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 Antifa Antiracism Apartheid Barack Obama Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Britain Censorship Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Coronavirus Deep State Democratic Party Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy H1-B Visas Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration Islam Israel Israel/Palestine Jews Joe Biden Libertarianism Mass Shootings Muslims Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Racism Republican Party Republicans Russia Silicon Valley South Africa Terrorism Vote Fraud White Americans Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Anti-Vaxx Anti-white Animus Arts/Letters Benghazi Bernie Sanders Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Canada Catholic Church Charlie Hebdo Children Chile China Christianity Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Civil War Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conspiracy Theories Corruption Criminality Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Democracy Dinesh D'Souza Disease Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Fake News FBI Ferguson Shooting Floyd Riots 2020 Football France Free Market Free Speech Free Trade Gay Marriage George Floyd George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Grammys Gun Control Guns Harvey Weinstein Health Care Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Homelessness Housing Ilana Mercer Ilhan Omar Illegal Immigration Independence Day Inequality Internet Iran Iraq Iraq War ISIS Islamic Jihad Israel Lobby Ivanka James Comey Jared Kushner John Calhoun John McCain Judicial System Justice Kamala Harris Kirstjen Nielsen Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Lawsuit LGBT Liberalism Libya Lindsey Graham Looting Marco Rubio Massacre In Nice McCain/POW Meghan Markle Meghan McCain Megyn Kelly Mencken Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Movies Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Music Muslim Muslim Ban Native Americans Neoliberalism Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Prince Harry Propaganda Public Schools Qassem Soleimani Race And Crime Race/Crime Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Riots Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Rush Limbaugh Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Science Slavery Socialism SPLC Supreme Court Syria Taxes Tech Technology Texas The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Death White Guilt Working Class Writing Yankees Zimbabwe Zionism
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
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
Something Here

There is this New York City psychiatrist. Her name is Aruna Khilanani.

For convenience, I will call her Aruna KhilaWhiteMan. It’s apropos—and “white privilege” makes it hard for me to pronounce her name. (Mind you, my faithful anti-Semitic readers, whose loyalty I appreciate, assure me that as a Jew, I’m not Caucasian. My mother, a blond, blue-eyed Jew, calls it an olive skin. My editor’s wry quip takes the cake: “You’re at least as white as George Zimmerman.”)

In a lecture to the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center, no less, Dr. Aruna Khilanani offered a glimpse into her criminal mind. She likened whites to “demented, violent predators who think that they are saints or superheroes.”

She let the septic tank that is her mind flow over. Said Dr. KhilaWhiteMan:

I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)

For her murderous fantasies against the pigmentally deficient, Dr. KhilaWhiteMan ought to have been criminally profiled by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit. This primitive reptilian brain might be a danger to the community waiting to happen.

Instead, morality has been inverted. Rather than being hobbled by her deviant views and disgusting demeanor, Dr. KhilaWhiteMan has been approved and elevated at every step of her privileged romp through America’s institutions.

Someone in authority invited such scum of the earth to give a talk to the nation’s top university, Yale, an intellectual shithole, really.

Someone high-up approved of, even liked, the topic of this vile woman’s address, which was, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.”

A system designed to marginalize America’s finest selected Khilanani to train as a healer, a psychiatrist, ministering to vulnerable others.

This mental pigmy, whose expressed aspiration is to terrorize whites, has been put through America’s professional ringer. Khilanani is a proud product of America: She has emerged from an educational system that has approved of her at every step of the way. Prestigious medical bodies and institutions have given her the go-ahead to ply her profession.

Not unpredictably, Dr. KhilaWhiteMan gained access to top American schools by impressing these academic hellholes with her “mind,” a fount of foul, anti-intellectual ideas and pursuits, which should lead to rejection and expulsion, but doesn’t.

Proudly stated, her professional goal was to take medicine to “where [it] intersects [with] race, gender, politics, sexuality, and class.” Someone in an elite hierarchy thought that a person who wants to dumb-down, tribalize and politicize medicine (and had cut ties with her white acquaintances) was not only fit to be accepted into the fold—but to be unleashed on a vulnerable subset of society: psychiatric patients.

This must be the focus of your ire: The American system, every dank nook and cranny of it, and the people who man it. Know where to focus your fury.

Ugly In America, Aruna KhilaWhiteMan, has been enabled by deep American institutional rot—a contemptible, irredeemably empty human being was espousing racial homicide from a top American academic institution, which rushed to lend her its credibility and its megaphone. Still is. You might think that a demented, diabolical diatribe from this individual, a qualified psychiatrist, would have resulted in a revocation of her license to practice. It hasn’t, nor will it, is my guess.

To the contrary. Yale decided to post the subintelligent, meandering of this Ugly American Mind online. Bustling with pride, Dr. KhilaWhiteMan has claimed that the bile consciously emitted from her unsightly gob is but a therapeutic tool to help “hit the unconscious.” The idiot meant the subconscious.

My point here is that the job of overseers and educators is to select the best people for plum positions, not the very worst people. Or, at the very least, to stop this kind of human detritus from attaining the power of her profession and abusing it.

The American Idiocracy, however, is moving at breakneck speed to equate moral and merit-based institutions with “institutionalized racism.”

So take my point to heart. Hold The System in contempt, do not join it, starve it of your support, of your funds and of legitimacy.

WATCH a video version of this column:

WATCH Ilana’s conversation with David Vance as to why “NY Psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani Is Right: Hatred Of Whites Is Here To Stay.”

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s 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 currently on Parler, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook and throttled by Twitter.


For the purpose of making your way adaptively and smartly in a society that is systemically anti-white, you need to understand what distinguishes Critical Race Theory from Marxism and quit the socialism/Marxism theoretical escapism, for once and for all.

Get this into your head: For conflict in society, Marxism fingers social class; critical race theory saddles whites. You, if you are white!

More on this do-or-die distinction in my latest YouTube video, “Distinguish Critical Race Theory From Marxism: Your Life Depends On It!”

David Vance and I further flesh out the Marxism vs. Critical Race Theory vexation in our weekly, Wednesday chat.

Whatever conservatives think of Marxism—and this writer follows the antiwar, anti-state, free market Austrian School of economics—Marxism in the origin is serious political economy; an intellectual treatise with gravitas. Critical Race Theory is a priori gibberish.

Scrap that: Befitting the boors who originated CRT anti-whitism—the theory is based on reasoning backwards: if B then A; if white then … complete that sentence with all manner of evil that comes to mind.

We also discuss uni-party politics, the futility of it, and the war on MAGA folks, all 74 million of us. And, prompted by David, I might have thrown in a quip about plagiarism made way back, in a witty joust between Oscar Wilde and James McNeill Whistler—two giants of the West your kids should know, but don’t, because … critical race rot.



Prior to being shot in the head, this week, by four brothers in a melee at a wild party, Sasha Johnson, of the British chapter of Black Lives Matter, had big plans for whites.

Johnson had been “calling for a ‘racial offenders register’ that would see those guilty of ‘microaggressions’ banned from living in multicultural communities and prevented from working in certain industries.”

“If you live in a majority-colored neighborhood you shouldn’t reside there because you’re a risk to those people – just like if a sex offender lived next to a school he would be a risk to those children,” she fulminated.

Johnson’s call for a “racial offenders register” for whites is a perfectly pragmatic application of the Critical Race Theory rot.

And while Critical Race Theory (CRT) was made-in-America—it has, like many a destructive American creed, been energetically exported around the world. British agitators are certainly improving upon the plans hatched for whites by their brothers-in-arms stateside.

To wit, Johnson had once pinned a tweet to her profile which read, “The white man will not be our equal, but our slave. History is changing. No justice, no peace #BLM.”

Believe Johnson and her ilk, for they are dead serious—and deadly.

Stateside, there have been some gains in working to outlaw the CRT poison percolating throughout American schools. Tennessee has led the way. Other states have introduced measures to ban or curb anti-white propagandizing by the nation’s eager pedagogues.

Alas, the intellectual means of production remain firmly under the control of progressives. As part of the lucrative “racial-industrial-complex” (a Jack Kerwick coinage), Critical Race Theory enjoys muscular advocates.

Its adversaries, however, are weak and flaccid.

I’ve watched scores of noisemakers on Fox News “argue” against the Critical Race Theory agitprop in education. There’s nothing but humbug from the channel’s holy men and women. Their arguments against the CRT scourge are characterized by a white-out of whites.

Nobody will utter the words “anti-white,” or articulate the “anti-white” essence of Critical Race Theory. CRT is always euphemized as things other than a hatred of whites and a resolve to blacken them. Always.

Weatherize The Kids From … Anti-Whiteness

White kids are Critical Race Theory’s innocent targets in schools. Yet not one of the anointed critics of the critical-race bile has stated the obvious, and that is that, while white kids are brow-beaten; black and brown kids are buoyed by Critical Race Theory; they come up smelling like roses and punching like knock-out game champions.

Not one of Critical Race Theory’s conscientious objectors has said, “Whites. White kids”: The true victims of the critical race miseducation are white kids, as they are the sole repository of hate and aggression in this critical-race blitzkrieg.

Instead, it’s, “Critical Race Theory is bad for education. Our kids score last in the developed world. Kids are being reduced to their immutable characteristics. I lost a few IQ points listening to the drivel. Critical Race Theory violates the promise of America. It divides us. Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve opposed Critical Race Theory.” Blah. Blah.

During the 2020 collapse of the electrical grid in Texas, we spoke of a grid that had not been weatherized nor winterized in anticipation of a harsh winter.

Wake up. Weatherize your kids against this anti-white hatred.

Start with ending the socialism escapism, for once and for all. Quit intoning like automatons that Critical Race Theory is about socialism, or Marxism. CRT is about and against whites.

In particular, unlike Critical Race Theory, Marxism offers a class-based analysis—it fingers social class as the primary source of conflict in society.

CRT’s True Boogeyman, Not ‘Racism,’ But ‘White Supremacy’

Critical Race Theory, conversely, focuses exclusively on race as the source of all oppression. Not on any race, mind you, but on the white race, or on “white supremacy.”

Honest demons that they are, Critical Race Theory sophisticates generally reject the term racism in favor of “white supremacy as a conceptual framework for understanding race-based oppression,” as Charles W. Mills, a CRT “scholar,” readily concedes.

It is conservatives who cling to the comfortable “racism” generality to describe the thrust of Critical Race Theory. They’re the only dazed and confused sorts to bewail CRT’s un-American, diffuse, generic racism. (The folks at Prager U, for example.)

Strictly speaking, Critical Race Theory is not even traditionally racist; it’s exclusively anti-white. It is pro all races other than white.

Unlike their feeble conservative adversaries, critical race theorists admit as much. These odious individuals use “white supremacy” to describe white existence. Irrespective of lives well-lived, to the critical race critters, whites are on the wrong side of creation.

As opposed to Marxists, then, critical race theorists identify race, the white race specifically, as the “primary contradiction in society.”

It’s Dhimmitude, Dummy

Socialism is most certainly not central in the BLM list of values; socialism hardly rates a mention in the larger scheme of priming whites for dhimmitude—reeducating, intimidating and subjugating whites qua whites.

That truth, very plainly, is the albino elephant in the room.

Critical Race Theory’s central project is to make whites accept dhimmitude, not socialism. (If the practitioners of anti-whiteness, who already practice capitalism as consumers and producers in a market economy, were converted to theoretical capitalism—would their anti-whiteness dissipate? Naturally not.)

If you imagined dhimmitude means life as a second-class citizen—you were dead wrong.

Dhimmitude,” according to Jihad Watch, “is the Islamic manifestation of the barbaric practice of extracting benefit or pleasure from someone whose life is already forfeit.”


The proper aim of education [was] to make virtue habitual.”— Leonard Roy Frank, my friend & editor of Random House Webster’s Quotationary

In his 2004 foreword to my book Broad Sides, Peter Brimelow, the man who penned everything there is to say about America’s immigration disaster, in 1996, wrote this:

“… somewhat to my surprise, it is actually quite rare for this most emotionally intense of columnists to draw on … personal experiences. What seems to motivate Ilana, ultimately, is ideas.”

In this tradition, on February 6, 2017, I wrote a column titled, “Are Liberals Turned-On By Turning The Other (Gluteus Maximus) Cheek?” In it, I expressed the kind of—dare I say?—outsized idea that has animated my writing for 21 years.

To quote :

“The pale, liberal patriarchy is a pioneer in forever scrutinizing itself for signs of racism and deficits in empathy toward The Other, while readily accusing others like it of the same. It’s as though liberal men derive homo-erotic pleasure from bowing-and-scraping to assailants and ceding to racial claims-making.”

As so often is the case, I was the only one to have been tickled pink by that insight. I found it so utterly cheeky that I ran the column again in April 27, 2018, for WND, under the more prosaic title, “Are liberal pervs sexually obsessed with refugees?

The case to have elicited my Freudian flourish—and boy, was Freud a fabulous and fabulist writer—had to do with, as I put it, “The repulsive specter of [a Western male] just about turning the other cheek to [an African refugee-rapist] who had spread both his cheeks.”

I promptly shredded Douglas Murray’s banal, humdrum observations (“Stockholm syndrome”), about the case under discussion, and offered up my own.

To repeat:

“It’s as though [egalitarians, of the left and the political right] derive erotic pleasure from prostrating themselves to assailants and ceding to racial claims-making. Could it be that liberal men are driven by a powerful homo-erotic impulsive?”

The theme of WASPs acting out in sexual-submission really jelled in “The Barbarians Are In Charge: Scenes From The Sacking of America,” featured on American Greatness, and published first by WND, June 11, 2020.

The column described the “Kneeling Ninnies”—those who lay down for the Black Lives Matter thugs, during last year’s BLM riots. These were “men, cops too, who knelt down like girls, instead of standing tall like men for law and order”:

“…men in uniform all collapsed to the pavements like yogis to the command of their black tormentors. One after another. … The forces, police and paramilitary, all squatted like sissies.”

With a link to the original idea in the earlier column, I broadened the category of flagellants:

“It’s almost as though WASPs get a homo-erotic sexual charge out of prostrating themselves in front of The Evil Other.”

Tying the pleasures of sexual-submission to the acts of WASPs kneeling and ceding ground en masse to The Evil Other: This is an idiosyncratic idea—my own.

But what do you know? I wasn’t the only one enamored of my generally woefully underappreciated ideas.

On May 17, 2021, on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Pedro Gonzales, a new writer, fingered the submissive response to the BLM rioting and general meekness of police and punditry as a form of “psycho-sexual ethnomasocism.” He said (2:58 minutes into the TV broadcast):

I’ve characterized it as a kind of psychosexual enthomasocism.”

“Homo-erotic submission” (Mercer); “psycho-sexual enthomasocism” (Gonzales): p otato, potahto.

“Mental telepathy”? Yeah, right.

“Ethnomasochism,” of course, came into use via Patrick J. Buchanan. The term is from Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

John Derbyshire does the properly honest linguistic forensics: “The earliest usage in a book that I am aware of is in Pat Buchanan’s 2011 Suicide of a Superpower.” However, ventures Derbyshire, Pat was preceded by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance.

One might convincingly—and charitably—argue that “ethnomasochism” as a term has come into common use.

However, a term (“ethnomasochism”) is not an idea (the “homo-erotic submission of WASPs to The Other”). An idea is “a mental representation that is the product of creative imagination.” In other words, it is a more intricate concept that bears the originator’s intellectual footprint.

Again, tying pleasurable sexual-submission to the acts of WASPs kneeling and ceding ground en masse to The Evil Other is an idiosyncratic idea. Like it or not (a lot of men don’t like it)—it originates in an oeuvre festooned with such audacious insights, made over 21 years.

I cringe as I write this and other forced, first-person accounts. Duly, in “The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian (April, 2016),” I told my readers how the use of the first-person pronoun in opinion writing is a cardinal sin. “To get a sense of how bad someone’s writing is, count the number of times he deploys the Imperial ‘I’ on the page. Abuse ‘I’ only when the passive-form alternative is too clumsy. Or, when the writer has earned the right to, because of her relevance to the story.”

The second is my reason here.

My knowledge of my own works, well over a thousand, excluding books, is near-photographic; the idiom, the expressions, the way of thinking. So, the ears perked-up at another stray, but familiar, quip on twitter:

Pedro Gonzales, April 29, 2021:

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Writing 

This week, Unz Review columnist ILANA Mercer and British broadcaster and commentator David Vance discussed “Systemic Anti-Whiteness” in the US and across the pond.

Watch their wide-ranging conversation on YouTube :

Catch the abridged rendition of the Unz Review essay upon which the Vance-Mercer conversation is based (“Earth To Conservatives: The Problem Is ‘Systemic Anti-Whiteness,’ Not Marxism, Not ID Politics”) on YouTube, too:


Institutionalized, systemic anti-whiteness, yoked to white hot, hatred of whites:

That is the creed that is fast becoming entrenched across state and civil society in the U.S.

Chiseled down, these are also the building blocks of Critical Race Theory, a specious, subintelligent concoction, originated by subpar intellectuals.

The Critical Race project now pervades private and political life.

A further twist of the screw (or the shrew) was delivered recently by Vice President Kamala Harris, who insists on yammering about white America’s historic racism.

In practice, whites are being singled out for a punishing, institutionalized program of reeducation, subjugation and continued intimidation.

Dangerous in isolation, the entrenchment of anti-white animus is indisputable. It is made worse in combination with the conservative cognoscenti’s inability to come out with it. Too many conservatives euphemize our anti-white culture.

In particular, they will typically deflect from any anti-white outrage du jour by dubbing it identity politics: “Boohoo. Democrats are dividing us via identity politics.” This is an obfuscation.

Here’s why: 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. Hence, anti-white politics or animus. The multicultural multitudes are gunning for whites and their putative privilege.

The tarring of whites is now close to becoming a curricular requirement in education (primary, secondary, tertiary), and from entertainment to technology, anti-white racial “redress” is the all-important object of industry.

When they are not lamenting Democrat-driven, divisive “identity politics”; conservatives will wax to you about Marxism and communism. The anti-white theoretical kudzu enervating every aspect of life is, apparently, just a manifestation of the radical Left’s Marxism. Or, so you are told. This further downplays the anti-white project of the purveyors of Critical Race policy prescriptions.

Put it this way: If your first response to “Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer,” chanted by South Africa’s murderous Julius Malema, is, “Marxism, identity politics”—you are going to come short in the survival department.

Incitement To Kill In South Africa

In South Africa, inciters of black-on-white violence are known to rile the crowds with this anti-white chant. Born into “freedom,” after 1994, these haters can hardly read and write. Is a complex political theory, Marxism, then driving illiterates to slaughter whites in ways that beggar belief?

This is made-in-America suicidal nonsense on stilts!

American “analysts” have coated the sustained ethnocidal attacks ongoing against white South Africans with this more respectable intellectual patina.

The South African National Congress’s problem, however, is not communism; it’s white-hot hatred of whites.

This is not to say that endemic corruption, statism and state-capture by industry are not economic realities in South Africa. They are.

The definition of “state-capture” is “private actors subverting the state to steal public money.” In the U.S., private actors, Deep Tech, acting with state imprimatur, encroach on the rights of innocent civilians to make a living and partake in the national conversation. Potatoes, potahtoes.

In truth, the ANC guards the goose that lays the golden eggs. South Africa’s economy is not socialized, but is, rather, “based on private enterprise, [in which] the state participates” energetically. The economies of the West are at best Third-Way systems, too, neither free nor entirely state-controlled.

As an organizing principle, however, South Africa’s political, economic and social institutions are firmly anti-white. They imperil whites as a principle.

Theoretical Escapism Retards Action

To sum, anti-white ideology is not to be conflated, as conservatives habitually do, with Marxist ideology. Very plainly, communism did not revolve around the exclusive blackening of whites. Stripped of bafflegab, this is Critical Race’s central project.

Confusing Americans about this anti-white atavism gripping the country does a disservice to the pigmentally cancelled—those affected. For clear language and clear thinking mediate adaptive actions.

Theoretical escapism retards adaptive action.

So, when conservatives insist that Critical-Race based politics in Congress and across corporate America are a manifestation of Marxism or identity politicking—it is more than a hollow exercise in intellectual casuistry: it prevents innocents, (the pigmentally cancelled) from acting adaptively to protect their lives, their futures and those of their progeny.

Crippled as they are by self-serving fear, conservatives have accepted the Left’s terms of debate. Those dictate that, to warn of systemic hatred against browns and blacks is racially virtuous; but to fear the same for whites is incorrigibly racist.

For fear of being dubbed racists, media conservatives simply look the other way, refusing to acknowledge the unadulterated, anti-white hue of American society.

Ditch the intellectual crutches. Concentrate on the crux. You are dealing with anti-whitism. Communism, Marxism and identity politics serve here as respectable intellectual crutches.

In using intellectual fig leaves to conceal anti-whitism, conservatives simply alight on similarities in the methods of current thugs and communism’s mass murderers. The anatomy of thuggery is always similar. The foot soldiers of communism, fascism and the American Left are alike because the methods of thugs are alike, not because Critical Race policies and practices amount to communism.

Ultimately, if quibbling about communism and identity politics becomes an obstacle to facing the reality of systemic anti-whiteness—then these theoretical crutches are an affront to reality and, by default, a grave error.

These thoughts were echoed in brief during a segment on Newsmax TV’s Sovereign Nation, graciously hosted by Michelle Malkin.


Watch Ilana Mercer’s discussion with David Vance on the role of “racism” in the George Floyd trial, based on the column, “Was The Cop’s Knee On George Floyd’s Neck ‘Racism’? No!”

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Black Lives Matter, George Floyd, Racism 

Fancy that! A member of a meritless political dynasty, The McCains, has panned the duty-bound British monarchy.

There is a revolving door between Big Media, be it the neoliberal CNN or neocon Fox News, and members of the political duopoly. Whether practiced by the Left or the Right; this is indisputably immoral, and a conflict of interest.

To spout received opinion, Fox News has hired Ben Domenech, the unremarkable husband of the irredeemably awful Meghan McCain.

At the conclusion of a wishy-washy Fox segment about the wanton Meghan Markle, the man who had married into the McCain dynasty declared:

“There is nothing more American than hating the British Crown.”

That’s a shallow stance at best. For, if forced to choose between the mob (democracy) and the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent. This thesis is anatomized in Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order, by libertarian political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

In his seminal work, Hoppe provides ample support—historical and analytical—for democracy’s inferiority as compared to monarchy:

‘… democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.’

“[I]n light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly,” explains Hoppe.

“From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.”

The raw, ripe, rule of the demos has diminished the queen, but has yet to destroy her. Queen Elizabeth might be a member of a landed aristocracy, much-maligned in radical America—but she has acquitted herself as would a natural aristocrat.

Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. Her Majesty has been working quietly (and often thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century.

Elizabeth Windsor was 13 when World War II broke out, which was when she gave her first official radio broadcast to console the children who had been evacuated “from Britain to America, Canada and elsewhere.” Still in her teens, Elizabeth joined the military, “where,” according to Wikipedia, “she … trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served.”

Question: What was Markle—a divorced, mercenary left-liberal out of Hollywood, who had hunted Prince Harry down and married him—doing when she was a teen?

Answer: Markle was preaching pious, hackneyed, feminist homilies on the Nickelodeon channel! There, aged 11, Markle turned in a performance as a miserable, humorless, unoriginal scold, sharing banal views held by 99 percent of the American establishment.

In 2017, this writer had predicated, too hastily, that Markle, an American C-list actress, would finish what Diana Spencer, a British A-list actress, had begun: destroy the monarchy.

This year, Prince Philip, of blessed memory, had been teetering when his grandson’s American bride gave the performance of a lifetime, alongside the Queen of Kitsch, Oprah Winfrey.

A disgrace to decent Americans, the woman’s sordid, petty psycho-drama had exposed Markle in all her tacky tawdriness. An empty “suit,” if you will.

A brother on the set of “Suits,” Markle’s televised claim to fame, said it best:

Meghan Markle has unleashed insignificance on an anguished world, fumed “Suits” co-star Wendell Pierce. Now, that’s narcissism, isn’t it? Foisting your solipsistic, inconsequential self on the cosmos.

The queen won’t outlive Meghan Markle, but she dwarfs the ditz.

As to Ben Domenech, another intellectual pygmy with special privileges: Were the conservative, periwigged Englishmen who founded America to pounce back on to the set—they, too, would favor the monarchy over the current American mobocracy.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s 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 currently on Parler, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook and throttled by Twitter.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Meghan Markle, Meghan McCain 

The country is fast descending into a Dantean hell.

The Circles of Hell into which we’ve been signed, sealed and delivered are mass migration, diversity, multiculturalism, and zealous, institutionalized anti-whiteness, with its attendant de-civilization and inversion of long-held societal morals and mores.

The guiding ghost of Virgil is nowhere to be found. To ostensibly shepherd us out of hell, however, assorted serpents have slithered forth.

Beware! All the more so when they speak to you from bastions of the establishment—Newsweek is one—as J. D. Vance does in, “True ‘Compassion’ Requires Secure Borders and Stopping Illegal Immigration.

His is the typically conciliatory, “conservative” argument we’ve come to expect from the gilded elite, regarding America’s promiscuous immigration policy, under Republicans and Democrats alike.

Vance is the best-selling author of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, which is a culturally compliant—namely unflattering—account of poor, white America.

Provided your thesis allows for a cozy convergence over agreeable storylines—you are well-positioned to peddle a national bestseller to the approving left, libertarian, neoconservative and pseudo-conservative smart-set.

Yes, Vance is a sellout. Not that they were asked for their take, but the archetypical folks depicted in Hillbilly Elegy contend, justifiably, that “Vance [is] not an authentic hillbilly or an example of the working class.”

Cassie Chambers Armstrong’s Aunt Ruth, for example.

Aunt Ruth didn’t think much of Vance’s endeavor. Her niece is an Appalachian and author of a redeeming tale, Hill Women: Finding Family and a Way Forward in the Appalachian Mountains.

Hillbilly Elegy’s portrayal of Appalachia,” explains Chambers, “is designed to elevate Vance above the community from which he came … it seeks to tell his story in a way that aligns with a simplistic rags-to-riches narrative. Think critically about how that narrative influences the way we are taught to think about poverty, progress, and identity.”

Chambers is perceptively correct. It’s cringe worthy—Uriah Heep slimy—but Vance all but advertises that the Indian-American Brahmin he wed has helped “rid him of his hillbilly ways.” To that end, he tells of a mild exchange with his wife: “Don’t make excuses for weakness. I didn’t get here by making excuses for failure,” he “hollers” at her.

These unremarkable, muted words Vance had with wife Usha Chilukuri he frames, self-servingly, as “the baggage of his tumultuous upbringing.” Wow!

Self-deprecation over nothing much at all amounts to very clever self-aggrandizement. Vance’s casuistry resembles a kind of Argument From Fake Modesty.

Indeed, in smug self-aggrandizement, Vance slimes his hillbilly relatives, even naming names. Credits and kudos go to the Chilukuris, wife Usha’s relatives, for “[teaching] him what a functional family looked like.”

From family unit to family unification policy: When discussing immigration, J. D. Vance is just as nimble. He utters the code words at the door of the Establishment, left and right, and in he goes. Sesame has opened.

What are some of the “Open Sesame” magical phrases that get one into polite company, conservative and progressive?

First comes the “moral” preening component: “All’s I’m saying, y’all, comes out of the goodness of my hillbilly heart.” Vance opposes the rot of America’s immigration reality simply out of the kindness of his heart: He is at pains to emphasize how he hates that “human traffickers take advantage of the desperate poor of Central America.”

After all, Vance is open, law-abiding, and properly diverse. (Vance’s marriage alone proves his PC credential; although adopting the Right Kind of Baby before running for office is highly recommended.)

Yet another part of the Vance celebrity seeking vaudeville is the incessant mention of his “working-class background.”

This reflex finds Vance at once eagerly pressing flesh “at roundtable[s]” with CEOs and “communications conglomerates,” during “masters of the universe” events, all the while moaning a lot about his disdain for them.

He mingles with millionaires under “duress” because he’s so very authentic.

A member of the gilded, conservative elite by any other name, our hoedown Hillbilly also loves to name-drop. Non-stop: While Vance forgot to brag directly in the Newsweek piece about having married an Indian-American lady, who “rid him of his hillbilly ways“; he brings her up surreptitiously when he touts his connections among conservative cognoscenti:

“… my friend (and my wife’s former boss) Brett Kavanaugh [of the] Supreme Court..”

For Vance’s second “Open-Sesame” password into polite company, allow me to excerpt from this writer’s “The Immigration Scene.” Written in 2006, it proves that not much has changed. Why vote? GOP can RIP:

Everyone (and his dog) currently concurs that we have no problem with legal immigration, only with the illegal variety. It’s now mandatory to pair an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace of all forms of legal immigration.

So you’re clear: Vance opposes illegal immigration alone, even though its effects on the country are as pernicious as the legal and annual importation of over 1 million immigrants from India, China and the Third World.

All this misplaced compassion—day in and day out, on Fox News, too—is, frankly, nauseating. The job of American policy makers and the auxiliary punditry is not to flaunt their virtue to The World currently on its way to America, but to stick strictly to their mandate—and send them the hell home.


Because of the natural mutation the clever little RNA strand undergoes—it is clear to anyone with a critical mind that the Covid vaccines will go the way of the flu vaccines: An annual affair if one chooses to make it so.

Choice, alas, is quickly becoming a quaint concept in Covid-compliant America.

Vaccine Passports

The possibility of a vaccine passport, a “certification of vaccination that reduces public-health restrictions for their carriers,” has been floated. Unfinessed, it amounts to, “Your Papers, bitte!”

While Fox’s Tucker Carlson did term the idea an Orwellian one—it took civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald, the odd-man-out among the authoritarian Left, to place the concept of a vaccine passport in proper perspective.

The popular TV host (and perhaps the only good thing on Fox News) had asked Greenwald if he felt a vaccine passport “would work to convince more Americans to get vaccinated.”

Judging a policy by its positive outcomes for the collective, rather than by whether it violates individual rights is utilitarianism. It is the rule among politicians and pundits.

“It doesn’t work”: How often have you heard those words used to describe grave rights violations? As if using coercion to decrease “vaccine hesitancy”—is ever a good reason for coercing vaccination! As if employing coercion to decrease “vaccine hesitancy” is ever an appropriate use of State or corporate power!

The Benthamite utilitarian calculus is thus rightly associated with a collectivist, central-planner’s impetus.

The Founding Fathers, conversely, held a Blackstonian view of the law as a bulwark against government abuses. Their take has since been supplanted by the notion of the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the “greater good.”

To his great credit, Sean Hannity did advance a rights-based argument against the vaccine-passport outrage: the individual right to privacy.

It fell, however, to Mr. Greenwald to take note of the three different ways in which the passports constitute a draconian invasion:

“…Number one, coercing citizens to put a substance into their body that they don’t want in their body, a pretty grave invasion of bodily autonomy, one of the most fundamental rights we have. Secondly, gathering a new database that can track people in terms of their health, that can easily be expanded as government programs often do into a whole variety of other uses, and then thirdly, … restricting people’s movement. Freedom of movement is one of the most fundamental rights we have. It’s actually guaranteed in the Constitution. …

Herd immunity will be arrived at eventually, stressed Greenwald. So, “why is it necessary to stigmatize [those choosing not to vaccinate] and create a caste system?”

Enter U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican with a highly-contrived Southern act and overwrought cracks.

The visibly disappointed Mr. Hannity was expecting an erudite, rights-based objection from the senator representing Louisiana. On the matter of vaccine compliance through coercion, Kennedy only dimmed the debate. To the question about vaccine passports, Kennedy answered with a non sequitur:

A vaccine passport would be “terribly unethical,” Kennedy croaked, and not because it would threaten an individual’s dominion over his body, but because, “Everybody does not yet have access to the vaccine.”

Vaccine Hesitancy’: Critical Thinking Marginalized

The “vaccine hesitancy” pejorative is certainly an attempt to berate, bully and marginalize critical thinkers.

For the evolutionary advantage—mutation—of the clever little RNA coil the experts blame under-vaccination caused by global, systemic racism: Not enough sharing by the waning White World. Or, the “vaccine hesitancy” of the population at large.

It is no surprise, then, that not one TV ego in an anchor’s chair has inquired about longitudinal safety studies of the quickly-issued COVID vaccines and the relatively new mRNA technology. (Read “Before COVID Cartel, Scientific Skepticism Of Messenger-RNA Technology Was Voiced, EXPECTED.”)

After all, “The creation of a vaccine involves scientists and medical experts from around the world, and it usually requires 10 to 15 years of research before the vaccine is made available to the general public. [HERE]

However, there aren’t any longitudinal studies! How could there be? Covid vaccines are just too new. More ominously, they were rushed to market under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), not following FDA approval. To compound the unease, the EUA appears to harp a lot on providing “liability immunity” to Covid-vaccine manufacturers.

Reasonable people are all for well-tested vaccines—all the more so when liability is attached to the manufacturers, which is not the case in COVID.

Vaccine Likely To Last Until … Next Mutation

If you doubt my opinion that jabs will become an annual affair, consider the expert opinion of 77 scientists from 28 countries:

The planet could have a year or less before first-generation Covid-19 vaccines are ineffective and modified formulations are needed, according to a survey of epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease specialists. …

…The grim forecast of a year or less comes from two-thirds of respondents, according to the People’s Vaccine Alliance, a coalition of organizations including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and UNAIDS, who carried out the survey … Nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that the time-frame was likely nine months or less.

“New mutations arise every day. Sometimes they find a niche that makes them [fitter] than their predecessors. These lucky variants could transmit more efficiently and potentially evade immune responses to previous strains,” seconded Gregg Gonsalves, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, in a statement.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Anti-Vaxx, Civil Liberties, Coronavirus 
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 & Follow her on