The Unz Review - Mobile

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



=>
 Ilana Mercer Blog View

A known quantity in the faking department is Rev. Al Sharpton. In a video that gets considerable play on TV, Sharpton informs a rapt audience that “white folks” were cave dwellers when blacks were building empires and pyramids; teaching philosophy, astrology and mathematics. “Socrates and them Greek homos” were mere copycats, aping black civilization.

As revealed in “Helping The Sharpton and Obama Afrocentrism ‘Fade to Black,’” this mythistory has a presence in America’s schools, tertiary and secondary.

By now we know that mass media and government under both national parties routinely generate fake news to achieve political ends. That our progressive pedagogues propagandize the youth: That’s well-known and passively accepted, too. Less known is the extent to which fabricated history has been incorporated into curricula.

In “Black Athena,” Martin Gardiner Bernal of Cambridge, England, suggested that “Ancient Greece” had been “fabricated,” and that chroniclers of “classical civilization” had concealed its “Afroasiatic roots.”

Ditto historian George G. M. James, whose “Stolen Legacy: The Egyptian Origins of Western Philosophy” claims that a rather large chunk of ancient civilization is fraudulent. The Greeks stole it from the Egyptians. The Egyptians were as black as Al Sharpton and Idi Amin.

The school tracts known as the “Portland African-American Baseline Essays” are another counterfactual abomination to have percolated into America’s anti-intellectual schooling system.

The Science Baseline Essay, in particular, claims that thousands of years ago, Egyptians-cum-blacks “flew in electroplated gold gliders, knew accurately the distance to the sun, and discovered the Theory of Evolution.”

According to Afrocentric academic Cheikh Anta Diop—a Senegalese with considerable celebrity in the US—Africans invented everything from Judaism, to engineering, to astronomy, including dialectical materialism (apparently Marxism is cause for inventor’s pride).

It’s easy to dismiss this mythistory as too ridiculous to swallow. However, mythical thinking thrives in a culture that eschews objective truth: ours.

Where once there was an understanding that a reality independent of the human observer exists; students are now taught that truth is a social construction, a function of the power and position—or lack thereof—of persons or groups in society.

Casting fact and objective truth as no more than a perspective is a handy bit of egalitarianism: If nothing is immutably true, then all positions are but a matter of preference and can claim equal validity. This vortex is the scaffolding for Afrocentric pseudohistory; the American academy its perfect foil.

When all is said and done, what are a few curricular concessions if they increase self-esteem among young Africans? What’s the big deal about making history palliative rather than factual, if, as Collin Flaherty would say, it makes the black kids less angry?

For this reason—and unlike the equally nonsensical Holocaust denial, which immediately raises establishment and media ire—remedial historical revisionism for blacks meets with little objection.

Refuting Afrocentric pseudohistory has fallen largely to Mary Lefkowitz, a brilliant Greek classicist. In “Not Out Of Africa: How “Afrocentrism” Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History,” she asks: “If the Greeks had learned their philosophy from a large theoretical literature produced by Egyptian writers, surely some trace of that literature would have remained in Egypt?”

Alas, there’s no point searching for logic where there is only African chauvinism. Nor should one look for methodological coherence in the tracts mentioned. For scholars whose mission it is to promote a view of African superiority, Afrocentrists have done a poor job.

Their methodology consists in neglecting chronology, treating myths as history, and using citations fraudulently to support the crux of their argument. In Afrocentric works, hypothesis morphs into fact, authorities that don’t bolster a thesis are recruited in its service, and the absence of proof becomes evidence of conspiracy.

One example among many of a jarring deception is a reference to the “Egyptian Mystery System” whence the Greeks allegedly stole their philosophy. The reference comes not from an authentic historical text, but from eighteenth-century French fiction and Freemasonry.

As amusing is that the city of Alexandria was founded only after Alexander’s conquest of Egypt, and the library from which Aristotle allegedly pilfered his genius was founded after the philosopher’s death.

Accompanying the dogged repetition of the lies are the vicious ad hominem attacks leveled at scholars like Lefkowitz, who has dared to confront the evidence.

Of course, entire civilizations are not typically the kleptomaniac’s item of choice. Afrocentrists, moreover, look especially dimwitted in their incongruous claims, considering that, on the one hand, they blame the Great White and his wicked, linear thinking for practically every reprehensible event in history. On the other hand, they lay claim to his civilization.

If Eurocentric culture is so horrible, why would these fake historians want to claim it as their own? By coveting it, aren’t Afrocentrists providing the ultimate validation of Western Civilization?

(Part I is “Helping The Sharpton and Obama Afrocentrism ‘Fade to Black.’”)

 

ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. Ilana 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). Follow ilana on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer , Gab: https://gab.ai/ILANAMERCER, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/.
Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel

 

TWO PIMPS IN A POD

Boy, have whites done hard time under Barack Hussein Obama! To deliver his inauguration benediction, eight accursed years back, Obama commissioned one Rev. Joseph Lowery.

Lowery is to poetry what Beyoncé is to music. Both were greatly elevated by the outgoing, déclassé first couple. Lowery’s anti-white inaugural jingle beseeched the Lord to finally make “white embrace what is right,” allow “brown to stick around,” “yellow to be mellow,” and “the red man to get ahead.”

High art.

Indeed, on day one, Obama and his bitter and twisted better half hammered home that to be white in their America was never to be right. To be black was to have an eternal claim against whites, for no other reason than that they’re white.

Although America is the land of quotas, set-asides and affirmative action—a country that privileges minorities—the majority is, nevertheless, subjected to non-stop, relentless propaganda. Enforced by the tyranny of political correctness, this agitprop has led white Americans, most of whom harbor no racial animus, to believe racism saturates their society. So, whites say nothing when they’re roped into a Sisyphean struggle to appease the unappeasable.

Unappeasable is the job description of Rev. Al Sharpton, with whom Obama had made common cause. (Later, Black Lives Matter stole Sharpton’s thunder.)

With the election of Donald Trump, white America has essentially told these race pimps to talk to the hand (‘cause the face ain’t listening). They’ve had enough of the pigment burden. Besides, as a pragmatist and a doer, Trump is constitutionally indifferent to the racial-grievance industry.

So march Sharpton must.

Ahead of President-elect Trump’s inauguration, Sharpton’s “We Shall Not be Moved March” will take place on January 14. The reverend and his foot soldiers at CNN will meander to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. There, they will say stuff as memorable and meaningful as the ectoplasm that tumbled from Obama’s mouth, during his farewell address.

Let us hope that President-elect Trump “shall not be moved,” and that Al’s presence in the People’s House will be greatly reduced under a Trump administration. For as of June 2016, the White House Visitor Records logged 57 Obama-Sharpton love-ins.

Before he fades to black, in the memorable words of a Metallica ballad, an aspect of Sharpton’s lying persona should be exposed. It has been omitted from the tit-for-tat that goes for debate between Republicans and Democrats. (By which I mean the perennial, “No, Democrats are the real sexists, we love women. No, Democrats are the real racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.”)

BEWARE OF ACADEMIC AFROCENTRISM

When radio and TV talkers play a 1994 Al Sharpton harangue, delivered from Keane College, New Jersey, they typically call Sharpton a homophobe and a racist and leave it at that. They fail to explain the substance of the nonsense with which the reverend riles-up the receptive audience. Roars Sharpton (1.11 minutes in):

“White folks was [sic] in the caves while we was [sic] building empires. We never admired them, but they knew to admire us. We built pyramids before Donald Trump even knew what architecture was. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

The mythistory Sharpton peddles on this tape, frequently played by the heroic Sean Hannity, is called Afrocentrism. It’s promoted by a number of undistinguished African academics and imparted in some schools across North America, from grade school through to the university level, and, naturally, in the African Studies department.

I don’t know how else to break it to you, but the white man stole the black man’s accomplishments. According to the Sharpton abracadabra, Africans have an ineffable claim against Europeans. For how does one put a price on the mugging of a civilization?

The gist of Afrocentric mythistory: The venerable Greeks, the founders of Western Civilization, stole their philosophical and scientific know-how from Egypt. Egypt, and not Greece, is the fount of Western tradition. And although artifacts indicate that the Egyptians were more Benetton than black; by Sharpton’s telling, the Egyptians were actually black Africans.

How did this civilizational mugging occur? Aristotle is said to have sojourned to Egypt with Alexander the Great, smuggled books out of the Alexandrian library, and slapped his name on these books, promoting them as his own. He wasn’t alone. Socrates, Pythagoras and Plato were plagiarizers in their own right.

Elizabeth Taylor The Appropriator had no business playing Cleopatra. The Macedonian of the Ptolemaic bloodline was really a long-limbed black woman. In Afrocentric mythistory, even the Sphinx had negroid features. That is until it became the target of one of the first documented, racially motivated acts of vandalism. The facial crater borne so stoically by the Sphinx comes—don’t you know?—from being socked on the nose by Napoleon’s racist troops.

Is there no end to the antics of those white bad boys?

****

Tune in to Part II. Especially crucial for parents whose kids are pedagogically institutionalized, it’ll counter Afrocentric mythistory.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Barack Obama, Blacks, Political Correctness 

You’re witnessing a fantastic fit of pique from Barack Hussein Obama. This American president is watching a legacy of statism, Islamism, globalism, elitism, blackism, post-Americanism, post-Christianity slip away, and he’s fighting tooth-and-nail for the ideological sludge in which he has mired America.

Obama is having a terrific tantrum, the effects of which President-elect Donald Trump must reverse. Why so? Aside from a few laudable initiatives—trade with Cuba and a lesser involvement in the Syrian civil war—Obama has fought for nothing but the dreadful propositions already mentioned. Trump has promised to fight for the American people. Never the twain shall meet.

To Trump, making America great means making the American people great. To Obama, making America great means making government great and aggrandizing himself in the process.

But the metrosexual Obama has finally met his match. Two Alpha Males, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, are causing the world’s wunderkind to unravel. Both represent the interests of their voters; while Obama fights for the coercive ideology he shares with Angela Merkel and George Soros. Looking for a brawl with the Russian Bear certainly works against the interests of the American people, and for Washington, Brussels and the “expert” and think-tank internationalist industry.

And so, in the words of a Kremlin spokesman, “Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen.” This, as a spiteful Obama punishes Russia for infractions the American people, by-and-large, don’t believe the Russians committed. Differently put, “The proof is not in the Putin.”

Ordinarily, to mouth about someone’s “motivation” is to make a logically invalid argument. The reason being that the motivation behind an individual’s deeds can seldom be divined. But, “Barack Obama, it’s not as though we hardly knew thee.” We know the outgoing president all too well. Obama is a case study in hubris. He began his presidency by claiming, in 2008, that his crowning was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

“[T]his was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth,” Obama vaporized. “This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

His eight lean years Obama ended with similar arrant and arrogant nonsense: “I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated [my vision of progressive change], I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

It’s perfectly plausible, then, to posit that Obama’s retaliation against Russia, three weeks before the inauguration of his successor, is a last-ditch attempt to gain one-upmanship over Trump, who is dominating the news cycle, a thing the narcissistic incumbent can’t abide.

Essentially, B. Hussein Obama is crashing about like a maniac in trying to retain his unwarranted status. Lo and behold, in the course of BHO’s flailing, we discover that government is perfectly capable of deporting foreigners when it wants to. Witness Obama’s petulant expulsion of Russian diplomats, payback for that country’s alleged harassment of American diplomats (no proof provided). This from the man who did nothing about Muslims murdering an American diplomat in Afghanistan.

Likewise, Obama’s Russophobic lickspittles—establishment conservatives and neoconservatives included—screamed blue murder when Trump merely threatened trade tariffs, as part of a clever negotiation strategy. Trump would launch a trade war, they hollered. The same sorts think nothing of risking real wars by inflicting sanctions that starve children and radicalize entire countries against the US.

In the context of our America-First interests, let’s look briefly at the significance of Obama’s dust-up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel, seeing a weakness in Obama’s crumbling facade, has pounced. Here’s the sequence:

First came the UN’s unremarkable resolution, condemning the establishment of West Bank settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to that ever-elusive peace with the MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever, the Palestinians). Security Council Resolution 2334 was one among countless over the years. Passing anti-Israel resolutions is a popular UN parlor game.

Next was the US’s “decision to abstain” from vetoing that resolution.

Last but not least was Netanyahu’s well-timed fury. The Israeli prime minister has asserted that the US orchestrated the UN vote against Israel. Helping to cement Obama’s legacy as an enemy of the Jewish State was Alan Dershowitz. The prominent pro-Obama civil libertarian has accused B. Hussein of personally lying to the law professor (Dershowitz), early in 44’s presidency, about being friend to Israel.

To top the blows to the outsized Obama ego, the UN cheerily kicked Obama and Secretary Kerry to the curb: It endorsed a truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and Turkey, sans Obama.

So Obama is spinning out of control. His parting shot at Russia has been described in the Russian press using bon mots like “impotent,” “political corpse,” “illiterate in foreign policy,” presiding over a “campaign of disinformation,” as badly behaved as a tenant trashing an apartment he no longer rents; his goal being to “create new problems for President-elect Trump.”

Hissed one Russian political commentator: “Obama has nothing else to do but break all the windows in the White House and deposit a pile of […] on the steps.”

Why is all this good for America Firsters? The dynamic “Process of Trump,” delineated in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” is ongoing. Trump, inadvertently yet tactically, has chipped away at the Obama legacy, as the Left, steered by the nitworks, desperately galvanizes court historians to reinflate this empty vessel of a president.

ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. Ilana 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). Follow ilana on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer , Gab: https://gab.ai/ILANAMERCER, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/.

Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin 

“We’re going to be saying Merry Christmas a lot more. And we’re going to have fewer criminal aliens to contend with,” promised President-elect Donald Trump on separate occasions.

Alas, Christmas and a criminal alien coalesced tragically, when Bob Clark, director of “A Christmas Story,” was killed by a drunk illegal alien in 2007. Clark’s son, age 22, also died on that day in April.

Like the director of that enchanting film, the family depicted in “A Christmas Story” is all but dead and buried, too—killed by Uncle Sam, the patron saint of social disorder.

Described by a critic as “one of those rare movies you can say is perfect in every way,” “A Christmas Story” debuted in 1983. Set in the 1940s, the film depicts a series of family vignettes through the eyes of 9-year-old Ralphie Parker, who yearns for that gift of all gifts: the Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

This was boyhood before “bang-bang you’re dead” was banned; family life prior to “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads,” and Christmas before Saint Nicholas was denounced for his whiteness and “Merry Christmas” condemned for its exclusivity.

If children could choose the family into which they were born, most would opt for the kind depicted in “A Christmas Story,” where mom is a happy homemaker, dad a devoted working stiff, and between them, they have no repertoire of psychobabble to rub together.

Although clearly adored, Ralphie is not encouraged to share his feelings at every turn. Nor is he, in the spirit of gender-neutral parenting, circa 2016, urged to act out like a girl if he’s feeling … girlie. Instead, Ralphie is taught restraint and self-control. And horrors: The little boy even has his mouth washed out with soap and water for uttering the “F” expletive. “My personal preference was for Lux,” reveals Ralphie, “but I found Palmolive had a nice piquant after-dinner flavor—heady but with just a touch of mellow smoothness.” Ralphie is, of course, guilt-tripped with stories about starving Biafrans when he refuses to finish his food.

The parenting practiced so successfully by Mr. and Mrs. Parker fails every progressive commandment. By today’s standards, the delightful, un-precocious protagonist of “A Christmas Story” would be doomed to a lifetime on the therapist’s chaise lounge—and certainly to daily doses of Ritalin, as punishment for unbridled boyishness and daydreaming in class. Yet despite his therapeutically challenged upbringing, Ralphie is a happy little boy. For progressives—for whom it has long been axiomatic that the traditional family is the source of oppression for women and children—this is inexplicable.

Perhaps the first to have conflated the values of the bourgeois family with pathological authoritarianism was philosopher Theodor Adorno. Adorno’s formulations on authoritarianism have informed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In general, the consensus among these rights advocates has been that the traditional family’s hierarchical structure disempowers children. The solution: Let the State destabilize the parent-child relationship via policies that would define and limit the power of the parent, while increasing the power of child and political proxies.

While America’s founders intended for the family to be left untouched as “the major source of an orderly and free society”—Dr. Allan Carlson’s words—politicians and jurists have ruled to the contrary. What was once the economic and social backbone of American society has been inestimably weakened by both the Welfare State and the Supreme Court—what with the latter’s redefinition of family and marriage, and the former’s incremental steps to trounce parents as the child’s primary socialization agents.

Culturally, the family has been demoted to what broadcaster Charles Sykes once termed a “Therapeutic Family.” Having “adjusted itself to the new demands of the social contract with the Self,” wrote Sykes in “A Nation of Victims,” “the modern family has ceased to inculcate values.” Instead, it exists exclusively for the ostensible unleashing of “self-expression and creativity” in its members.

An aside: In the 1990s, Mr. Sykes was writing this important book protesting “the decay of the American character.” Fast forward to 2016, when Mr. Sykes was vocal in defending an iffy character, reporter Michelle Fields, on grounds he once rejected in his trailblazing book. When Mr. Sykes lamented the “The Decay of the American Character,” no reader was under the impression it was the mettle of Ms. Fields he was hankering for and hoping to see restored.

Back to Ralphie and his family: Progressives have triumphed. Very little remains of the unit that was once a vector for the transmission of values in American society. Women and children are less likely than ever to have to endure the confines of this bête noire of a family, with its typically “oppressed” mother, old-fashioned father and contained kids. Nowadays, women are more likely to be divorced, never married, or to bear children out of wedlock.

Unencumbered by marriage, women are also more prone to poverty, addictions and sexually transmitted diseases. Their children, a third of whom are being raised in households headed by a mother only, are paying the price in a greater propensity for poverty, and higher dropout, addiction and crime rates. Witness the black family. Having survived the perils of slavery, it was still intact until the 1930s, when the dead hand of the Welfare State finished it off. As a social unit, the black American family is near extinct.

Contemporary America’s familial fragmentation—sky-high divorce rates and illegitimacy—has translated into juvenile crime, drug abuse and illiteracy. Yet despite all the State has done to “liberate” children from the strictures of the traditional family, ask any “emancipated” child and he’ll tell you: More than anything, he yearns for a mom and dad like Ralphie’s.

Indeed, lucky is the little boy who has such a family. Luckier still is the lad who has both such a family and … a BB gun.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Christmas, Donald Trump, Political Correctness 

President-elect Donald Trump made another great stride for America—maybe even for mankind, given the CIA’s global reach. Mr. Trump slapped the Central Intelligence Agency down. And hard.

The flurry over the Russia-related misinformation released by the CIA is reminiscent of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, except that, in Bushspeak: “Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me … You can’t get fooled again!”

The CIA has been asserting, sans proof, that Vladimir Putin had, essentially, elected Donald Trump. This, the Russian ruler is alleged to have done by hacking the emails of the Democratic National Congress and those of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

WikiLeaks, the source of October’s epic “data dump,” has denied Russian complicity in enlightening and educating the American people. Why enlightening and educating? Wonderful WikiLeaks provided definitive proof that the mass media are lapdogs, not watchdogs. Democratic lapdogs. The colluding quislings of the major networks and newspapers had actively worked to elect Mrs. Clinton. Thanks to WikiLeaks, Americans also learned of the contempt with which these Democrats hold them.

Distilled, the CIA’s position, shared by the rest of the foreign-policy priestly caste, is that the American people don’t have the right to know what WikiLeaks divulged. Better that Americans elect rotten representatives who hate their guts, than violate the privacy of rogues looking to live-off them.

Were it up to this writer, these mezzanine-level party operatives—Democrat and Republican—would have no privacy on the job. They’re auditioning to go on the people’s payroll! They’re looking to serve the people. As members of the degraded sphere of politics, make party apparatchiks as easy to monitor as parolees.

WikiLeaks’ proprietor has martyred himself in the cause of truth. Without fear or favor, Julian Assange has exposed the workings of business and government alike, Republican and Democrat—from Facebook, Google and Yahoo’s “built-in interfaces for US intelligence,” to the clandestine wheeling-and-dealing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the neoconservatives’ war-crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As another unimpeachable source put it: “Do we believe Snowden and Assange, or John McCain and Lindsey Graham? I would add: Who’s likelier to destabilize his country by going to war? Putin or Graham?

So, too, does the Federal Bureau of Investigation disagree with the CIA’s intemperate charges against Russia. Not that the FBI is more trustworthy than the CIA. Still, the FBI at least is smarting because “Hillary Clinton was not criminally charged for mishandling classified information.”

Above all, the most powerful man in the world, President-elect Donald Trump, has now mainstreamed a truth for which some on the Right were ostracized, 14 years ago. Lest we forget, Mr. Trump ran on disavowing the lie that was Genghis Bush’s war on Iraq. And he continues to properly implicate the CIA in foul-play in that country: “President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team questioned the credibility of the CIA late Friday in response to a report the agency found Russia intervened in the election to boost his prospects. ‘These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,’ the Trump transition team said in a statement.”

Indeed, in the winter of 2002, this writer had perused publicly available CIA reports about Saddam Hussein. These, I reported, “offered no fresh incriminating evidence against Iraq, but a lot of equivocating, inventive bafflegab.” Used by the CIA were vague phrases that amounted to, “Saddam will probably”; “give him time and he will eventually”; “with sufficient weapons-grade fissile material, he’ll doubtless”; “he doesn’t have the capability to develop enriched uranium or plutonium to fuel a nuclear bomb, but hang in there …”

This was obviously not the letter of the CIA text, but it was close enough to its spirit. Unclear was how the CIA could claim to have cobbled evidence for weapons of mass destruction from an “interest in acquiring” or “an effort to procure,” considering its analysts offered no proof of such actions and purchases.

The same vague nomenclature deployed by CIA analysts to take Americans to war in Iraq is evident in the agency’s unsubstantiated claims against Russia. In trying to incriminate absent hard evidence, the CIA, as reported by the Washington Post, alludes to “a secret assessment,” nowhere apparent, identifying only “anonymous sources and individuals” in “closed-door briefing.”

Underpinning the Left’s delayed Russophobia—they’re about a century too late—is a logical fallacy: the argument from authority. Believe the CIA because its intelligence is derived “from multiple sources.” Be impressed since “the intelligence community [has] officially [not informally] accused Moscow.” Bow down because our CIA overlords’ non-specific intelligence makes it “quite clear” that the accusations against Moscow are justified. And if verbiage without evidence leaves you unconvinced, well then, “Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed …”

Onward to war.

As I see it, Trump’s daily intelligence briefings are tangentially related to the attempt to incriminate Russia in ridding us of Hillary. Said President-elect Trump to Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I don’t need to be told the same thing every day, every morning, same words. ‘Sir, nothing has changed. Let’s go over it again.’ I don’t need that. … If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on one minute’s notice.”

The terminally stupid talking heads are outraged. Economizing always rattles the politicians and the presstitutes (with apologies to honest, hardworking prostitutes). They’re used to creating redundancies and duplication, which are lucrative. But in President-elect Trump, the establishment has a different animal—someone who’s looking to eliminate redundancies; who’s aware of the cost of a scarce resource like time.

More crucially, the daily intelligence briefings likely comprise a good deal of “analysis,” and NOT original intelligence intercepts. Perhaps Mr. Trump is not wild about the quality of “analysis” America has been receiving from 17 highly politicized intelligence agencies. (Talk about redundancies!) I know I’d want to compare the original intelligence intercepts with the analysis rendered by the “experts,” before making life-and-death decisions.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: CIA, Donald Trump, Russia 

An “aging white population [is] speeding [up] diversity,” blared a headline on The Hill.

Once again, a Fake News outlet has confused cause and effect, giving readers the impression that the two trends—whites dying-out and minorities thriving—are spontaneous and strictly parallel.

The reverse is likely true. Corrected, The Hill headline should read:

Could speeding up diversity contribute to a decline in the white population?

We learn that “there are growing signs that the rate of change is increasing.” Well of course. America welcomes well over 1 million, mostly non-white, immigrants a year.

If white lives mattered at all to the liberal establishment, an inquiry would ensue: Is it possibility that an enormous influx of legal and illegal migrants over decades is playing a role in the decline of America’s founding population? (A similar, sad fate was visited on their predecessors, the Amerindians.)

On the one hand, we have the drastic decline of America’s white population; on the other, a massive inpouring of minority immigrants, since 1965. A correlation between the two makes sense. A large, well-controlled national survey, conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, found that diversity immiserates and that the historic population is most affected. Perhaps protracted misery (associated with loss of community) hastens death.

The logic posits a zero-sum game. The native population has been swamped over time. Resources are scarce—especially when allocated by a wastrel, white-hating Administrative State. In hating on whites, civil society’s institutions are as culpable.

Is it not highly plausible, then, that immigration social engineering, compounded by state policies that privilege non-white newcomers, could contribute to a population decline in white America?

Picture the following scene, set somewhere in Trump country, say West Virginia:

A pale patriarch must help his bright son choose a career.

What about pursuing the law?

That’s inadvisable (unless you become an immigration attorney). Law schools routinely reject working-class white males, in favor of students who can show they’ve overcome the right kind of hardship. Berkeley and Texas, for instance, already make unusual hardships and life experience a crucial consideration in admissions. “Unusual hardship” is a racial cue card for things like having been shot, or quitting a gang. As commentator Steve Sailer once noted wryly, “The kind of hardships” that’ll be given extra credit are “largely peculiar to preferred minorities.” A Syrian refugee is bound to have a trump card in American universities, if Trump doesn’t deliver on his promise.

What about a degree in engineering? Oh, no, you can’t pursue that. Forget about a knack for invention; for designing and fixing gadgets, inherited from Scottish ancestors. Forget your facility with math and physics. Chances are working-class white American lads, circa 2016, will be replaced by the 65,000 H-1B Indian visa recipients, imported annually by America’s plutocracy.

Industry magnates and lobbyists are forever countering with studies that employ the “impregnable” science of econometrics to prove that all this globalist activity creates more jobs than it kills. The studies invariably beg the question, as they assume facts not in evidence. In this case, the research assumes the new jobs will be as good as the old (vanished) ones.

Speaking of the “new jobs”: Want to remain employed in the U.S.? Choose a profession, preferably service-oriented, that can’t be outsourced. Got the aptitude to probe the field of fiber optics? Bad idea. Better to become a gym instructor to the growing population of menopausal gym-bunnies.

Or, emulate the author of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.” Write a culturally compliant, elitist account of poor, white America. To pass muster with the left literati, “Hillbilly Elegy’s” eloquent author generally omits references to the systemic racial demonization and dispossession visited upon poor whites.

To be fruitful and to multiply, people need certain conditions. Good jobs, for one. Prospects for the future, for another. In this context, consider just how ruthless central planners and their scientists are in “optimizing” and “managing” the natural world. Liberals have developed a utopian vision of how nature should behave. It must remain in perfect balance. To that end, they’ll exterminate harmless critters that violate the liberal idea of Order; of species correctness. Thus when a delightful flock of gentle conure parrots made San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill its home, radical environmentalists demanded the flock—it has a complex, highly evolved social structure and bonds—be exterminated because it wasn’t indigenous.

While animals may not migrate illegally, or disrupt the preordained “natural” order—liberal social engineers encourage non-indigenous peoples to mess with the social habitat of historic, host populations. Provided they’re white. If you’re a rainforest pygmy, liberals will fight for your survival.

Declining birthrates have long been the excuse advanced by central planners for sticking with mass immigration policies. The aging white population is not replacing itself, say proponents of dooms-day demographics. Young, Third-World immigrants are essential to shore-up the welfare state.

However, the now-waning West became great not because it was more populated than the rest of the world and outbred it. The West was great because of its human capital—innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization.

America doesn’t need more people; it needs to allow its own people to recover.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, White Death 

Junge Freiheit is Germany’s finest weekly newspaper. It’s easily its only authentically rightist, freedom-loving, classically liberal publication. When Junge Freiheit’s editors come calling; this writer is always happy to oblige—and not only because my weekly column once appeared in JF. But also because, present company excepted, the young editors at JF are simply the kindest, most professional journalists I’ve encountered. What was it that Oscar Wilde said about kindness? “She thought that because he was stupid he would be kindly, when of course, kindliness requires imagination and intellect.” Having just emerged from a 15-year-long, abusive, professional relationship; kindness and courtesy are indeed new and lovely things to behold.

However, my Teutonic editor lit a fire under me. I was asked to make haste in answering Junge Freiheit’s personalities-from-abroad questionnaire, for the November 11 issue. You’re in good company was his matter-of-fact message. But get to it.

The company: Nigel Farage (author of Brexit), Eric Burdon (rock-and-roll legend), Douglas Murray (famous neoconservative), Lord Christopher Monckton (politician and inventor), Thomas Drake (Whistleblower), Colin Crouch (author of “Postdemocracy”), Frederick Forsyth (bestselling author), Charlie Duke (Apollo 11 and Apollo 16 astronaut), Tony Sheridan (early Beatles), etc.

The record time for answering the JF questionnaire: six minutes. Needless to say, I failed miserably to best it.

 

JUNGE FREIHEIT: Where would you like to be at this very moment?

ILANA MERCER: I‘m strictly reality oriented. I don’t indulge in make-believe. I don’t wish to be where I’m not.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What would you give anything for?

MERCER: I’d give “anything” for freedom from The State, provided “anything” is a figure of speech (no limbs, eyes, etc.)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What does home mean to you?

MERCER: My residence; my house—but also a revival of the thing Edmund Burke called “the little platoon we belong to”; namely an end to the centrally planned transformation of Western communities through forced integration and mass immigration.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What do you consider important in life?

MERCER: Meaningful work, intellectual honesty (rare), close relationships, good health, my guns, my companion parrot (Oscar-Wood), related advocacy and charities.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What did you learn from your parents?

MERCER: To think critically about everything, to read voraciously, to be charitable; the love of music and art.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What book has left a lasting impression on you?

MERCER: The concept of a Favorite Book is childish, if you’re a lifelong reader. Lots of books of political theory, philosophy and economics have indelibly influenced my thinking. Lately, it‘s been Clyde N. Wilson’s “The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What music do you like?

MERCER: Chamber music and Bach—any Bach—and the hard core, intricate, masterful brilliance of progressive rock outfits like Symphony X, Dream Theater, to say nothing of neoclassical guitar wizards like Sean Mercer, Tony MacAlpine, Yngwie Malmsteen.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: Which event in history has been the most incisive and far-reaching for the world?

MERCER: The advent of Communism. Its agents killed the most people and poisoned the most minds, for posterity. Communism/socialism continues to pollute every nook-and-cranny of state and civil society.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What would you want to change?

MERCER: In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” instead of “life, liberty and property.” With that vagueness, Jefferson undermined the foundation of civilization: private property right.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What do you believe in?

MERCER: Individual sovereignty, secession down to the individual.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: Which values should we pass down to our children?

MERCER: Traditionalists value hierarchy. An infantile, immoral society deifies The Child. Kids should follow Florence King’s injunction that “children have no business expressing opinions on anything except, ‘Do you have enough room in the toes?’”

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JF: What does death mean to you?

MERCER: The end.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

JUNGE FREIHEIT, z.Hd. Christian Dorn, Hohenzollerndamm 27 A, 10713 Berlin, GERMANY, November 11 issue, page 27.

 
• Category: Ideology 

Paul Gottfried’s essay, “Are Bannon’s Critics For Real?”, dispenses with the no-brainer that Steve Bannon, “Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser,” is a white nationalist. After all, argues Gottfried, Bannon “comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism,” not exactly a hotbed of white identity politics. It’s “not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term ‘Altright,’” contends Gottfried.

As co-originator of the Alternative Right concept and phrase, Gottfried is in the know.

His piece appeared on FrontPage Magazine, which openly debates taboo topics—from black-on-white crime (the predominate kind), to slavery (who abolished it; who still practices it), to Islam (it counsels conquest, not co-existence). And now neoconservatism, a deformation of conservatism drastically weakened, inadvertently, by Donald Trump.

Why inadvertently? As Barack Obama remarked recently (“a stopped clock” and all that stuff), President-elect Trump is not an ideologue. It’s a point made in my latest book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed”:

“Donald Trump is no ‘visionary’ vis-à-vis government. If anything, he’s practical and pragmatic. He wants a fix for Americans, not a fantasy. A healthy patriotism is associated with Trump’s kind of robust particularism—petty provincialism, if you like—and certainly not with the deracinated globalism of the neoconservative and liberal establishment. The Left calls it fascism; patriots call it nationalism. Donald Trump has the potential to be just the provincial, America Firster the doctor ordered.”

Bannon is also catching hell for some hearsay. He’s alleged to have complained about wealthy Jews raising “whiney brats.” Try this on for antisemitism. It’s a flashback. I’m seated at a café with my father. We’re being served by a rather animated waiter. I can’t recall how the conversation turned to Ashkenazi Jews, but our waiter let rip: “If only Hitler had killed all of them,” he fulminated.

The café was in Israel of my youth. The waiter was a Yemeni Jew. The time: Well before American political correctness had percolated around the world. The hatred our waiter had expressed for his East-European brethren was perfectly understandable to Israelis back then.

When they disembarked from the airplanes sent by the Israeli government to airlift the Yemeni Jews to Israel, in 1949—Operation Magic Carpet it was called—these “brown” Jews, a lovely, refined, ancient community, were frequently sprayed with chemical decontaminants and showered with racial contempt by the “white” Jews who ran the country. I know not whether Israelis can get away with such politically improper expression these days, but we laughed mightily at our waiter’s hyperbole. For that’s all it was.

If our waiter is still alive, he’d probably second Steve Bannon’s alleged quip about the spoilt progeny of rich Jews.

In heralding “the beginnings of an effective post-neoconservative Right,” Gottfried also singles out for scorn neoconservatives like Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, writers for the Wall Street Journal, Rich Lowry, and “the perpetually pouting Ben Shapiro,” likening their intellectual heft to that of “community college drop-outs.”

Neoconservative historian Max Boot is another “favorite” of Gottfried. Boot has pride-of-place—not in a good way—in “The Trump Revolution”: On March 2, 2016, Boot, stumping for Stalin, told the New York Times he’d “sooner vote for Josef Stalin than vote for Donald Trump.”

Recounted, too, in “The Trump Revolution” is an account of National Review’s new-found tolerance for journalism favorable to the barbarism of Communist leader Leon Trotsky. In the June 3, 2003 issue, contributor Stephen Schwartz held up “Trotsky for special commendation.”

Indeed, while maligning millions of Trump-supporting American populists, our “Against Trump” “exemplary conservatives” at National Review continued to make overtures to the Left, not least in embracing the Left’s version of history, herstory and history-from-below.

Faithful to this legacy, these “conservatives” now count among their greatest heroes the minor abolitionist Harriet Tubman. Major abolitionist and mass murderer John Brown is close to making the cut, at least in the eyes of National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson. Williamson “reached peak leftism” when he declared his sympathies were “more with John Brown than John Calhoun,” in an article titled “We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism” (June 24, 2015). In 1856, Brown’s free-soil activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords, in an act of biblical retribution gone mad.

In pondering the quality of the decrepit conservative brain trust, as Gottfried does, one has to wonder how smart was this establishment to come out as a collective in an attempt to overthrow a candidate so popular with the Republican base and beyond, as Trump was—still is. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

One might say National Review has stood athwart historic conservatism, to borrow from magazine founder William F. Buckley’s famous mission statement to stand athwart history.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Donald Trump 

Did Donald Trump unite the American Silent Majority behind things true and shared?

These are economic prosperity, national pride and unity, recognizable neighborhoods—a yen that demands an end to the transformation of neighborhoods through centrally planned, mass immigration—and an end to gratuitous wars.

Those were the questions asked in “The Trump Revolution The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June 29, 2016), and answered in the affirmative.

Unlike America’s self-anointed cognoscenti, some of us saw this coming. The former recognize truth only once card-carrying members arrive at it independently, grasp and broadcast it, sometimes years too late. Not so America’s marginalized writers. Not in 2012, but in 2002 did we pinpoint the wrongness of the Iraq War. And not in 2016, but in July of 2015 did some of us, not fortuitously, finger Trump as “a candidate to ‘kick the crap out of all the politicians’” and “send the system’s sycophants scattering” (August 14, 2015). His appeal, as this writer has contended since late in 2015, transcended left and right.

Conversely, vaunted statistician Nate Silver “calculated, last November, that Trump’s support was ‘about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.’” (Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University properly downgraded wonder boy Silver’s intellectual prowess. His prose, wrote the good teacher, was a sprawl that “evinces a greater affiliation to rigor with data analysis than to rigor with philosophy of science or, for that matter, rigor with rhetoric.”)

Given the disparate groups that rooted for Mr. Trump’s candidacy, it would appear that he did in fact awaken a historic majority. You could say Mr. Trump was an “omnibus candidate,” a concept floated by historian David Hackett Fischer. An omnibus campaign is one that appeals in all cultural regions. Back in the 1840 and 1848 elections, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, respectively, proved to be “omnibus candidates,” popular across cultural regions. In his ability to run strongly in almost every cultural region, Trump is the closest the country has come in a long time to an “omnibus candidate.”

President-elect Trump answered the many prayers of very many people.

The establishment’s reaction to the Trump revolution comports with “the conduct of elites,” also traced by Hackett Fischer in his towering text, “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America”: “There is a cultural equivalent of the iron law of oligarchy. Small groups dominate every cultural system. They tend to do so by controlling institutions and processes, so that they become the ‘governors’ of a culture in both a political and mechanical sense.”

“The iron law of cultural elites is an historical constant,” posited Hackett Fischer in his magisterial account of American cultural and social origins. “But the relation between elites and other cultural groups is highly variable. Every culture might be seen as a system of bargaining, in which elites maintain their hegemony by concessions to other groups.”

These old bargaining processes may have worked in New England’s town system, where each community enjoyed a “high degree of autonomy and also a common interest in supporting the system itself.” But “reciprocal liberty” in early America’s “back settlements” has long since given way to elite solidarity, hegemony, log-rolling and collusion with favored interests.

In virtue, the American oligarchy currently in control of the intellectual means of production bears no resemblance to the natural aristocracy, the object of Thomas Jefferson’s lauding reflections. Likewise, Sir William Berkeley’s concept of a society governed by “gentlemen of honor, courage and breeding” is nowhere seen in the fragmented, faction-based politics of America. This is not to say that Mr. Trump exemplifies these lost qualities, but, as “The Trump Revolution” contends, there is a distinct element of gruff, made-in-America noblesse oblige to Trump’s political crusade.

Put it this way, President-elect Trump is unlikely to be caught off-guard mouthing his contempt for small-town America, as Barack Obama did in depicting potential voters as clinging to their guns, god and other “bigotries.” It’s hard to imagine President-elect Trump ever demonstrating the cruelty and hypocrisy of a Gordon Brown, Great Britain’s former prime minister. In May of 2010, after hearing Mrs. Gillian Duffy’s worries over deficits and immigration, the pompous, two-faced boor of a prime minister retreated to his limousine, and, microphone on, proceeded to berate this perfectly decent lady, calling her “horrible,” “old woman,” and “bigoted.”

The Trump presidency is the last heave-ho of America’s Mrs. Duffys; of America’s historic, founding majority.

Almost 200 years on, Albion’s seed is scattered, diluted and demoralized. More so than cultural identities, issues have come to dominate elections. The Trump revolution boiled down to fundamental things like Islam (“no thanks”), immigration (“much less”), and a government that refused to heed.

In the short term, the success of this majority awakened and its candidate will depend on President-elect Trump’s ability to beat back the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. Comitatus, now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster in the throes of death. Or, so we hope.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump 

For journalists to discourage an inquisitive stance, even distrust, toward government and the elections process is astounding. But not surprising. I’m thinking of CNN journo Brian Stelter who asserted—they never argue, do they? They only ever assert—that skepticism about voting irregularities in America is “dangerous.”

Well, a journalist decrying inquisitiveness and skepticism: Now that’s dangerous.

Stelter—he’s a danger to journalism—and the rest of the media Idiocracy like to repeat that Russian hackers (never the Stelters of the world) are undermining America’s great electoral system. I ask you: What can the Russians do to us that America’s elites have not already done?

When broadcaster Lars Larson attempted to find out whether one Arcan Cetin was a citizen of the US, ICE, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told him, essentially, “Sorry, our obligation is to protect this migrant’s privacy.”

“Who,” you ask, “is Mr. Cetin”? Cetin is a contributor to the phenomenon I term “murder-by-Muslim-immigrant.” He murdered five innocents, north of Seattle.

Arcan Cetin voted, reports Mr. Larson. But nobody at ICE was willing to tell a good citizen like our broadcaster if Cetin voted legally or not.

As it turned out, a sigh of relief was in order. The stellar Mr. Cetin, who, like most Muslim immigrants, voted Democrat, violated the Sixth Commandment five times, but, thank G-d, did not appear to have violated the commandment against voter fraud. Rumor has it that the murderer had been awarded citizenship, although it’s impossible to ascertain.

The point I’m making here is that you can rest assured voter fraud is rampant in the US as in any banana republic—and not only because an American is barred from checking whether a Muslim murderer is a fellow-citizen. But because leftists have fought down-and-dirty to bar any proof of citizenship at the time of voting. Yes, the law requires, in my state, as in most of these United States, that you be a citizen, as well as a resident of the state in which you’re voting. But you don’t always have to provide proof of citizenship when voting.

To vote in Washington State, as in most states, what’s needed is a driver’s license or a current State ID card. Essentially, the American voting system, thanks to the triumph of left-liberalism, is based on an honor system.

Journalist John Fund’s research has shown that when they vote, “80 percent of non-citizens vote Democratic.” And that “6.4 percent of non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 election.” Funds’ sources confirm that a significant number of “non-citizens register as voters” and have voted in sufficient numbers to sway elections.

And when these efforts fail, the government might just step in to commit indirect voter fraud.

For instance, the Feds recently and wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation, an “error” the culprits where unwilling to correct. The point is that leftists, Obama’s DOJ, in particular, have pursued every legal remedy in the book against states seeking to require proof of citizenship from voters.

The point is that we’re a sprawling country of competing interests, in which raw, ripe democracy has long-since usurped the old constitutional republic, where limits were placed on the power of thumping majorities. In a rank, raw democracy, where might makes right, and almost every vote is a lien against someone’s private property; voter-fraud by default is a big deal.

Donald Trump’s supporters might be the losers in something of a rigged electoral system; but they’re certainly not stupid.

That’s another oft-repeated thing. Trump’s base of supporters is referred to as whites without college degrees. Again and again we hear that Mr. Trump is over-performing with white men without college degrees. The reference is intended not only as a demographic marker, but as a Mark of Cain.

Worse has been said about this statistical cohort. Quoted in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” are Republicans and Democrats alike, maligning Trump’s Middle America as worthy of contempt.

You had writer Kathleen Parker hissing about Trump’s “undereducated” supporters. There was Joan Walsh, Salon editor-in-chief, proclaiming on MSNBC that she looked at those people and felt sad. “They share such a low common denominator,” groaned Joan about the “crazy, entertaining, simplistic talk” of the Trumpsters. “They’re all Republicans. … they really don’t have a firm grasp on reality,” she sneered.

National Journal’s Ron Brownstein had his own taxonomy for Trumpsters. “Upscale Republicans” (or those on the panel with him), vs. “blue-collar Republicans.” Nothing but “downscale whites,” derided another Democratic strategist.

Anyhow, implicit in tethering a lack of education to Trump support is that the more educated a voter, the smarter. And the smarter the voter, the more likely he or she is to support Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

But correlation, of course, is not causation. My hypothesis points to a confounding variable or factor—another variable related to both education and voting-patterns that could account for the good sense displayed by Trump supporters without college degrees.

Voters without college or university degrees have not been institutionalized during life’s formative years.

Voters without college or university degrees have not spent years in the tertiary school asylums.

In other words, many of Trump’s supporters are less likely to have been brainwashed and propagandized by the asphyxiating, postmodern, racial and gender agitprop that makes college-educated kids so insufferable and subject to group-think.

Spending protracted time in college or university is almost guaranteed to turn-out individuals whose uniformity of opinion is as scary as its uninformed nature.

Some support for my theory, namely that support for Trump is associated with a less propagandized population, is evident from the fact that Trump has an advantage with independents, which, as the label indicates, have a greater propensity to think outside-the-box.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Voter Fraud 
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.


Past
Classics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?