');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Apartheid Barack Obama Black Crime Blacks Britain Charlie Hebdo CIA Civil War Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Deep State Democratic Party Donald Trump Economics FBI Feminism Foreign Policy Free Trade Guns H1-B Visas Hillary Clinton History Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration ISIS Islam Israel Israel/Palestine Ivanka John McCain Libertarianism Mass Shootings Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Republican Party Republicans Robert Mueller Russia Silicon Valley South Africa Supreme Court Terrorism Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Antifa Antiracism Arts/Letters Benghazi Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Catholic Church Censorship Children Christianity Christmas Civil Liberties Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Corruption Criminality Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Democracy Dinesh D'Souza Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Fake News Ferguson Shooting Football France Gay Marriage George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Grammys Gun Control Harvey Weinstein Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Homelessness Housing Ilana Mercer Independence Day Inequality Iran Iraq Iraq War Islamic Jihad Israel Lobby James Comey Jared Kushner Jews John Calhoun Justice Kamala Harris Kirstjen Nielsen Las Vegas Massacre Latin America LGBT Liberalism Libya Lindsey Graham Looting Marco Rubio Massacre In Nice McCain/POW Megyn Kelly Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Movies Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Native Americans Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Propaganda Public Schools Qassem Soleimani Race And Crime Race/Crime Rachel Dolezal Racism Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Robert Mugabe Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Slavery Socialism Syria Taxes Tech Technology Texas The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Americans White Death White Guilt Working Class Yankees Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

On November 29, 2019, a man now called the London Bridge terrorist slaughtered British student Jack Merritt.

While the cutthroat has been named for a famous London landmark; his victim has been all but forgotten.

The killer’s family was quick to condemn the London Bridge terrorist’s actions.

The family of his victim—not so much.

David Merritt, the late lad’s dad, got busy condemning those who wish to condemn that killer and his ilk to life in a cell.

By December 2, Merritt the elder was already penning op-eds about clemency and leniency for criminals like the man who murdered his son.

Such minute-made forgiveness would have been Jack’s wish, asserted Merritt senior rather presumptuously—for how can the living speak for the dead?

David Merritt, then, proceeded to minimize what was murder with malice aforethought, by dismissing what his son’s killer did as a mere “tragic incident.”

Just how obscene is the progressive mindset can be gleaned from what Mr. Merritt wrote:

“If Jack could comment on his death – and the tragic incident on Friday 29 November – he would be livid. We would see him ticking it over in his mind before a word was uttered between us. Jack would understand the political timing with visceral clarity.

He would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against. … What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.

That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences … Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge.” [Emphasis added.]

Anti-punishment ideologues like Merritt, incorrectly and condescendingly conflate punishment with “hate” and vengeance, and justice with restitution and “rehabilitation.”

They typically treat us to facile flimflam such as that the desire for vengeance cannot become the foundation of jurisprudence. By this verbal manipulation, these ideologues disingenuously advance a definition of justice that precludes incarceration and instead equates that object with restitution and rehabilitation alone.

Compared to David Merritt’s woke sentiments, the family of the London-Bridge Killer was mundane in its proper and civilized expiation:

“We are saddened and shocked by what Usman has done,” said the family. “We totally condemn his actions and we wish to express our condolences to the families of the victims that have died and wish a speedy recovery to all of the injured.”

But there was apparently no need to apologize, Mr. and Mrs. Khan. Speaking for his dead son, David Merritt appears to have already made peace with Jack’s ripper.

In their extreme versions, anti-punishment ideologues like David Merritt often plump for complete penal abolition.

Driven by parental and pedagogic progressivism, Jack, of blessed memory, had “devoted his energy to the purpose of a “pioneering program” called “Learning Together,” which aims “to bring students from university and prisons together to share their unique perspectives on justice.”

The imperative to offer up young lives to this or the other manifestation of Moloch is a progressive impulse—an obscene one, at that.

If young Merritt’s murder proves anything it is that Cambridge University’s social-justice outreach, “Learning Together,” is a costly indulgence, as Jack was murdered on the job.

More generally, the movement for restorative justice holds that problems plaguing the criminal justice system are reason enough to abolish it. Oddly, the movement’s position is starkly utilitarian, and bereft of principle:

Incarceration, assert proponents of “no-fault” forgiveness, doesn’t reduce rates of re-offense and doesn’t bring back the dead. Ergo, abolish it we must and heal the criminal in the community. After all, responsibility for individual evil actions lies really with “society.” Justice, say the activists, is therefore best sought by a redistribution of wealth and resources.

But, contrary to such pinko propaganda, our prisons aren’t loaded with choir boys.

Usman Khan was no victim of the system (although he claimed to have been fat-shamed or bullied for nurturing a prison paunch. Boo hoo). Rather, it was Jack Merritt who was the victim of a system that had automatically released a man with murder on his mind on a kind of meritless-reprieve scheme, and despite the man’s vow to do violence.

When just a teen, the killer plotted to attack the London Stock Exchange. He, then, fooled those around him by feigning remorse and a desire to reintegrate into British society.

From the dizzying heights of Platonic theorizing, libertarian anti-incarceration theorists typically point out quite correctly that crimes are committed against individuals and not against the amorphous entity called “society.” Solutions, they say, should, therefore, focus on making criminals pay restitution to their victims.

Here on terra firma, the prosaic fact is, however, that when more dangerous offenders are incarcerated, fewer innocent individuals suffer.

When fewer violent criminals are apprehended, more innocent individuals are harmed.

If innocent individuals are incarcerated—a horrible thing against which jurist William Blackstone railed, in 1769, saying “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent person be convicted”—they (and not “society”) are harmed.

Although I would not argue against compelling criminals to do penance shaped by their victims, some libertarian anarchists want to see punishment replaced by a system of financial restitution.

But in cases (and there are many) where criminals can’t remotely repay victims for the harm done (especially in violent crimes), this means the consequences to the criminal won’t be remotely proportionate. In effect, by rejecting proportionate punishment for what is usually disproportionately paltry “restitution,” libertarian abolitionists are endorsing systematic injustice.

At least among libertarians, the cause du jour should not be to reduce the involvement of the state at any costs, if it means freeing guilty offenders. Rather, it should be to reduce prison population by freeing innocent people whose activities, lawful by natural-law standards, the state has criminalized.

Whether punishment makes people feel good, whether it reforms the criminal or safeguards the public is immaterial, although I would argue that a society with a moral code is safer in the long run than one without it.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Qassim Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was assassinated by a U.S. drone air strike, at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). Soleimani was traveling with one Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was an Iraqi, born and bred. Al-Muhandis was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament, in 2005, until the U.S. intervened. (Yes, we intervene in other nations’ elections.)

Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was furious, denouncing “What happened [as] a political assassination.” Unanimously, Iraqi lawmakers “responded to the Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq.”

Yes, it’s a complicated region. And America, sad to say, still doesn’t know Shia from Shinola.

The consensus in our country is that “Soleimani deserved to die.” That’s the party-line on Fox News—and beyond. It’s how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their “positions” on the Jan. 3 killing of this Iraqi-born, Iranian general.

Even Tucker Carlson—the only mainstream hope for Old Right, anti-war, America-First columns like this one—framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys:

“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can’t kill them all, it’s not our job.”

However you finesse it, the premise of Tucker’s assertion is that the American government, and the smart set who live in symbiosis with it, gets to adjudicate who’s bad and who’s good in the world.

The debate is only ever over whether the U.S. government should or shouldn’t act on its divine rights as transnational judge, jury and executioner, never over what’s right and what’s wrong.

Stateside, the only inquiry permissible is a cost-benefit calculus. Will the assassination of Soleimani, a military official of a sovereign state, and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic State terrorists—pay strategic dividends for America in the long run?

This is crass pragmatism bereft of principle. It’s currently on display everywhere, even surfacing on BBC News, where a female analyst, an American, was deploying the childish “bad man” meme to outline America’s Disneyfied foreign policy.

This angels-and-demons production always starts with the prototypical evil dictator who was alleged to be messing with his noble people, until the avenging, angelic empire sent a drone to the rescue.

Again, even Tucker, whose antiwar credentials in recent years have been impeccable, conceded that this Soleimani guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America’s destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.

So, who’s right? Or, is blind patriotism predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world?

“Soleimani deserved to die,” an atavistic bit of jingoism, made by Republicans and Democrats alike, on Fox News and on CNN—it holds true only if you believe that the U.S. government is the keeper of the flame of an immutably just, universal code of law, which it is deputized to uphold, wherever it takes-up residence.

Such a chauvinistic impulse is true only if you believe that the U.S. government’s might gives it the right to be universal judge, jury and executioner, deciding who may live and who must die the world over.

As to whether the U.S. government has a right to eliminate an Iranian state actor by declaring him a “terrorist”:

Like it or not, Soleimani was a uniformed official of a sovereign state. He was the equivalent of our Special Operations commander.

We Americans would not tolerate it were Iranians to designate America’s Special Operations commander, Gen. Richard D. Clarke, a terrorist.

Moreover, if Iranians took out America’s Special Ops commander somewhere in North America—which is analogous to the assassination of Soleimani—Americans would consider it an act of war by Iran.

Soleimani was the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ clandestine and regional operations arm, the Quds Force. Iranians look upon him as we Americans view the commanders of our clandestine Special Operations forces the world over.

With a distinction: Our Special Operations forces and their command encroach on the Iranian neighborhood much more so than Iranians and their special force command encroach on American territory, unless you consider the Middle East to be American turf.

To repeat: The crucial difference between Iran’s Quds Force and America’s Special Operations forces (SOF) is that the former is regional, the latter global.

As I write, America’s SOF, upwards of 8,300 commandos, are engaged in secret operations the world over. Unknown to all but a few Americans, “U.S. commandos deploy to 149 countries—about 75 percent of the nations on the planet,” reports investigative journalist Nick Turse. Expect that by the halfway mark of this year, “U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America’s most elite troops, will have already carried out missions in approximately 133 countries.”

“If Iran should not be allowed to interfere in neighboring countries,” pondered Sara, an Iranian mourner interviewed at Soleimani’s million-strong funeral, “why should Americans be allowed to come to our region all the way from the other side of the Earth?”

Correction: Soleimani patrolled only Iran’s very dangerous neighborhood. His mission was far more modest and nationalistic than that of the U.S. government, which bestrides the globe, arming and training foreign troops all over it.

Unlike America’s proxy militias, Iranian proxy militia operate in the region.

As to the “imminent danger” a single individual, Soleimani, was said to pose to “American lives”: Arrayed against the veracity of the intelligence to that effect are Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul. They characterized Wednesday’s intel briefing as positively “insulting”; “the worst briefing” they had received.

No wonder. The intelligence was produced and pushed by the same spooks who’ve been agitating against President Trump and all vestiges of his original “America First” plank.

The intel justification for the Soleimani assassination came from the same intelligence community that cooked up the anti-Trump Russia monomania and the WMD-in-Iraq casus belli.

These disgraced sources now insist that Soleimani was planning future, precision strikes—nefarious atrocities against U.S. soldiers—and, therefore, needed to be dispatched right away.

However, other more credible sources, including Rand Paul’s dad, allude to Soleimani’s involvement in a diplomatic mission which was underway between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and would have cut out the U.S. as middleman.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

The happening featured beefcake Donald Trump Jr. and bimbo Kimberly Guilfoyle.

The couple was on stage at UCLA to promote the president’s son’s “book,” when they were jeered by dissident Deplorables for shutting down the Question-and-Answer segment.

“Book” here is in quotations to denote “so-called,” because the staple, ghost-written political pablum, penned by ambitious political flotsam, relates to literacy as H. L. Mencken relates to conformity—not at all.

Predictably, Guilfoyle opted out of the conversational give-and-take demanded by her man’s hecklers, and went straight for the groin:

“I bet you engage in online dating, because you’re impressing no one here to get a date in person.”

Why “predictably”? Well, a supple mind may not be one of Guilfoyle’s assets.

Kimberley’s cerebral alacrity was seldom showcased when seated in Fox News’ legs chair. During one of her last televised appearances on “The Five,” a Fox News daytime show, Guilfoyle protested that, “the U.S. has already reduced its [toxic] ‘admissions’ enough.”

I give you Guilfoyle, verbatim, in her own words: “So, we can keep doing what we’re doing. We can keep reducing our admissions. …”

To Make English Great Again, you reduce emissions, not “admissions.”

For a while, it even seemed that Trump, looking for curve appeal in a press secretary, was going for Guilfoyle. She certainly thought so and said as much, implying, at the time, that she herself is “a great communicator … with deep knowledge.”

And no; I do not digress. This all goes to Guilfoyle’s knee-jerk, flirty, aim-for-the-groin reaction to her hombre’s hecklers.

Tellingly, the taunting of Donald Jr. by dissident Deplorables was covered very differently by the American Daily Beast and the British Guardian.

Descriptions of political positions and personalities were prefaced by the Daily Beast with “edifying” editorializing. The hecklers the Beast described as “fringe-right.” Their alleged instigator and inspiration was said to be “a white nationalist.” Perfectly legitimate demands from this disgruntled audience for a “Q and A” and for “America First,” the Daily Beast deemed tantamount to a right-wing insurrection or civil war.

Discrediting dissent is all in a day’s work for the American press.

What do you know? The hecklers at Trump Jr.’s book-flogging were also known, to the Daily Beast at least, as “Holocaust deniers.” As far as this reader can tell, the group taunting the empty suits on stage for refusing to answer questions had said not a word about the Holocaust. Nor had the disrupters been interviewed by the Daily Beast about their views on the Holocaust.

More to the point: Why is participation in our democracy predicated on one’s views on the Holocaust? What the hell does an individual’s opinion about that topic have to do with his right to solicit answers from members of Donald Trump’s politically active dynasty? I say this as a Jew whose family tree was truncated by the industrial-scale mass murder of millions of Jews that was the Holocaust.

Perhaps the Daily Beast is of the Daily Northwestern’s school of journalism. The Daily Northwestern, a campus Newspaper, had recently said “no” to fact-gathering if this, apparently archaic, journalistic practice proved too unsettling to campus snowflakes.

Yes, Deplorables who aren’t dittoheads have dared to question The Donald.

Many a Deplorable, among them Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, has refused the dittohead designation. Instead, these dissenters perceive President Trump and his unelected emissaries as reneging on doable promises to build a wall, to place a moratorium on legal immigration, and put the United States and its long-suffering people first.

But to the Daily Beast, these positions are reason to libel those who hold them as awful, Israel-averse anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. Trump voters inquiring about campaign promises hitherto unkept were wrapping “racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic messaging” in the raiment of Trumpism, we were told. (My paraphrase. Beast journos can’t write.)

Contrast the Daily Beast’s emotive, ad hominem laced invective with coverage of the same event by The Guardian, a British daily newspaper.

It was not racists who “drowned out” Trump Jr. and his paramour, but “diehard Make America Great Again conservatives,” reported The Guardian.

It was not the adjudication of the Holocaust that these “hostile conservatives” were demanding, but the need for a “Q and A! Q and A!”

The fury of the “fringe group” was not white-hot racism, but that “of America Firsters who believe the Trump administration is captive to a cabal of internationalists, free-traders, and apologists for mass immigration.”

There was a “factional rift on the Trump-supporting conservative right,” reasoned the Guardian,” intelligently, quipping further that hardly any “triggered” left-wingers were present to “clamor for Trump Jr’s silence.”

In other words, by skedaddling, rather than staying to face the music, the president’s son, ventured The Guardian, had sundered his own case that it was he who was “willing to engage in dialogue, but that it was the left that refused to tolerate free speech.”

And, OMG! Contra the new, woke journalistic credo established by the Daily Northwestern; The Guardian interviewed two dissenters and published their pungent criticism, namely that “the pro-Trump movement was being infected with ‘fake conservatism’ and that the president himself was at the mercy of a cabal of deep state operatives who wouldn’t let him do many of the things he campaigned on”:

“We wanted to ask questions about immigration and about Christianity, but they didn’t want to face those questions.” Not a word about the Holocaust.

As for Donald Trump Jr. and his gal pal Guilfoyle: Dumb in isolation—worse in combination.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Donald Trump 
🔊 Listen RSS

America is “a society that is and always has been multiethnic and polyglot,” burbled David Frum, in a 2016 exposition. It’s a refrain repeated by centrists like Frum and French (also David), by all lefties and by well-trained faux rightists.

Such dissembling about America having always been multicultural are no more than post hoc justifications for turning the country into a veritable Tower of Babel.

Early America’s colonies were founded by Englishmen in periwigs, speaking different English dialects. They were joined by Irish, Scottish, French, Dutch, German and Swedish Christians, who quickly adopted English as lingua franca.

Not even the woke Wikipedia denies that, “Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States, were settled by migration from” one colony to another, with “foreign immigration” generally playing “a minor role after the first initial settlements.”

In other words, population growth was organic, a result of the settlers themselves multiplying and being fruitful, not of a flood of immigrants.

This so-called “multiethnic” dispensation saw early Americans publicly debate and come to a broad agreement on some highly complex, abstract matters of political philosophy, an impossibility today. The colonial community had to be pretty tight to arrive at the Articles of Confederation, followed by the Constitution.

Try as he might, not even the sainted Barack Obama got away with claiming, as he did, that, “Islam had been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Beyond their heavy involvement in the slave trade and in the Barbary wars—and contrary to Obama’s modern myth-making—Muslims were most certainly not enmeshed in America from its inception.

Moreover, and almost to a man, the learned Founding Father, as chronicled by Laura Rubenfeld of PJ Media, held a dismal view of Islam and its vampiric prophet.

It gives me great pleasure to break it to my anti-Semitic readers and to Ilhan Omar, the representative from Mogadishu in Minnesota: Jews were around. Early American Jews were of, mostly, Sephardic origins, having hailed from Spain and Portugal. That Jewry has always been more refined and reactionary than their radical, East-European brethren, who arrived much later.

And so we find Jews fighting or financing the War of Independence. Francis Salvador and Haym Solomon come to mind. “The highest ranking Jewish officer of the Colonial forces was Colonel Mordecai Sheftall.” Why, Jews even produced proud Confederate soldiers, the likes of Col. Abraham Charles Myers.

It was to the peaceful Jews of America that George Washington saw fit to promise peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a synagogue congregation in Newport, Rhode Island.

Descendants of the original inhabitants of the United States of America are certainly not up to dealing with the political aggression brought to the country’s politics by recent immigrants. Come to speak of it, neither are the First Nations, the American Indians, who’re also politically more passive, when compared to the barbarians who’ve joined the Empire, since 1965.

To tether the character of Rep. Ilhan Omar to America’s immigration preferences is perfectly proper. Likewise Rashida Tlaib. The representative from Michigan is a second-generation Palestinian-American, and is every bit as tribal, politically aggressive and reliably leftist as Omar.

By virtue of its main source countries, America’s mass immigration policy privileges individuals like Omar: angry, anti-white, and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world (a pedagogic poison that is, by the way, hothoused in the U.S.—K to 12 and beyond).

Muslim power in the U.S., we are assured, is negligible. Demographers peg the number of Muslims in America at 3.5 million, a mere 1 percent of the population. Nobody buys that—all the more so, given that “the Census Bureau has not asked questions about religion since the 1950s. “Some say the number is closer to 5 million and rising,” surmises the Economist.

The more politically aggressive the new arrivals, the more demographers stick by their “puny numbers” consolation.

Kamala Harris’ mother migrated to California from Chennai, in southern India. But the senator “rarely mentions the Indian side of her family while campaigning.” (I wonder why?)

How long before Harris tells her unschooled voters that Indian-Americans were “woven into the fabric of our country since its founding”?

The truth is that Indian-Americans have “arrived in America over the past two decades.” They’re a new addition to the country’s state-planned, multicultural mosaic. But, like Muslims, they are highly aggressive politically and reliably leftist.

“… Capitol Hill, for example, is crammed with staff and interns of Indian-American heritage. They also appear to be ‘over-represented’ in academia, the media and other influential posts,” notes the Economist, a left-liberal news magazine.

Again, we are assured that “only 1 million voters of Indian descent are politically active.”

Accordingly, the Economist even attempts to finesse the vile practice Indian arrivals have of cultivating their own, Indian-only “informal networks.” As those in the corporate world know all-too-well, Indian-Americans wrestle jobs for one another and for their kin.

Once ensconced in a position of power, individuals of South Asian descent tend to work assiduously to fire pale faces and hire others of their own persuasion.

Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. Their fate in multicultural America is to be dispossessed by the politically savvy, ruthlessly racist Other.

For that is the reality of multiculturalism in the West. It means conferring political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices and proclivities run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Anglo-Saxons, Jews, Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

To judge by their writing, the youngsters who’ve been given the run of the conservative op-ed pages, pixelated and printed, know little about how socialism differs from capitalism.

To their credit, they’ve chosen a side—the right side—but are incapable of arguing the morality of capitalism and its efficacy (which stems from its morality).

Discredited are their employers for failing to demand that their young, conservative charges methodically and creatively motivate for the right—and the Right—side.

Endeavoring to explain the oft-repeated banality that, “Colleges are turning young people [into] socialists,” one such prototypical writer says this in her dog’s breakfast of a column, for the Washington Examiner:

“Students are gullible and moldable because they have little conviction and no foundation. Too often, public universities teach students to accept basic, shallow ‘knowledge’ at face value. They are not trained to ask why this knowledge matters or how it influences the rest of their education or how it relates to higher principles.”

The writer at once, and incoherently, condemns “shallow knowledge” (whatever that is), yet laments that students are not taught to relate “shallow knowledge” to higher principles. What does this even mean?!

Such bafflegab is published absent the telltale signs of editorial oversight. Or, perhaps the editors of the Examiner and publications like it think that voicing an opinion is the same as advancing an argument.

However, meandering assertions, circular arguments, non sequiturs and assorted banal utterances don’t belong on editorial pages. Agile argument does.

The piece continues in this puerile vain, conjuring the catchphrase that currently precedes every sentence spoken by a millennial: “I feel like.”

“I feel like” columns and essays are a dime a dozen; their purveyors having procured plum positions in the conservative press.

That “students are not learning” in schools and are thus gravitating to socialism is beyond trite—it’s also a non sequitur. For one would have to argue that lack of learning leads to socialism, and not merely assert it.

In showcasing amateurish, intern-quality material in national forums, conservatives are letting the liberal credo guide them. Leftists live by the folly that kids must be allowed to carry forth, talent and scholarship be damned. Lefties reject the hierarchical notion that youngsters must bide their time and learn from their betters before spouting off.

Young conservative columnists, by-and-large, are a product of this same mindset. Remember: Conservative kids are being subjected to the same system of miseducation they single out in their socialist peers.

Indeed, to go by their impoverished field of reference, too many conservative young “writers” know close to nothing and can barely formulate a coherent thought in writing. After all, they, too, are a product of the very same pedagogic system that has, ostensibly, mired their leftist peers in the sludge of socialism. (Watching Fox News doesn’t count as “learning.”)

In their low-watt rambling one can find no evidence that young conservatives have imbibed foundational literature that might equip them to write rationally and inspiringly about capitalism—and freedom.

Ayn Rand or Mencken, Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick; Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek; Frederic Bastiat, Frank Chodorov, John Flynn, Felix Morley, Lysander Spooner, and Garet Garrett: Nothing in the pablum disgorged by these young, cocky scribblers would indicate that they’ve assimilated these and other towering texts, like those of the brilliant Russell Kirk.

Worse: If they’ve read classical works, the young conservatives loosed upon the public, over commentary pages, show no evidence that the good stuff has stuck.

Again, the only difference between the conservative youth who’ve been given the run of conservative editorial pages and their socialist peers is that conservative kids are on the right side. They mean well; they simply can’t get it out. And that won’t do in desperate times.

Superficial, cliched, barely grammatical, largely irrational utterances do not cut it in defending capitalism—a defense that demands the power and the passion to reason for freedom.

The point was underscored by economist Milton Friedman in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”: “The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

As epistolary arrows, “subtle, sophisticated and rational” are not carried in the quivers of up-and-coming young conservatives.

The hallmark of the ignorance here decried is to settle the question of socialism with crass pragmatism: “Socialism doesn’t work,” these poor youngsters are wont to parrot (much like their elders, actually, who’re often unequal to the job).

The rights-violating underpinnings of socialism are what makes socialism and its attendant political platform both an economic wrecking ball and plain wicked.

To confine the argument against socialism to a utilitarian assertion—for “it doesn’t work” is not an argument—is, moreover, to imply that if socialism’s command economy worked, it would be worth considering.

What a dreadful deduction! Nevertheless, a dreadful deduction that follows logically from a dreadful “argument.”

So, dismissing socialism as no more than unworkable is worse than useless, even wicked. Young conservative columnists must learn how to inveigh against socialism as a rights-infringing, tyrannical, aberrant ideology that subjugates individual to state.

Before they can lead, the kids must learn. What a revolutionary concept in the Age of the Idiot.

Conservatives are supposed to be principled defenders of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. Alas, we’ve left the kids in charge. And they’re as untutored as their socialist contemporaries, except that the latter have easier arguments to make: simple, false, and emotional, to paraphrase Dr. Friedman.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.”

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Democrats, reports the Economist, “think they might win Texas in 2020.”

Demographers, being mostly Democrats, credit Donald Trump.

One of them, he’s from Rice University in Houston, claimed that Donald Trump was the “worst thing that ever happened to Texas Republicans”:

“Mr. Trump has alienated many white Republican women in Texas, and has also pushed away Hispanics, who account for around 40 percent of the state’s population. … According to a recent poll by the University of Texas and Texas Tribune, more Texans say they would sooner vote for a candidate running against Mr. Trump than re-elect the president.”

But even those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome are forced to concede that ,

“Long after Mr. Trump leaves office, demographic change in Texas will continue to exert an influence on the fortunes of Republicans, as the Hispanic population grows, millennials vote in increasing numbers and people continue to move to Texas from other states, bringing their more liberal politics with them.”

Yes, the country as a whole is moving leftward. And it’s not Donald Trump—although a border wall and a moratorium on immigration would have helped mightily. As the Economist attests, “Americans are more in favor of ‘big-government’ policies today than at any point in the last 68 years.”

The “public mood” in America is decidedly with statism and leftism.

Ultimately, even blame-Trump demographers must, on occasion, crunch data accumulated over decades and admit that, a “blue Texas” must be chalked up to demographic “changes,” which denote the swamping of the native population by a politically monocultural immigrant cohort:

“Those who foresee a ‘blue Texas’ point to demography as the primary reason for the state’s supposed [Democratic] competitiveness. While increasing turnout among minority and young voters has helped Democrats rack up big margins in cities, moderates in the suburbs—especially women—have been moving leftwards too.”

“Texas is more racially diverse and younger than the country at large. Non-whites lean heavily Democratic and young Americans are the most Democratic generation of all.”

As an example of what women and a minority-majority transformation do to elections, look no further than California’s Orange County, whose tipping point was reached as late as 2016.

Imagine that! The iconic place that had “incubated Barry Goldwater’s conservatism and was home to Richard Nixon”! As late as 2016, “The OC,” dubbed “Goldwater Country,” “had last backed a Democratic presidential candidate in 1936, when they voted for FDR.”

“But the fortress has fallen to shifts in the population. Orange County, which used to be the color of pith, is now minority majority with 34 percent of its population Hispanic and 21 percent Asian. Its voter registration reflects the change. It is 35 percent Republican, 34 percent Democrat and 27 percent independent, the definition of a competitive district.”

Mass migration (and school indoctrination) has turned the California home of Barry Goldwater conservatism into Democratic stomping ground.

And it’ll do the same to Texas. In truth, the “worst thing that ever happened to Texas Republicans,” aside the women’s vote, is mass, chain migration.

So, Texas might be poised to tip—all the more so since six of the state’s Republican incumbents have announced their retirement.

On the positive side, the new voting groups are notoriously tardy. Not I, but the leftist Economist gripes that non-whites and the young (categories not mutually exclusive, naturally) are “less likely to find their way to the polls.”

To retain their traditional strongholds, Republicans, who’ve done next-to-nothing to stem the tide of immigration, must now rely on the tardiness of the New Americans as an election strategy—in other words, on the propensity of the young and the diverse not to … show up.

That’s some election strategy.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2020 Election, Democratic Party, Immigration, Texas 
🔊 Listen RSS

From the riffs of outrage coming from the Democrats and their demos over “our democracy” betrayed, infiltrated even destroyed—you’d never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought, and that those familiar with it would be tempted to say “good riddance.”

Voicing opposition to democracy is just not done in politically polite circles, conservative and liberal alike.

For this reason, the Mises Institute’s Circle in Seattle, an annual gathering, represented a break from the pack.

The Mises Institute is the foremost think tank working to advance free-market economics from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics. It is devoted to peace, prosperity, and private property, implicit in which is the demotion of raw democracy, the state, and its welfare-warfare machine.

This year, amid presentations that explained “Why American Democracy Fails,” it fell to me to speak to “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.” (Oh yes! Reality on the ground was not candy-coated.)

Some of the wide-ranging observations I made about the dumbing down inherent in democracy were drawn from the Founding Fathers and the ancients.

A tenet of the American democracy is to deify youth and diminish adults. To counter that, I’ll start with the ancients.

The Athenian philosophers disdained democracy. Deeply so. They held that democracy “distrusts ability and has a reverence for numbers over knowledge.” (Will Durant, “The Story of Philosophy,” New York, New York, 1961, p. 10.)

Certainly, among the ancients who mattered, there was a keen contempt for “a mob-led, passion-ridden democracy.” The complaint among Athenians who occupied themselves with thinking and debating was that “there would be chaos where there is no thought,” and that “it was a base superstition that numbers give wisdom. On the contrary, it is universally seen that men in crowds are more foolish, violent and cruel than men separate and alone.” (p. 11)

Underground already then, because so subversive—anti-democratic thinking was the aristocratic gospel in Athens. Socrates (born in 470 B.C.) was the intellectual leader against democracy and for the even-then hated aristocratic philosophy. Socrates’ acolytes, young and brilliant, questioned the “specious replacement of the old virtues by unsocial intelligence.”

The proof of the foolish, violent and cruel nature of the crowds is that the crowds, not the judges, insisted on making Socrates the first martyr of philosophy. He drank the poison at the behest of the people.

No wonder Plato, Socrates’ most gifted student, harbored such scorn for democracy and hatred for the mob—so extreme that it led this controversial genius to resolve that democracy must be destroyed, to be replaced by his planned society; “the rule of the wisest and the best, who would have to be discovered and enabled.”

Plato’s “Republic,” seconds the Economist, “is haunted by the fear that democracies eventually degenerate into tyrannies” (June 22, 2019). To libertarians, Plato of the planned society was wrong. However, the fear reverberating throughout his “Republic” is righteous.

A democratic utopia of freedom cannot come about because of the nature of man, thought Plato. Men “soon tire of what they have, pine for what they have not, and seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 19.)

Plato agreed, that “the diversity of democracy’s characters … make it look very attractive.” However, “these citizens are so consumed by pleasure-seeking that they beggar the economy”; so hostile to authority that they ignore the advice of sages, and so solipsistic and libertine that they lose any common purpose.

Most agreeable to libertarian thinking was Aristotle, who ventured that democracy is based on a false assumption of equality. It arises out of the notion that “those who are equal in one respect (under the law) are equal in all respects. Because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” (P. 70)

Tocqueville, too, was not sold on the new American democracy. He conducted “his extensive investigation into American life, and was prepared to pronounce with authority [about what he termed the new democracy].” (Russell Kirk, “The Conservative Mind,” Washington D.C., 1985, 205-224)

The American elite, Tocqueville observed, does not form an aristocracy that cherishes individuality, but a bureaucratic elite which exacts rigid conformity, a monotonous equality, shared by the managers of society.” (p. 218) Remarking on “the standardization of character in America,” Tocqueville described it as “a sort of family likeness” that makes for monotony. (p. 210)

What menaces democratic society … [is] a tyranny of mediocrity, a standardization of mind and spirit and condition … The mass of people will not rest until the state is reorganized to furnish them with material gratification.”

“Pure democracy makes libertarian democracy impossible,” posited Tocqueville. (p. 213) “In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within certain barriers, an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them … his political career is then over, since he has offended the only authority able to defend it. … Before making public his opinions, he thought he had sympathizers, now it seems to him he has none any more, since he revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly, and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort, which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.” (p. 218)

Consider that Tocqueville was writing at a time so much smarter than our own.

Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.

This column, now in its 20th year, can attest that writing in the Age of the Idiot is about striking the right balance of banality and mediocrity, both in style and thought, which invariably entails echoing one of two party lines and positions, poorly.

Let us not forget Friendrich Nietzsche (admired by H. L. Mencken, whose genius would have remained unrecognized had he been plying his craft in 2019).

Born 39 years after Tocqueville, Nietzsche saw nothing good in democracy. “It means the worship of mediocrity, and the hatred of excellence. … What is hated by the people, as a wolf by the dogs, is the free spirit, the enemy of all fetters, the not-adorer, the man who is not a regular party-member. … How can a nation become great when its greatest men lie unused, discouraged, perhaps unknown … Such a society loses character; imitation is horizontal instead of vertical—not the superior man but the majority man becomes the ideal and the model; everybody comes to resemble everybody else; even the sexes approximate—the men become women and the women become men.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 324.)

For their part, America’s founders had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democracy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Trust the late Anthony Bourdain, the Kerouac of cooking, to blurt out the truth when nobody else would.

Following his Jack Kerouac wanderlust, Bourdain had arrived in Seattle to spotlight the manner in which high-tech was changing the city, draining it of its character and of the many quirky characters that made Seattle what it was.

“Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Expedia, and Amazon are the big dogs in town,” mused Bourdain. “A flood of them—tech industry workers, mostly male, derisively referred to as tech boys or tech bros—is rapidly changing the DNA of the city, rewiring it to satisfy their own newly-empowered nerdly appetites.”

That the “tech boys” “are so dull,” as members of a Seattle band say—and sing—in no way assuages their heated effect on the housing market. A street artist called “John Criscitello … told Bourdain how the high-tech influx has driven up housing costs and forced artists [like himself] out of the neighborhood.”

Yes, Big Tech is exacerbating homelessness in Seattle and the surrounds. While correlation is not causation, the ongoing and never-ending, annual importation of a sizable feudal elite from China and India must be factored in the homelessness equation.

“Buoyed by the city’s thriving technology industry, Seattle has consistently been the hottest housing market in the nation.” Commensurate with the explosion in the number of Seattle neighborhoods in which homes cost $1 million has been an explosion in the region’s homeless population.

“Households must earn about $140,000 a year to afford mortgage payments – nearly double the city’s typical income,” but on par with the “average base pay” of a software engineer in the Seattle area.

Some consciousness of guilt was evinced by Microsoft. The company threw money at a problem to which it has greatly contributed. In 2014, Microsoft allocated $500 million toward low-income housing, because, somehow, working-class families who should be inching into middle-class were sliding into poverty, unable to afford homes in Seattle and its surrounding counties.

There are more families with children than chronically homeless people” in the homeless encampments, reveals the Seattle Times. “Fewer than 50 percent of people without homes are addicts.” Underlying homelessness are factors such as “loss of a job,” “eviction,” “medical bills and foreclosure,” the last of which “destroys credit ratings, making former homeowners no longer eligible for loans or, in many cases, rentals.

Among her homeless acquaintances, local writer Lola Peters counts “[a] seamstress, her mortgage broker husband and their two children.”

“Several couples going through the breakup of long-term relationships. A nurse. The middle-aged couple who owned their home and two nearby rental houses. A woman, with a 4-year old child, who lost her job shortly after moving to Seattle. A floral delivery worker. A painter.”

“They are not alcoholics or drug addicts,” protests Peters. “They are people who suffered as a result of political and economic decisions they had no part in.”

And it’s not only Seattle and its suburbs that are filled with suffering, marginalized Americans.

Via CBS News comes the unwelcome news that, “Even with rising wages and falling mortgage rates, Americans can’t afford a home in more than 70 percent of the country. Out of 473 U.S. counties analyzed in a report, 335 listed median home prices more than what average wage earners could afford, according to a report from ATTOM Data Solutions.”

Driven by an unending influx of immigrants, realtor.com certainly revels in the tight housing market driven by an unending influx of entrants created by immigration central-planners:

“[S]waths of America have seen local housing fundamentally altered by an influx of new immigrant groups. There are now about 42 million immigrants from just about every country in the world living in the U.S., making up about 13 percent of the overall population, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

“Immigrants are a big driving force for housing markets across the nation,” says Kusum Mundra, an economics professor at Rutgers University, Newark. “Most want the American dream, which is to own a home.”

With The World clamoring for the American Dream, the average home in the U.S. will soon cost half a million dollars. “Rents are rising much faster than income, while the median home price in some 200 cities is $1 million.”

“Homelessness—perhaps the most extreme form of poverty—is a symptom, surging in high-cost cities,” notes the Economist. “The problem,” moreover, “is most acute in America’s most-thriving cities, the ones governed by unabashed liberals. In 2018, New York estimated its homeless population to be over 79,000, or 48 percent more than in 2010. … California now accounts for one in four homeless Americans.”

“Unabashed liberal” outfits like the Economist, the Brooking Institute and the Seattle Times blame inadequate supply for the housing crisis, ignoring the demand side of the supply-and-demand housing equation whereby, “Big Tech is permitted to petition The State for permission to import The World at a price heavily subsidized by the disenfranchised American taxpayer. Through government immigration policies, a ceaseless demand for housing has been generated.” (See “Homeless In Seattle, Part 1.”)

In particular does the Economist implicate “local control over zoning” for “poor housing supply.”

Historically, zoning regulations, whereby municipal governments decide “what parts of the city will be industrial, residential or commercial,” are linked to high-cost housing. However, city planners have been determining where people live, work and do business for close on a century. Pure market forces and the price system have been absent in city planning for a very long time.

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: H1-B Visas, Homelessness, Housing, Poverty, Tech 
🔊 Listen RSS

To expatiate on the subject of homelessness in Seattle, Tucker Carlson regularly invites on his Fox News show a Republican liberal who broadcasts out of Seattle.

Aside from a pastiche of liberal ideas, Sleepy in Seattle has nothing remotely perceptive or probative to say about homelessness in the Emerald City. Eventually, this young know-nothing will read this Column and parrot it back to Tucker.

Then, perhaps, will Carlson’s viewers stop being gulled by Big Tech and the other multinationals who are exacerbating the problem of homelessness in Washington State.

For these stateless corporations are the major importers, into King County and the surrounds, of a high-tech, feudal elite that compounds the homeless quagmire.

If anything, the corporations who straddle the globe rely on immigration ignoramuses to perpetuate the single-cause theory of homelessness: addiction or mental illness.

However, even if drug addiction and mental illness are seen as necessary in causing homelessness, they are seldom sufficient. Substance abuse and mental anguish can, in themselves, be the consequence of other exogenous, existential and intractable circumstances.

Like being priced out of your homeland’s housing market. For good.

Big Tech must be quite pleased to see homelessness attributed exclusively, by the usual cast on TV, to addiction and mental illness—when, in fact, homelessness is driven, primarily, by the systematic and permanent eviction from the housing market of vulnerable, working-class people.

In truth, our country is consigning its economically weakest members to the homeless encampment, through the never-ending importation of a high-rolling, high-tech elite, which, in turn, artificially inflates the price of housing. In perpetuity.

According to the Seattle Times, “fewer than 50 percent of people without homes are addicts.” “There are more families with children than chronically homeless people” in the encampments.

Underlying homelessness are factors such as “loss of a job,” “eviction,” medical bills and foreclosure, the last of which “destroys credit ratings, making former homeowners no longer eligible for loans or, in many cases, rentals.Forever.

“We must no longer allow politicians, policy influencers and the media to get away with the laziness of conflating substance abuse and homelessness,” inveighs Lola E. Peters.

Peters, a local writer, is correct. Alas, while implicating the tech-driven population explosion in our state’s housing crisis, Ms. Peters frames the unrelenting influx from China and India as an organic, natural, made-in-America population explosion.

It isn’t! Seventy-one percent of Washington State’s population growth is attributed to net migration!

In guarded language, the Washington State Office of Financial Management divulges that, “Migration continues to be the primary driver behind Washington [State’s] population growth. From 2017 to 2018, net migration (people moving in versus people moving out) to Washington totaled 83,700, … … The state has grown by an average of 87,900 persons per year this decade, exceeding that of 83,000 in the previous decade.

King County, where the “global beasts with vast balance sheets” live, is the main contributor, with a total growth of 259,000 persons over eight years, compared to 194,200 persons between 2000 and 2010.”

Fueled in large part by the technology industry, an average of 236 people is moving to the Seattle area each day,” seconds Geekwire.com, a Seattle-based website that covers tech news.

Only those unfamiliar with America’s work-visa labyrinth would claim that the unremitting population influx comes mainly from other states in the Union, rather than from other countries in the universe.

Certainly, the town where I live is unrecognizable. Costco is like a bazaar plucked from Beijing and Calcutta. What was a small and friendly hamlet is flooded with newly imported H-1B labor, living on six-figure salaries, while young Washingtonians struggle to pay the mortgage, or are evicted when their rental units are demolished to make way for fields of pricey, garish condominiums, to house Satya Nadella’s preferred—and privileged—workforce.

For residents, this lamentable state-of-affairs means the inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices are being artificially inflated.

Young couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more, as colonies of imported workers, endowed with sizeable salaries, push prices of property beyond the means of local lads and lasses, who simply can’t afford homes in which to raise families. (And, no, H-1B Visa recipients are not cheap AT ALL, unless you call a six-figure compensation package “cheap.”)

“At its root, the crisis is a supply problem,” jabbered an “expert,” in the New York Times.

Really? Whatever happened to the demand side of the supply-and-demand, housing-market equation?

By grant of government privilege, Big Tech is permitted to petition The State for permission to import The World at a price heavily subsidized by the disenfranchised American taxpayer. Through government immigration policies, a ceaseless demand for housing has been generated.

How can such an artificial market—designed to sate the global corporation’s insatiable lust for high-tech talent not American—ever normalize, to accommodate local yokels?

Imagine being priced out of your homeland’s housing market. For good. That’ll drive a person to seek solace in mind-altering substances.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: H1-B Visas, Homelessness, Housing, Tech, Technology 
🔊 Listen RSS

In “It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics,” I questioned whether the term “identity politics” vaguely comports with our racial politics on tera firma. The answer was a resounding “no.”

For, “Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. Blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky.”

Since the ire of America’s multicultural multitudes is directed exclusively at whites and their putative privilege, not at each other, anti-white animus is the more appropriate term.

The “identity politics” term is an elaborate construct hot-housed in the postmodernist university. Yet, commentators, conservatives too, cleave to abstracted definitions developed in citadels far removed from reality. Duly, the author of “Why Identity Politics Kills Democracy” harps on the “political selfishness” that comes with a “fanatical fetishization” of “group identity.”

“A politics of whiteness is a scourge. A Hispanic politics is a scourge. An LGBT politics is a scourge. A plutocratic politics is a scourge. A feminist politics is a scourge.” The only “true politics,” bewails our author, is one that “unites individuals under a single identity: citizen.”

Group hug.

In relation to reality, this kind of conservative political preening is a bit of a farce. Why so? Because undergirding the factional identity politics so roundly condemned is a practiced anti-whiteness. Hispanic, LGBT, plutocrat and feminist: All would concur. The road to their political salvation is in collaborating to extinguish “white dominant culture.

Used in the main by media conservatives, “identity politics” is invoked, consciously or unconsciously, it would seem, because conservatives want to be nice. To be nice, one must remain in denial of things not nice. Conservatives refuse to come to terms with the fact that our politics are almost exclusively anti-white, and not anti-Other, more exotic identities.

It’s also considered politically incorrect or “racist” to advocate on behalf of whites—even if whites qua whites are being dangerously maligned and marginalized; even if there is an anti-white sentiment that runs through our institutions, both public and private.

And woe betide those who perpetuates the idea of white ethnocide, say in South Africa. She herself is, then, libeled as a racist.

The logical paradox is that to warn of systemic hatred against browns and blacks is considered racially virtuous; to fear the same for whites is deemed incorrigibly racist.

For fear of being dubbed racists, media conservatives simply look the other way, refusing to acknowledge our anti-white politics.

Here’s how conservatives hide from the bruising realities of anti-white politics:

They pretend that “identity politics,” being an excrescence of Democratic politics, aims to divide one and all. To that end, conservatives routinely resort to the “Dems are dividing us” routine. By so doing, conservatives, ever eager to get along, also virtue-signal their position as seekers of national unity. “We’re in this together; Democrats aren’t.”

That’s a whole other level of denial, given that, it’s not exclusively identity politics that Democrats are presiding over, but politics dangerously anti-white. Blacks are not berating Hispanics for dominating industries they previously dominated; Asians aren’t complaining about Ameri-Indians being given university slots they’ve earned. Rather, blacks, Hispanics and the rest are all piling on whites.

Denial in action was radio talker Tammy Bruce. When quizzed about Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s apology over his “whiteness,” on the Tucker Carlson Show, Bruce reflexively pivoted away from the reality of racist, endemic, anti-white hatred.

Expected as she was to answer as to why men like Beto keep apologizing for their existence, Tammy Bruce might have opened, reasonably, by pointing out that, to distinguish from white men, black men don’t apologize for their existence.

Instead, Tammy headed for the proverbial hills, turning away from whiteness—the thing that informed O’Rourke’s apology—and the question she was asked to answer, to … wait for this: “Humanity.”

Asserted Bruce: It’s a Democrat thing to apologize for the sins of humanity. Climate change, for instance.

At that point in the show, I scratched my head and wondered how Bruce got from A (whites expiating over their whiteness) to B (Democrats’ hate of humanity).

To those who cleave closely to the contours of an argument, the pivot will seem inorganic. But to the Republican maze rat it’s rote.

Our politics are an anti-white show and sham . Yet, conservatives mistake leftist, multicultural politics for the problem. They think that by coming together as citizens, the diverse cults and clans of America will transcend their white-hot hatred of whites.

 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

ILANA Mercer is the author of "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed," (June, 2016) and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.