to deflect criticism; I think they are simply being themselves. And they should be just that. Playing to the left's prejudices and dishonesty, attempting to move farther to the 'center' to placate the left is, however, a losing game.
Ultimately, however, I don't believe there is only one correct approach; it takes all kinds to make a world, as the old saying has it, and one size does not fit all. Not everyone wants to hear an understated, intellectual presentation. And intellectual types, after all, are not the majority in any population. Not everyone is interested in a lot of dry facts and statistics and argumentation. After all, we are talking about the loss of a country here, a loss of home and people and way of life, of tradition and heritage, of our grandparents and our progeny. This is not an impersonal, intellectual thing for many people. There is a place for other approaches; we must not say there is just one approach that is valid.
Am I then embracing the 'extreme' right? Again, how do we define 'extreme'? The word has been corrupted by overuse on the left and in the mushy middle.
Generally, though, I will not yield to the left by criticizing and targeting those to my right. The powers-that-be, and their leftist useful idiots, want to divide the right, and to further marginalize the 'hard right' -- but remember, that 'far right' is yesterday's mainstream. The only thing that has changed is the official orthodoxy, and the skewed media lens through which most of us increasingly view reality.