Why conservatives cannot support Faith Goldy

By Jonathon Van Maren

This is a column I really didn’t want to write for one simple reason: Nobody likes to draw attention to the fact that someone they liked has taken a sharp turn for the worse. In this case, the person I’m referring to is a cheery shock-jock commentator who managed to turn up in nearly every corner of Canadian conservatism for years. She went from a Marxist to a conservative during her university years, wrote for the National Post, ended up as commentator on the now-defunct Sun News Network, and was enticed over to Ezra Levant’s YouTube outfit The Rebel shortly thereafter. Now, she is running for mayor of Toronto. I’m writing, of course, of Faith Goldy.

I met Faith back in 2012, when we both ended up speaking at the same pro-life rally at Queen’s Park. Most people in Canadian conservative circles knew her, or had at least run into her now and again. She was a pro-life Ukrainian Catholic, and got occasional gigs at pro-life events. At Sun News Network, she gained fans by relentlessly chasing down Justin Trudeau, demanding he explain himself on any number of issues. At The Rebel, where she had her own show On the Hunt with Faith Goldy, she interviewed many conservative politicians, including Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer. She talked to pro-lifers, too—many of my friends went on her show, and she interviewed me on my 2016 book, The Culture War. Keep in mind that this was before her actions triggered The Rebel’s 2017 meltdown—at that point, Ezra Levant was still a fairly mainstream conservative figure.

But throughout 2017, several of the Rebel hosts began to dabble in various alt-right ideas. Gavin McInnes hosted Richard Spencer on his show, and famously got drunk and ranted about the Holocaust during his Rebel-funded trip to Israel. Goldy began to do commentary on the concept of “white genocide,” which implies by its very name that there is some non-white plot to wipe out white people (the term, after all, literally translates to “race murder.”) I met up with Faith in Toronto to talk about why I strongly disagreed with these ideas, noting that European demographics were cratering due to Europeans freely deciding not to have more children (which is suicide, not genocide.) I even explained why the social conservative worldview is actually supported primarily by new Canadians and immigrant communities, as her own reporting on the sex-education controversy in Ontario had also noted. She was her bubbly self, and appeared to agree with me.

And then, in August of 2017, Charlottesville happened. Goldy livestreamed the Unite the Right Rally while delivering a running commentary highly sympathetic to the white nationalist marchers, who had spent one dark night marching with flickering torches while chanting slogans such as “the Jews will not replace us!” and waving swastika flags. Her camera was actually one of the few that caught the deadly vehicle attack that saw a car driven by one of the alt-righters straight into a crowd of counter-protestors, leaving one woman dead. Despite this, Goldy made the rounds on a wide range of podcasts and YouTube shows, at one point casually referring to the “JQ” (“Jewish Question”) and referring to those ideas as “well thought out,” ending up on the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer’s podcast, where she made a joke about her long-suffering boss Ezra not turning down free bacon (because he’s a Jew, get it?)

The result of this was almost immediate. The Rebel suffered a massive meltdown in just a few days, with co-founder Brian Lilley and a series of other hosts and contributors announcing their departures. Goldy got fired after her appearance on the Daily Stormer podcast surfaced. Delighted progressives and long-time foes of Levant moved in for the kill, and politicians were called upon to disavow any and all connections with The Rebel. Ezra Levant, a free speech warrior and conservative insider for decades, had his business venture definitively shoved to the fringe because he had allowed his staff just enough rope to hang him with. Levant, like many others, initially thought that the alt-right was just a group of Internet trolls tossing hand grenades into pastures filled with sacred cows. By the time he realized that this was not the case, it was too late. Politicians and many others now shun his show like the plague. Ironically, one of Goldy’s final statements to the folks over at the Daily Stormer was to compliment Levant for the amount of editorial freedom he permitted her.

It was a genuinely sad thing to watch, and I noted at the time that it was very clearly a cautionary tale for conservatives: the alt-right is dangerous, and consorting with anti-Semites should always be considered absolutely unacceptable. I hoped at the time that Goldy and others who had dabbled with the alt-right would realize their mistake, pull back, and have the self-awareness to understand that this stuff is poison. After all, the Unite the Right Rally had just given us a pretty unambiguous look at what the alt-right movement was all about, what their plans were, and what their vision of Western Civilization actually looks like. There was no dog-whistling at Charlottesville and afterwards: It was a raw and primal scream of rage, directed at the Jews and other “non-whites.” Their display was a chance for anyone tempted by any of their ideas to see what they were buying into, and walk away.

Instead, after an initial statement that was a combination of an explanation and a non-apology, Faith Goldy doubled down. I have been following the alt-right for several years now, especially after I noticed that some conservatives and libertarians of a certain disposition find some of these ideologies to be alluring. Despite her recent denials of being alt-right to the Post Millenial as well as her reposting of her post-Charlottesville non-apology, Goldy has become a frequent guest on white nationalist and alt-right YouTube shows and podcasts throughout the past year, and has carefully cultivated her image as one of them—even inventing a weird version of Canadian history, which apparently has Canada containing large indigenous populations of European people, whom she insists are “settlers” not “immigrants” (the settlers apparently did not immigrate to Canada first before settling. The obvious holes in this historical theory are not addressed.)

For example, one YouTube show she appears on is American Pride, an outfit that also frequently features David Duke (one of his recent appearances focuses on the insidious influence of the Jews), prominent neo-Nazi and editor of AltRight.com Richard Spencer, and Jared Taylor of American Renaissance. A brief review of their videos illustrates just how steeped in racism and anti-Semitism they are, and anyone choosing to become a frequent guest on this channel cannot claim ignorance of the worldview they seek to promote. In fact, in one exchange with YouTuber Lauren Rose and Jean Francois Gariepy, Goldy was asked to defend her whiteness:

Gariepy: Now, Faith, it is time for the final purity test. My audience keeps asking me about you. They call you Faith Goldbergstein—are you a servant of the Israeli state?

Goldy, laughing: Aw, man, ultimate subversion, guys—you found me out, fam. No, Ancestry has zero Ashkenazi, sorry to disappoint…I’m fully European. I actually have a lot more Slav DNA than I had expected, because technically—Jeff, don’t judge! Don’t throw me off!—I’ve got three Greek grandparents and one Slav. Yeah, I had more than the 25% Eastern European. And I had 1% Finn as well. I’m very proud of that 1% Finn.

Gariepy: Well, in my video “What is White,” I’ve pointed out that the Slavs and the Greeks, you can include them in the white race if you want. They are genetically slightly different from Europeans, but it depends on how big you want to draw the circle.

Goldy: Absolutely. I’d like to draw the circle big enough to include Ukrainians and Greeks.

Another show that Goldy has regularly appeared on since her firing from The Rebel is Red Ice TV, usually with host Lana Lokteff. Lokteff is a prominent figure on the alt-right—she’s appeared on panels with Richard Spencer, and is married to Henrik Palmgren, who is reportedly working on the creation of a media outfit with Spencer. Again, Red Ice TV specializes in anti-Semitism, has dabbled in Holocaust denial, and has regularly featured David Duke as an honored guest. It was in a conversation with Lokteff that Goldy explicitly rejected “civic nationalism” in favor of ethno-nationalism (white nationalism), stating that civic nationalism has led to the “balkanization” of our society, as evidenced by phenomena such as Chinatown. Because of this, Goldy told Lokteff, civic nationalism must be rejected in favor of ethno-nationalism, which she unironically describes as one of the prime drivers of 20th century history. “The question is,” she stated, “are we going to work against nature, and try to rise above it, even though we’re forty, fifty, sixty years into this experiment and those partitions are only becoming more distinguished? Or are we going to say, maybe it’s time to dis-aggregate?”

Despite all this, Goldy has tried to protest when people point out that she has obviously decided to throw her lot in with the alt-right. When she quoted the so-called “Fourteen Words” on the alt-right Millenial Woes podcast, she protested the backlash by saying that there was nothing wrong with white people wanting to secure a future for their children—which may be literally true, but does not change the fact that she decided to parrot a phrase coined by white supremacist David Lane of terrorist group The Order while in prison for the murder of a Jewish radio host. When you consciously decide to associate yourself with a certain movement and employ their catchphrases, you don’t get to pretend to be stunned and offended when someone points out the association—one that was greeted with delight on the alt-right. She also backed down when she recommended a book that calls for the elimination of the “Jewish menace,” saying she hadn’t read that far yet. Regardless of this, alt-right figures are extremely pleased with Faith Goldy’s decision to run for mayor of Toronto, seeing it as a platform to spread their views–Mark Collett, a YouTuber once featured in the BBC documentary Young, Nazi, and Proud, released a video urging alt-righters to push Goldy’s campaign.

I’ll be honest: I would not have written this article if Faith Goldy had not decided to run for mayor. I had unhappily noted her departure from conservatism and subsequent embrace of (and by) the alt-right, and so for obvious reasons we no longer ran in the same circles. But now she is back, and I’ve noticed that many social conservatives, libertarians, and others seem to be unaware of what she’s been up to since her departure from The Rebel—which is perfectly understandable, since most people don’t keep track of what is going on in the alt-right underworld. As such, Goldy will most likely attempt to garner support from those who were once fans of her Rebel show—people who will then end up being damned by association because of her alt-right record and the folks she’s been fraternizing with over the past year. Social conservatives, libertarians, and conservatives in general—the people who are scorned by the alt-right as “cucks”—need to be aware of Goldy’s trajectory, and need to recognize the consequences of associating with her campaign.

Many have said that people should not be abandoned over a simple mistake, and that Goldy’s appearance on the Daily Stormer podcast post-Charlottesville was simply a single mistake. Unfortunately, that has not turned out to be the case. Since then, as I have pointed out, she has primarily frequented shows and podcasts run by alt-right figures who also host David Duke and other neo-Nazis, has explicitly rejected civic nationalism in favor of ethno-nationalism, has seen fit to protest so-called accusations of Jewishness and assert her whiteness, and chosen to parrot the catch-phrases of self-described white supremacists. While Goldy can play the semantic game and attempt to highlight points of disagreement between her and the alt-right friends she spends hours with on YouTube shows and podcasts for political expediency, as the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. She’s done her best on their shows over the past months to prove she is one of them, even going so far as to describe her ideological evolution, and there is no reason to think that is not the case now just because she finds that inconvenient to a mayoral run. I find all of this to be sad and incredibly disappointing. But these are the facts.

I have one final point to make: If Faith Goldy is not launching this mayoral run to attract attention to her ideas, as many alt-right figures hope, then her decision is simply an exercise in profound selfishness. If Goldy actually cares about conservatism, or the pro-life cause, or libertarianism, or anything else, the biggest favor she could do for those associated with these causes is to stay home. All you have to do is look at what happened to Ezra Levant, once a fairly mainstream figure in Canadian conservatism, to see what happens to people who become associated with those who dabble in alt-right ideologies. Goldy’s actions in Charlottesville were the main factors in the torching of The Rebel’s credibility, and anyone who decides to throw their lot in with Goldy can expect something similar to happen to them. Goldy’s name, after all, is already used as a weapon against any politician who ever appeared with her. The alt-right is poison, and that poison rubs off on anyone who gets close to it. Goldy knows the result that her actions and associations have—she jokes about it all the time. And so by courting conservatives who have everything to lose by associating with her, she is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this mayoral run is a vanity exercise that is about her, and nobody else.

62 thoughts on “Why conservatives cannot support Faith Goldy

  1. Wade says:

    It’s a slippery slope. 1st you see Goldy getting publicity on Rebel then she’s gone because of a dumb podcast appearance. Everyone whether rightly or wrongly dropped her like a hot potato. Channels like Red Ice etc will gladly fill that vacuum for Conservatives driven from the table…hence the slippery slope. Conservatives eat their own while Liberals rally around liberals who fall from grace. That’s the difference. You’ve kind of done that in the article by painting Levant with the same brush used to tar Goldy. Liberals don’t do that. While this continues places like Red Ice will happily provide the platform to further divide. Follow what I’m saying?

    • Jenette Smith says:

      I’m a liberal and I can say the same thing is happening with us liberals. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

        • MaryLS says:

          Of course the same thing is happening on the left. The tolerance for extreme views, violence and censorship is truly shocking. What is worse, the left seems to be breeding large numbers of people with extreme views as evidenced by the increasing number of disruptive protests and pervasive hatred of those with conservative views. That is what “Just walk away” is about. Oddly, there is little criticism of left leaning nastiness.

      • F Harper says:

        I would say you are correct, but the direction is reversed. Instead of blackballing their extremists, the more extreme elements of the left are forcing out the moderates. They are pushing for “democratic socialism”, really just Marxism dressed up to be something more palatable. They put ever more emphasis on identity politics, while casually tossing aside those who don’t sit near the top of their oppression pyramid: witness the gay white male, who is now apparently too white and too male to warrant representation. They turned on a dime regarding immigration, going from supporting legal immigration to welcoming anyone who wants to come to the US, legally or not.

        As for civic nationalism, that has conclusively been shown to be a false hope. It requires a high time preference, high trust and high openness, qualities that the immigrants flooding in do not share with our current population, and show no signs of willingly adopting. It’s a lovely dream, but reality is brutal and unforgiving. We simply can’t welcome in people who would like to put us under their heel because they think we are inferior. That is the paradox that you simply can’t overcome with magic dirt.

  2. Ian says:

    Your cognative dissonance on anything that passes to nationaisim or tradition is palpable. Yiur ina ility to see white geno jde, even as its happening in south africa is pathetic. The very reasons you are afriad of her, and lets face it, you fear her nationalist zeal. Is the very reason i will vote for her. I and many generations of my family back to before 1812 didnt fight to create a country with values only to have it whiped away in what can only be looked at as a willingness to see rome burn again. You woukd see thst happen with your marginal conservatisim that, if american , would have you labled as a RINO. Faith is not afriad to be what she needs to be to go agaisnt this tide of frankfurt school bolshevisim that hidez in trudeau as femisim and higher learning centers as pc culture. She has my vote without a second thought
    Mind the grammar this site is built poorly and on a pbone i can See barely one line of the comment box.

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      Do watch the interviews I linked, as well. My point is a simple one: When you choose to associate with platforms that also host David Duke et al, you render yourself politically toxic and hurt any cause you choose to associate with. You’ll notice I do not claim to know, throughout the article, what she believes about specific things. I only know which shows she chooses to frequent–RedIceTV, American Pride, etc. This is nothing like Tanya Granic Allen.

      • Jenette Smith says:

        I’m confused. I thought mayoral races were not party based. Hmm!? If you can’t even get that straight, I can’t take your article seriously. Biased reporting as ever. I wish I had the same per of influence to exert on readers. Shame on you. People can think for themselves, thank you!

        • Jonathon Van Maren says:

          No offense, but this is a very unintelligent comment. You’ll notice that “conservatives” has a lower-case c, thus referring to people of a certain ideological stripe, not a political party. So you’ve read it wrong, rather than me getting it wrong. As for “biased reporting,” I’m obviously biased, but I hyperlink and back up each one of my claims. So I’m not sure what I should be ashamed of, but I think you’ve rather embarrassed yourself.

          • Mark Kennedy says:

            (?) Well, that’s one way to stack the debate cards in your favour: simply censor any reply that threatens the conclusions you’ve evidently determined need to be reached. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is precisely the strategy Canada’s media and politicians have been following with Faith Goldy. To the extent that silencing her lies within their power, they have arrogated to themselves the right to define her views while sparing the world any input from her. Alas, for the moment at least, YouTube lies beyond their ability to police. In that forum, when Goldy is allowed to speak for herself, the picture that emerges differs significantly from the one painted by her vilifiers:


            You seem to have given surprisingly little thought to how you would feel if Canadians collectively ignored, or dismissed as lies, the thumbnail sketch of yourself provided on this website, then did their best to prevent you from disputing whatever interpretation of your views suited their ideological convictions. I’m quite sure you take your own right to freedom of association very seriously–in fact, for granted–and would be outraged if anyone, never mind an MPP, attempted to tell you with whom you can appropriately appear in photos. What you provide us with little reason to be equally confident of is your ability to put two and two together and draw the inferences you should from these data.

          • Jonathon Van Maren says:

            I’m basically deleting comments written by people who refuse to read my article carefully or engage with the arguments, and if they’re going to post their long fanboy screeds, they can go through the hyper-links first. As for the “how would I feel” thing–that’s actually kind of funny. You obviously don’t know me, or the organization I work for etc. Anyone on the right side of the spectrum has a nearly impossible time getting their message out in the mainstream media, /especially/ pro-lifers. We’re regularly vilified. Unlike with many of Goldy’s statements, however, it isn’t a justified rejection based on things that were actually said.

      • Jenette Smith says:

        Why!? State exactly how you think this to be true? I think Faith Goldy will have to prove herself and people will vote how they choose. So only like minded people should ever Converse together? I don’t see much progress that way do you? Look at someone like Dave Rubin who is willing to listen to all and any sides, if they are willing. We learn so much more this way. Narrow minded thinking will never get us anywhere. For me personally, there is no merit to your argument. Even though you didn’t really make one. Just another opinion piece.

        • Jonathon Van Maren says:

          Seriously. “State exactly how you think this is to be true”? That’s what the entire article detailed, with sources and explanations. A bit of reading comprehension is in order here. I also never said that “only like minded people should ever converse together,” so that’s a bit of a strange straw man. I’m also not sure why rejecting anti-Semitism is considered “narrow-minded,” but if you say so, I suppose.

      • Mike Paulette says:

        with the “guilty by association” mentality we can look pajoratively to a lot of people. Trudeau has hung out with a known criminal, does that make him a criminal? should we associate all socialists with Mao or Stalin or PolPot? The what-about-isms aren’t a reasonable argument. attack the ideas people espouse not their associations.

        • Jonathon Van Maren says:

          I didn’t make the argument of “guilt by association.” I said that when you choose to associate yourself and identify yourself with a particular movement, that has political consequences. As you’ll recall, Trudeau suffered political consequences for choosing to lovingly eulogize Castro, too–he was mocked and condemned nationally and internationally.

          • mike paulette says:

            so if I’m in the same room as a person who has ideas I don’t espouse having a conversation about matters that are pressing, regardless of our agreeances on any matter, should I be painted in a light as being “associated” with that person? holding the same views and ideas? is simply having a conversation with David Duke or Jaspal Atwal the same as espousing the same ideas as them? can we agree that coffee is a good drink? once we agree coffee is a good drink is it okay to paint me with the same brush?

          • Jonathon Van Maren says:

            Feel free to check out the conversations I referred to. They brought them on because they specifically agreed with their ideas. You’re creating a straw man, and missing the point of the article.

          • mike paulette says:

            so if a person “identifies” as being a socialist should we associate them with the horrible things Mao or Stalin or PolPot did? it isn’t a straw man. your rhetoric is appalling.

          • Jonathon Van Maren says:

            It’s pretty indicative that you read (or not) all of this stuff and you say MY rhetoric is appalling. I’m not even sure what argument you’re making about Stalin and Mao–I quote actual things she said. My assertion was based on 1) Things she actually said, which I quote extensively. And 2) The fact that these shows (Like RedIceTV and American Pride) are specifically alt-right shows–which is why she reassured everyone on one of them that she had no Jewish blood.

            So, question for you, since you won’t address actual quotes I provide or look at the context for my argument: Do you think there’s anything wrong with reassuring alt-right media figures you’re having a pleasant chat with that you are sufficiently white, and have no Jewish blood? Yes or no will suffice.

          • mike paulette says:

            I don’t think having an in group preference makes a person a racist. I don’t think proclaiming your heritage ethnicity makes you a racist. making assumptions based on associations is prejudice. eveolutionarily speaking having an in group preference has kept groups safe from potentially intrusive outsiders. I’ll say it like this… I don’t hate VW because of what the Germans did in WW2.

          • A. Geezer says:

            But that didn’t prevent him from becoming Canada’s first female Prime Minister(in the sense that Bill Clinton was USA’s first black president).

      • Randy says:

        I strongly disagree with your assertion that one’s views can be judged by which shows you go on and which other people have been on the same show. That’s complete nonsense. Just another radical lefty tirade insisting that we only speak to those we agree with.

        • Jonathon Van Maren says:

          That wasn’t my assertion. My assertion was based on 1) Things she actually said, which I quote extensively. And 2) The fact that these shows (Like RedIceTV and American Pride) are specifically alt-right shows–which is why she reassured everyone on one of them that she had no Jewish blood.

        • Sam says:

          Okay, this is actually hilarious. If you pause to read literally any other article Jonathan posted, you will easily see that he is about the farthest thing from a “radical lefty” possible.

          I may not agree with him a lot, but I do him the courtesy of labelling him correctly.

          For the record, I think a lot of modern day conservatism’s problems come from protecting their own at all costs, no matter how shitty they turn out to be or turn into, as the case may be.

          The basic rule ought to be that if someone is shitty, do not allow them to lead.

          • Tara Focht says:

            My thoughts exactly Sam! Some of the comments on here are quite frightening. How can there be any justification for supporting the campaign of someone who feels compelled to prove herself as sufficiently white?

      • Jodi R. says:

        Jonathon you wrote: “This is nothing like Tanya Granic Allen.”

        Tanya’s critics based her character on a few statements that some labeled being bigoted. The PC party dropped her like a hot potato even though she won her nomination. They took what you’re doing (ie. don’t vote for Faith) a step farther and removed the opportunity for Tanya to even run, that may be the only difference.

        You’re basing your opinion and telling other conservatives not to support Faith based on a few interviews she granted to groups who are “bad” because of *their* associations.

        Guilty by association of association, that’s how your judgement of Faith Goldy comes across. You claim this was not intentional, but that really doesn’t matter when this is how your readers perceive it.

        I don’t think you’ve watched every video Faith has made, or every interview she has done, and you’re basing your opinion on a few controversial appearances. The alt-right white supremacists do not claim her as one of their own because they know she’s a Zionist. She loves Jews and supports Israel, that alone disqualifies her. She’s a Canadian patriot and a nationalist, which doesn’t make her alt-right. Here’s an interview she did, and from other videos I’ve watched and comments Faith has made, what is discussed in this video is probably what best describes Faith’s stance on multiculturalism and nationalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MjlBkHOAg&t=24s

        Your article also reminds me of the time some CPC leadership race candidates were labeled “alt-right” or “racist” because of the person or organization interviewing them, which would be the furthest from the truth. If anyone who didn’t take the time to get to know these candidates went by what they read/heard others saying, they likely did not vote for them and to this day would still think those candidates are “racist”.

        I respect you Jonathon, but in my humble opinion you’re off on your criticism of Faith Goldy. Will you please consider interviewing Faith on your show and ask her the hard questions? Or are you afraid of being judged by others and being guilty of association, of association, of association? Give Faith the opportunity to speak for herself so your followers can come to their own conclusions instead of being spoon-fed your opinion. We both know people don’t take the time to research things for themselves and they put their faith in others, especially those they trust and respect, to provide correct information so they don’t even think to question it.

        • Sam says:

          Alright, so I watched your entire video – it doesn’t help your case at all. She is interviewing and agreeing with a gentlemen who appears to be very interested in preserving “European” culture to the exclusion of all others and making many quite loud dog whistles.

          For the record, you don’t have to watch every video ever produced by someone to know their political or ideological leanings. And if she made a mistake on any one of the videos, it is incumbent upon her to publish a correct so horrible errors are not made regarding her intentions.

          I have to stand with Jonathan on this one.

          • Jodi R. says:

            This video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MjlBkHOAg&t=24s , is Faith’s first independent production after being fired from The Rebel Media. This is the subject she chose because she’s passionate about conserving Canada’s culture, history, and languages (English and French) etc. because she *loves* her country.

            It has survived being censored because there is no hate speech in it.

            First, this young man being interviewed is very articulate, he’s educated, he uses logic, and he knows this subject very well. He takes on a teaching role as he discusses theories, provides definitions and examples. He’s not disrespectful or hateful in his speech.

            His main focus at the beginning of this video is on what is being taught in Universities today that is detrimental to European culture in Canada. And why should he not have the right to be concerned about this? He also explains what “white supremacy” means now and it’s different than what most who are older understand it to be. He uses an example of a Black Lives Matter person claiming Justin Trudeau is a “white supremacist.”

            I’m not going to type out the whole transcript of this interview for people who think this young man is *promoting* the exclusion of all other cultures in order to preserve his own European a.k.a. “white” culture because he never says that in this interview. If you think that, you misunderstood, and should re-listen to his words and pay attention better.

            He’s actually referring to what the leftists are doing… THEY are the ones trying to REPLACE our Canadian culture. If this is called a “dog whistle” I guess that’s your take on it. I see it as being an interesting observation that he thinks is important enough to have a discussion about. Maybe there is a warning to conservative Canadians who like Canada the way it was before globalist ambitions invaded our House of Commons, started to accumulate huge amounts of debt, and opened our borders exercising indiscriminate vetting? (Asylum seekers are being allowed into our country BEFORE they are vetted properly; whereas other immigrants are vetted first before gaining access to our country.)

            After the question about what is happening in Canada with our historical symbols being taken down or replaced, he said “I feel that the theory of multiculturalism ultimately isn’t even really applicable, [realises that’s not the word he wanted to use and searches for the right word]…achievable, it’s not a physical possibility. In the sense that how can you actually have a space that is culturally neutral to all peoples? What language would we speak in that space? So, we can destroy all these symbols of Western civilization, but then what are you going to replace it with that is going to resolve this problem of cultural oppression?” There’s talk about European art, culture, language and then he continues to say “As a nationalist, I can agree with this Neo Marxist understanding of power. In a sense I agree with this idea that the existence of something in a space, necessarily involves the exclusion of other things from that same space. Umm. So if you were to remove these European symbols and then replace it with something else, you haven’t solved the problem of oppression, you just changed the question of who is being oppressed. Who is the dominant and who is the subordinate. Who is the winner and who is the loser. So it’s not like one option of someone else’s culture, or our culture, is the more moral option, or the more righteous. Inevitably someone is going to be dominant. We’re going to speak English, or maybe Chinese or some other language, but there’s going to be no societal format which is equally applicable to all peoples.”

            It’s an interesting conversation, not a hateful one.

            I don’t agree with everything Faith Goldy says or does, but I do believe her heart is in the right place, and at least she’s out there trying to stand up for her values. I think she’s very much misunderstood by people who are quick to judge without scratching further below the surface. I don’t really care what people on the left think of Faith, they’re going to hate, but it does concern me when I see people from her own tribe, be that Catholic/Christian, pro-life, or conservative misunderstand her as so far as to write an article advising conservatives not to vote for Faith before even interviewing her, getting her side of the story, or discussing her election platform.

            I’m going to bow out now. I’m done here with defending the “faith”. I’ll agree to respectfully disagree.

          • Jeff Jones says:

            The other day I was speaking with a Pakistani Muslim woman. She expressed very similar views to Faith on matters of immigration and Islam. She said things to me privately about Islam that would result in her losing her trade certification she said. She is disgusted with the path the Canadian government has chosen to trod. Many other immigrants say the same things to me (now I know that no one on this blog would ever call non-whites right-winged nutcases but whatever). And there are many non-white politicians who through their own actions and words make it clear that they are going to help their own people just as Faith happens to also be trying to do the same. What I’m trying to say is that Sam here and Jonathan, the writer of this blog, are not anti-racist. They are anti-white.

          • Jonathon Van Maren says:

            It isn’t Faith’s views on immigration and Islam that I object to, and if you’d read the article, you’d know that. If you’d read anything else I’ve written, you’d also know that I’m not a fan of the Canadian government. Everything about your comment indicates a typical knee-jerk reaction to defend Faith without bothering to even discern your target (which is extremely typical of your type.) As for the “anti-white” meme: LOL.

      • Cade says:

        “you render yourself”

        ‘Render’ like the fat on a nice juicy steak? Or is it a different meaning of ‘render’? And how does it work? This transformation? Magic? Is it a force of nature? If she submits to the priests in the cult you evidently belong to, will she be absolved of her sins? Are there a lot of steps to the purification ritual? If not (perhaps it can be done by email! After all, it’s TheCurrentYear (TM) and that apparently makes a difference to you small-l liberals who surrender to chaos based on the calendar date!) maybe she can get it done before the election date and get a few more votes from members of your deranged cult that believes in evil spirits that render people toxic.

        She’ll get my vote in either event.

      • Andros says:

        I essentially agree with everything you said.

        A huge problem with the JQ is that the Jews involved in conservative media should be fully willing and able to call out the bullshit from their own peers that torpedo conservative movements. Dennis Prager once said “Criticism of Israel does not necessarily equal Anti-Semitism”.

        Every time I call out white supremacists on social media, I give them a chance to speak, and their arguments are usually stupid and easy to destroy with logic. But if you don’t give them the chance to speak, they organize underground and cause massive destruction to mainstream conservatism.

        I also disagree that immigrants are mostly conservative. They might start out that way in theory, but once they get a taste of “free stuff as long as you vote Marxism”, they also cause tremendous damage to mainstream conservatism.

      • 40roller says:

        @ Jonathon Van Maren – you sound like an indoctrinated Globalist being force fed the poisonous Pablum of the Deep State.

  3. Michelle Vanstone says:

    Whoever wrote this article better do a little bit of research + because of this lie i dont believe a word of any of it The Charlottesville Murder was done by an Antifa Member Antifa is NOT the Alt Right they are Lefties all the way So stop adding in Lies + we might actually listen to what you are saying

  4. Robert says:

    “whom she insists are “settlers” not “immigrants” (the settlers apparently did not immigrate to Canada first before settling. The obvious holes in this historical theory are not addressed.)”
    You could look up the definition of immigrant; A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. It was not a country back when settlers were coming over.

    “in one exchange with YouTuber Lauren Rose and Jean Francois Gariepy, Goldy was asked to defend her whiteness:”
    Jokes, what are they? I can’t believe you don’t understand humour.

  5. Charles Watson says:

    immigration has only ever brought this nation towards the left. If you are a conservative and think that immigration is not a negative, you are a cuck, and a subversive fool. Faith has recognized that we as conservatives can no longer sit back and simply be for preservation, but for restoration. Canada was built by those who came before, not by new immigrants from backward societies, whom when they arrive vote mostly for the left. We will never attract 3rd world people to the right.

  6. YourDirtyConscience says:

    As a lefty immigrant, I have to say, this thread is hil-arious. Van Marten, you seem like an actual reasonable person; have fun playing with the clowns.

  7. John English says:

    And yet today Dog Ford refused to denounce her. This should be sounding alarm bells for people of all political stripes.

    In Question Period, the NDP ask Premier Doug Ford to denounce white supremacist Faith Goldy.
    “They’ve sunk to a new low,” says Ford.
    “It’s the most diverse group in Canada,” he says of people who go to Ford Fest, as Goldy did.
    The premier does not denounce Goldy.

    “Will the Premier denounce that photo,” asks NDP MPP Jill Andrew again.
    Ford does not do so, and instead invokes talking points.
    “They couldn’t get a crowd like that,” Ford adds, claiming the NDP couldn’t hold something like Ford Fest.

    • Dwayne says:

      And you make the author’s point. Guilty by association regardless of how that association happens. Her views and appearances since being fired from The Rebel media have been farther and farther away from conservatism, from what I have read here. I have no reason to doubt what I have read as the man backs up his claims with facts. I am all about the facts.

      I dislike the term alt-right, as the media and the left are now clinging to it as the new Nazi/racist cry. The problem is that they dilute their message by calling anyone they disagree with alt-right. Sad, but I can’t blame Ford for ignoring the blatant political game of gotcha based on a picture that he probably had no idea about.

  8. Vince says:

    At least let Faith Goldy’s voice be heard!! How discraceful. She is not a racist or nazi for heavens sake. She’s just brave enough to be willing to publicly vocalize that european canadians have as much of a right to be patriotic as with any race and culture. I’m exhausted by virtually all other races bitching and complaining, and bashing what actually built CANADA. She is not white supremesist, or islamaphobic. She is a concerned citizen regarding illegal immigration, which ALL of us Canadians should be. It’s called illegal for a reason, because it’s ILLEGAL. She’s smart and intelligent, and would do wonders as a leader for our city. At least like I said, let her publicly speak and be heard. If she’s what the majority of people think, it will come out in her platform, so what do the oppositions have to worry about? This whole fiasco of her being censored and unable to even pay for advertising is extremely undiplomatic, and disgusting in my opinion.

  9. Mark Kennedy says:

    In short, you have no objection to the media silencing others, provided that those so treated are, in your view, appropriate targets. These don’t include you, of course.

    So much was evident from your article. I find such intellectual and moral complacency and lack of self-insight appalling (no reply option at the foot of your own reply to me–what a surprise!), but I applaud your being free to demonstrate this so I can see it for myself. As a side-note, if the predilection for adolescent put-downs you display in your responses is representative, I know you about as well as I’d like to.

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      That’s how the comments section works. If I wanted to censor you, I just wouldn’t approve your comments (you’ll notice I approved all of them). And again: You’re ignoring the points laid out in my article. I didn’t say I agree with the media “censoring” people, I said that conservatives should not support Goldy, and laid out why I believe that to be the case. It gets irritating to deal with dozens of comments where people thrash around with armies of straw men in order to excuse a candidate for unacceptable comments and troubling associations rather than dealing with my actual arguments (which go beyond the people she hangs out with and specifically cite things that she herself has said, which not one commentor, for obvious reasons, has bothered to engage with.)

      • Mark Kennedy says:

        The article you keep insisting dissenters read more carefully admonishes Goldy for not knowing better: she should be more adept at keeping her head down, specifically by not associating with people who are being targeted and vilified in precisely the way she is. Firstly, this advice can’t plausibly be masqueraded as a defense of political fairness or freedom of expression, and certainly not of conservatism, which values freedom of association very highly. The post of mine you so casually censored (and which, despite your claim, has not reappeared) drew attention to the incoherence and hypocrisy of your craven counsel not only to her but, by implication, to ‘fellow conservatives.’ Evidently, the message still hasn’t gotten through.

        Secondly, your confidence that even a cursory examination of your case against Goldy could avoid noting its total reliance on ‘guilt by association’ arguments is mystifying. You seem to lack the most basic insight into your own modes of cognition and reasoning. Of course, if you honestly believe that categorizing individuals as diverse as Goldy, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan, David Duke, etc., as alt-rightists suffices to establish political and moral equivalence between them, however divergent their views, it’s hard to think of what else to say. One infers Duke has little prospect of ever appearing on your show: that would make you a white supremacist and anti-Semite, wouldn’t it? Ditto if you incautiously say anything vaguely classifiable by someone as alt-right-like. Detecting heresy has always been child’s play for determined inquisitors: all that’s required is bringing the proper level of scrutiny to bear.

        Incidentally, I’ve always voted NDP… which doesn’t prevent me from seeing that Goldy and other putative ‘alt-rightists’ are being treated unfairly–in fact, scandalously. With ‘friends’ like you guiding her, poor Goldy scarcely needs enemies.

  10. Raymond Lee says:

    A great article and I learn a lot about this woman. Thank you~

    First of all, I don’t bind myself toward any kind of political ideas, I agree on whatever I believe is right and benefit our country.

    That being said, I am disappointed that many would believe only those who come to Canada at first, they would have the right on how to define Canada. Canada is more than that, much larger and greater than their tiny ideas. Canada keep moving on and evolving into (hopefully) the best place to live in. Those who linger in the past will be drown by the future revolutional ideas. If ones cannot learn how to bring your ideology into the ever evolving Canada, you are at the lost cause. Left or right, there are values which will benefit our Canada, that is why having different party to govern is good for our country.

    Alt rights are using people’s fear to achieve their goal, if Canadian stand firm and united side by side, alt right will know there is no place for them to fool around. That explain why they always promote “You against them, They against you.” Because it is far easier to manipulate people if they are divided.

    Anyways, thank you once again, Jonathon for such a detailed honest article.

  11. Mark Kennedy says:

    So the election has come and gone and this article is now old news. That’s too bad, because the flawed major premise on which the article was based (that the views imputed to Goldy sufficed to authorize the treatment she received) remains unaddressed. How perspicacious does one need to be to see that neither the wisdom of Goldy’s views nor the social cachet of the company she keeps were ever the issues here? Marginalizing her was a collective act of tribal bullying, an attempt to enforce orthodoxy and taboo, with Mr. Van Maren evidently aspiring to be one of the shamans, or maybe just the local public scold. It would have been interesting to see him ‘engage’ with that reality, instead of evading it by pointlessly squabbling over which third-party interpretations of Goldy’s convictions, or inferences drawn from things she’s said, to deem most plausible.

    No one here was asked to vote for Goldy; what’s missing from the article is an acknowledgment of her right to make her case alongside any other legal candidate, and to slum around with whomever she chooses. Any Canadian–liberal or conservative–should be able to see why such autonomy is an indispensable constituent of Canada’s freedoms. Any candidate for public office who doesn’t see this is no more deserving of our votes than the media caricature of Goldy is.

    • Sam says:

      What rubbish. Yes, you’re free to “slum around” with anyone you want. Except, we can only choose individuals for leadership based on what we can see them do and hear them say.

      For example, if the populace does not want someone connected with “ethnonationalism” to lead them, then candidates that “slum around” with “ethnonationalists” and complain about “white genocide” should not expect to get many votes.

      • Mark Kennedy says:

        “…we can only choose individuals for leadership based on what we can see them do and hear them say.”

        It’s just this ‘basis for choice’ that’s attenuated for us when candidates and their views are ignored, shunned, distorted, trivialized and/or silenced, for whatever excuse. Is it still rubbish when you’re acknowledging the importance of this basis too?

        What do you actually know about ‘ethnonationalists,’ and what makes you so certain Goldy is one, or that considerable overlap doesn’t exist between her views and your own? This forum’s host knows Goldy, shares her ‘right wing’ views on abortion, and has even been interviewed by her; does that make him an ethnonationalist? An alt-rightist? If that’s not a logical inference in his case, what makes it one in Goldy’s?

        ‘Guilt by association’ is the antithesis of due process. It’s the problem with racism, precisely because it doesn’t allow individuals to speak for themselves. “The broad mass of a nation… will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”–if you think there’s some truth in this statement, how is that truth compromised by the discovery that Adolf Hitler said it? If you say it, does that make you Hitler’s soul-mate? If Goldy’s claim that there’s nothing wrong with white people wanting to secure a future for their children is “literally true” (Jonathon Van Maren), what does it matter that white supremacist David Lane thinks so too, or that she borrows his vocabulary? Is it truth we’re committing ourselves to when pointing out this kind of linkage, or tribal identity and group-think?

        Why should anybody hesitate to share with a white supremacist (or a liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, theist, atheist, pro- or anti-abortionist, white man, black woman, etc.) the credit for insight into truth? The point of politics isn’t to segregate enemies from friends, or purported evil-doers from self-proclaimed virtue paragons higher up on the mountain; it’s to get things right. This requires dialogue; and if ‘slum’ forums are hosting dialogues between Goldy (whose main sin, as far as I can tell, is that she had the nerve to take her editorial freedom seriously), Charles Murray, Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin, et al, that are considered heretical elsewhere, it’s time to take a hard, critical look at the elsewhere.

        • sam says:

          So much to unpack here. Alright, let’s get into this.

          So, the question before us is whether every single idea that has every been conceived of should be be allowed to bump around the marketplace of ideas and whether we, as an electorate, want to elect leaders that espouse, endorse or even spread ideas and thoughts that are highly undesirable.

          For example, if a person is a Holocaust denier, ought we to entertain that idea and elevate that person to a potential leader, while treating that person’s ideas with the same respect as we give a legitimate historian or Holocaust survivor? My answer, and the majority of society would answer, is a resounding “no”. Right now you are literally advocating for any person with any whackadoo idea being given serious air time if they simply register for an election. This is asinine.

          The proper way to deal with hateful or ignorant ideology is to sideline it so it doesn’t spread and no one has to clean up the mess left behind.

          I absolutely acknowledge the basis for choice is the candidate’s views and stated positions. However, I also strongly hold that conspiracy theories, hateful ideas and useless ideas ought to be marginalized and ignored so that time and energy need not be expended continually debunking them.

          Long story short – garbage ought to be marginalized and ignored to prevent its spreading and to allow society to expend its time and energy on useful pursuits.

          What do I know about “ethnonationalists”? I will say that my knowledge of them has increased dramatically in recent weeks. However, it appears to me to be a “whitewash”, pardon the pun, of the term “white nationalism” by attempting to state that all nations should be constructed of a single ethnicity, leading to the implication that Canada should be exclusively white. So, all that has changed is the name and an attempt to make the discrimination equal between countries – now, instead of advocating just for creating an exclusively “white” country, ethnonationalists also advocate for exclusive countries for every enthnicity, thereby increasing the discrimination advocated for.

          The very large difference between my views and those of an ethnonationalist are that I want every child and person in Canada to live to their full potential and believe that Canada should take care of every Canadian, rather than only one ethnicity. So, no, I and an ethnonationalist do not have “considerable overlap”.

          Jonathan is decidedly “right wing” and conservative in his views. That does not make him alt-right or ethnonationalist as he does not believe in creating a separate state for each ethnicity. That is quite literally the defining and naming feature of the belief system. The point here is the defining feature of the belief system – ethnonationalists are defined by believing one country should have one ethnicity. Yes, an ethnonationalist can have other ancillary political leanings and beliefs, but the defining belief is the one focused around ethnic purity in a country.

          For the record, did you see Jonathan criticizing Faith Goldy for her views on abortion? No. He criticized her for what he sees as her association with unethical and immoral views on nationalism and ethnicity.

          In case a clearer example of the above is required, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in god(s) – this does not prevent the atheist from also taking a pro-life position. A Christian could quote the atheist’s pro-life stance should the Christian agree with them, but the Christian would likely do well to tell other Christians where that quote came from.

          You take issue with guilt by association. You agree we can only judge a politician by what they say and do. Yet, you want to ignore what Faith Goldy says and who she speaks with. You quote from Adolf Hitler to make the implicit point that even despicable humans are correct on occasion (Yes, broken clocks are right twice a day). In fact, you use a quote on propaganda, a foremost element of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, to establish this point. What you fail to realize is that Hitler was an expert on propaganda, making him well placed to make that statement. Yes, one does have to be careful when using the statement; however, that doesn’t take the truth out of it.

          The problem with that approach is that you are trying to make an equivalence between a despicable expert talking about his area of expertise and an ethnonationalist making discriminatory statements with absolutely no basis in reality. There is no comparison and this is improper thinking / arguing.

          Obviously, using Hitler’s quote on propaganda, with the appropriate disclaimers, does not make you Hitler’s soulmate. However, quoting from Mein Kampf without the appropriate disclaimers could certainly associate one with Hitler and, hopefully, cast a very dark cloud over that person’s political beliefs.

          You know what? There is a problem with stating that “white people wanting to secure a future for their children”. This literally means that the person making the statement wants to push out everyone else so their child’s future can be secure. Not only is this wrong economically and socially, it is also evil. The only correct thing would be to trying to secure a future for all children, not just children of white people. Furthermore, if Faith Goldy borrows a white supremacist’s language in a way that shows she agrees with it, obviously that matters! She is then in agreement with a white supremacist and furthering his cause.

          Look, yes, if anyone is right on any point, you can share the credit for that point with them. However, you need to be very careful about the appropriate disclaimers and ensure the audience understands you do not agree with all of that person’s positions. Otherwise, you run the risk of a possible interpretation equivocating your leanings with that person’s leanings.

          I agree the point of politics should be to “get things right”. Practically, that doesn’t happen because the will of the crowd prevents politician’s doing right for right’s sake – instead the will of the crowd is imposed upon the nation, whether or not that will is right.

          Would it surprise you to find out that “ethnonationalist” ideas lead to plenty of pain and suffering? If only for that reason, their ideas ought to be ignored and marginalized.

          For the record, I have seen in other comments here that Faith Goldy’s own boss at the time disagrees with you about Goldy’s sins, let alone her main sin.

          We have taken a look at ethnonationalism, white nationalism, white supremacy, nazism and we have rejected them out of hand due to the pain and suffering caused by those ideologies. It is not time to take a hard, critical look at those ideologies. It is time for those ideologies to disappear into the long night, forever.

          It is time for the right to realize, as Jonathan has, that these toxic ideologies have no place in society. There is absolutely a place for conservatism but no one outside the hard right wing will ever take conservatism seriously when these ideologies are the basis.

          So, if you want to have any influence on politics writ large, I suggest you follow Jonathon’s lead and purge these ideologies from your sphere of influence.

          • Mark Kennedy says:

            Tch! You turn your back for a single second…

            Thanks for the advice, Sam, but I’m non-ideological. And I’ve probably read more about Hitler and propaganda than you have. I’m a retired reference librarian with an M.A. in philosophy and a long-standing interest in intellectual history. Do you even read in German?

            It’s important to contest counter-productive ideas–socially, politically, economically and philosophically. But how can one be sure they’re counter-productive? This is rarely a categorical question; typically, it’s an empirical one, meaning it can only be settled by appeal to relevant evidence. Everyone has a right to examine such evidence for themselves, and to make up their own mind about the worth of an idea. Everyone has a right to present evidence and arguments in support of their ideas, a right you’ve availed yourself of here.

            It seems you don’t have much confidence in other people’s ability to do what you are doing. To whom should be delegated the task of ‘sidelining,’ ‘disallowing’ and ‘disclaiming’ you evidently feel lesser mortals need performed on their behalf? Yours strikes me as an anti-democratic impulse: it lends credence to the saying, ‘Inside every progressive there’s an authoritarian clamoring to get out.’ You’re determined not to let Goldy speak for herself. She denies she’s a white supremacist: what I hear her asking is that whites be accorded the same right to celebrate their achievements, heritage and cultural distinctiveness as initiatives like Black History Month encourage blacks to do–which sounds eminently reasonable. But apparently you know her mind better than she does. Who gets added next to your list of ‘hateful,’ ‘useless’ ideas and people to be shunned? How long before you’re redefining my convictions and seeking to ‘marginalize’ me?

            Neither left nor right has a monopoly on bad ideas, or hatred. If you’re really interested in grasping what’s at issue here, and why I’m concerned (my preoccupation with freedom of expression and freedom of access to information has been a professional one for three decades), take an hour and a half and give some thought to what’s said here:


            This is assuming you genuinely are open to a non-ideological, critical assessment of ideas–your own as well as those of the presumed ‘whackadoos.’ There’s a funny story, perhaps apocryphal, and involving Heisenberg, about rushing to that kind of judgment: ‘We are all agreed that your idea is completely crazy. Where we disagree is whether it is crazy enough to just possibly be right.’

        • Sam says:

          I watched your video, but can’t reply to your comment directly. It appears there is a limit to comment families.

          I apologise for the delay in responding – I had to find sufficient time to listen to the 1 1/2 hour podcast. If you have any parts you think I need to re-listen to, please point them out. There is every chance I missed the key point you wanted me to catch.

          You may be surprised that I agree with the vast majority of the opinions presented – I am personally quite a large fan of Sam Harris and really appreciate his conversations with the somewhat controversial figures (Brett Weinstein, Charles Murray, Jordan Peterson, etc.). I don’t disagree that these individuals ought to be judged on their actual opinions and not the media caricature.

          However, I also draw a line. You are quite literally arguing that we should do a deep dive into the thoughts, opinions and procedures of Nazi Germany – this is ludicrous. Nazi Germany was steeped in racism, propaganda and dictatorship, none of which are democratic values. Furthermore, our grandfathers fought and died to stop the spread of the empire / values it stood for – do you really think there is anything worth digging up there? The ideas will be forever tainted by the sick minds that thought them up and the ideological basis for the ideas.

          For the record, I don’t need to read German, have a M.A. in philosophy or be a reference librarian to know that the “Final Solution” is evil. Your credentials appear to be impressive; however, you seem to be losing sight of the forest for the trees. I will not claim to say our society is perfect; however, the answer is not to look to one of the most cruel dictatorships in recent history for inspiration.

          You seem to be very concerned with allowing Nazi ideas to spread. My larger concern is when democracy can defend itself. If a candidate is promising to end democracy, should that candidate be allowed to run? Should that candidate be allowed to canvas votes and voters? Should Canadians, who live in a country which encourages multiculturalism, entertain a candidate who is apparently described as an ethnonationalist? I say no, you say yes. I’m afraid we’re at an impasse here and neither of us will persuade the other.

          I certainly don’t disagree that the left and right both have profoundly antidemocratic impulses on their extremes – Communism (especially the way is usually turns out) on the left and Nazism on the right. I’m surprised you don’t agree that the extremes should be treated like the bad ideas they are and simply ignored. I’m also surprised that you fail to see that the extremes clearly appealed to a large number of people at one point in history or the other – Hitler was democratically elected and Fidel Castro lead a popular coup. If you think every single person has the time and energy to constantly refute these ideas, I think you live in a utopia that doesn’t exist.

          For the record, no I don’t “marginalize” individuals willy nilly. I observe, much like Jonathan did here, what the people stand for and who they are friends with. Putin can deny that Russia didn’t carry out the Salisbury chemical attack all he wants, but the facts indicate he is not telling the truth. Given Jonathan’s article above and what I have hear Faith Goldy say, I have to say her denials don’t ring true to my ears.

          Finally, I have a hard time decrying Black History Month – the Americans did literally enslave them for generations. It takes time for the wounds to heal. Besides, white folks celebrate their history everywhere – Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, etc., etc., etc.

          It was nice chatting with you, but I don’t anticipate either of us making further inroads.

          • Mark Kennedy says:

            Thanks, Sam. I do appreciate your at least taking time to watch the video, and to mull over its contents.

            Despite this investment, it still isn’t clear to me that you’ve grasped what is at issue here. It certainly isn’t the horrors of the Final Solution: those can’t be an issue between us, since I’m not contesting them. Nor is it the merits or demerits of ‘Nazi ideas,’ which I have no interest in spreading.

            Think for a moment about what the Nazis did. No deviation from the one true path was tolerated; so they burned books and imprisoned dissenters–and ‘guilt by association’ was enough to mark you as a dissenter (‘Careful who you rub elbows with, or what books you have in your house!’). Now switch to the other end of the political spectrum and think of the USSR: it imprisoned its dissidents in psychiatric wards. Critics of the regime must be mentally ill, or fascists–probably both! Finally, think of strident SJWs ‘deplatforming’ speakers with whom they disagree, and deeming as political enemies everyone from Sam Harris to Bret Weinstein to Steven Pinker (??). You should see a pattern here that has nothing to do with left vs. right, and everything to do with intolerance for heretical opinion.

            I think a first step away from the impulse to excommunicate, for you, would be to question the assumption that purported racists and white supremacists owe their views to ‘hatred.’ I see no evidence on YouTube that Faith Goldy hates anybody, or aspires to be a Hitler clone. Maybe she’s just someone who hasn’t thought through the implications of her ideas sufficiently rigorously. Or maybe, as I suggested earlier, if you actually engaged with her ideas rather than some media travesty of them, you’d find them more substantive and morally sensitive than you imagine. Your average Nazi would have considered himself to be every bit as ethical as you are, and–tellingly–was just as persuaded that freedom of speech and freedom of association are secondary considerations when the nation and its traditional values are under threat. You evidently believe Goldy represents such a threat. Nazis believed communists and Jews were the problem. Those who burned witches never doubted that they were protecting the souls of their neighbours against Satan. As far as I’m concerned, all these rationalizations spring from a misguided conviction that noble causes justify ignoble means, and history is littered with examples of the harm this conviction has done.

            If you want to take issue with Goldy’s ideas, by all means do so. But take the trouble to find out what they are, instead of substituting German history from seventy-five years ago for them, while pretending you aren’t changing the subject. And remember that two can play the ‘guilt by association’ game. Hitler and Himmler were undeniably racists; but Stalin and Mao were social engineers who racked up body counts every bit as impressive (or terrifying–choose your adjective). If alt-rightists really are Final Solutionists in embryo, how can we avoid concluding that affirmative action enthusiasts, speaker deplatformers, and SJWs eager to specify what others are “allowed” to hear and say are Cultural Revolutionists and Gulagists in embryo? If you can argue one half of this symmetry, you can argue the other.

            I argue neither. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are my interests–this is my understanding of what our grandfathers “fought and died for”–and it’s disheartening to see how casually these freedoms are taken for granted by people who think nothing of watering them down, or even setting them aside completely, for a long list of ‘important cause’ exceptions. I’m sorry, I don’t care how earth-shatteringly important you think your cause is; pursuing it doesn’t give you the right to abridge anybody else’s freedom of access to information, or the right to make up his or her own mind, same as you did.

  12. Sam says:

    Hey again Mark,

    I really appreciated our conversation here, and I think you’ve exactly hit why I think that free speech has to have reasonable limits to it. Disclaimer: I don’t think Faith Goldy personally was involved in the following events; however, far right propaganda can be tied to each of the following:

    1) Pizzagate (wherein the Clintons were accused of running a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza shop) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

    2) Pizzagate shooter (wherein an armed man burst into said shop searching for the pedophile ring) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689/pizzagate-gunman-sentenced-to-4-years-in-prison

    3) Chartlottesville (wherein Nazis invaded a town to “protest”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

    4) Heather Hyer’s murder (wherein a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters at the aforementioned “protest”, killing her) https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-heather-heyer-profile/index.html

    5) Cesar Sayoc (wherein a deranged Trump supporter mailed explosive packages to Trump’s opponents) https://www.npr.org/2018/11/06/664796199/judge-orders-pipe-bomb-suspect-cesar-sayoc-held-without-bail

    I honestly think we have a 6 alarm fire blazing away in our culture and we need to find ways to fight back against it. Clearly rhetoric can have a negative effect on individuals who unthinkingly absorb it.

    As a result, the principles start mattering a little less in exchange for ensuring more lives are not ruined for the sake of spreading bad ideas.

    I enjoyed our conversation; however, I don’t think we are going to persuade each other. I wish you all the best in the future and hope you don’t stop thinking about free speech and its ramifications.

  13. Union Alarm says:

    Someone’s faith should not determine the support that they get from the community. It should be their ideology that the people should focus more on as it affects them too.

  14. Yolanda says:

    Sad. My take is, liberal media want to & will smear & destroy anyone who isn’t on their side. This is what it looked like to me. Then I saw others cave and do the same thing because it was the easy way. Personally I’ve been very grateful for all the work the Rebel Media has & continues to do. They are not on the government payroll. This was a witch hunt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *