Category Archives: Intellectualism

Knuckle-Dragging, Anti-Semitic, Intimidated Readers Who Simply HATE Mercer

Anti-Semitism, Critique, Ethics, Etiquette, Gender, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism, Old Right

A reply to this knuckle-dragger at the Unz Review’s Comments Section. You can read his bile for yourself:

Thank you for the opportunity to share, once again, a magnificent column, published on the Unz Review and elsewhere.

The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian” addressed, for once and for all, a small, shrinking community’s stunning and consistent displays of intellectual dishonesty, over the years.

In this context, I am reminded of British comedian Alexei Sayle. When asked what he does when he watches a really talented satirist performing, Sayle replied: “I go back stage and tell him he’ll never make it.”

Indeed, the attitude to my work over 20 years has been the best proof of its quality.

If the Comments threads about “ilana mercer,” on the Unz Review, prove anything (other than that anti-Semitism lives), it is that mediocre men (for the most) hate a woman who can out-think them. As a defender of men, this saddens me, but it is, nevertheless, true.

So here is “The Curious Case Of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian,” which the venomous mediocrity commenting here so rudely derided, but failed to link for obvious reasons.

Ron Unz, our wonderful editor, chose the image appended to the column. (The brilliant Mr. Unz is one of the few intellectually honest individuals I know in this biz. He, Jack Kerwick and a handful of others.)

In reply to the kunckle-dragger’s sniveling: I’ll continue to refrain from interacting with his ilk (“fanboys”) on my column’s thread. But this dreadful cur (with apologies to dogs, which I love) further embarrasses himself when he offers up the non sequitur that engaging him is the litmus test for being a “good writer.”

You see what I’m up against? (Comment published here.)

UPDATE III (10/1/017): Reject Collective Guilting By The Bigoted Ta Nehisi Coates

English, History, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Race, Racism

Ta Nehisi Coates is no intellectual; he says ‘aks’ instead of ‘ask’ and is utterly incoherent, putting forth—in a lengthy interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes (who is manifestly bright)—turgid, sweeping, logically flawed argument.

If we must segregate intellectuals, then Thomas Sowell is a thinker, as is Walter E. Williams. But not this man. Alas, Coates’ fortunes are not merit-based. Yes, how does the adulation Coates receives square with his accusations, made into a career calling, of our racism, yours and mine?

Hayes attempted diplomatically, 6:30 minutes in, to refute Coates’ put down of all whites who voted Trump, but Hayes backed down from being intellectually forceful. Besides, Coats was unable to respond to the host. Simply couldn’t.

I’ve not yet READ “The First White President: The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.” However, the thesis seems a little dumb, for a negation of Obama is not necessarily racial, given that such an overwhelming number of whites had voted for 44. A vote for Obama, moreover, on the part of blacks was most certainly racial. But that’s OK.

As to “America’s founding sins,” as Coats calls slavery. I was not party to that, so I reject his collective guilt. We all should.

UPDATE I: On Gab, someone point out that, “African-American vernacular is a legitimate dialect of English, no different than southern or Australian or any other dialect. That doesn’t make it inferior.”

REPLY: This cultivated African-American dialect was, I believe, absent in the 1950s through the 1960s and even the 70s. It’s a racial, not regional, dialect, adopted, it would seem, artificially for political ends.

UPDATE II: DON on Gab: Having not been alive in those decades I can’t personally refute that (ridiculous, I mean come on) claim, but have a listen to this 1956 interview with a Black American and tell me it doesn’t sound quite a bit like blacks today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvEE9zdHpcY

REPLY
: The most educated of blacks once sounded like educated Americans, not like the exotic exhibits you make them out to be. Do yo think people should strive to speak great English, the language of the founders & of the founding docs? Or bastardize the language to pidgin english? Leftists are with you.

UPDATE III (10/1/017):

MTP asks Ta-Nullity Coats, aka Ta Nehisi Coates: “Are you optimistic about the future of your son in the US?” Oracle answers: “I’m optimistic about my son.” Me: “Ta-ta tembel.” (That means stupid in Hebrew.)

Transcript (thanks, MSNBC, for always transcribing): “Meet the Press – October 1, 2017.”

Easy Street For Bernie; For Trump It’s A Horribly Hard Row To Hoe

Democrats, Donald Trump, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Paleolibertarianism, Republicans

The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed must be quite a good read. I’ve caught my husband red-handed with a copy and a big grin on his face (unusual—the grin, I mean—since he works for Microsoft).

And, of course, Jack Kerwick is mining The Donald’s Creative Destruction. Most reviewers seek confirmation of their worldview in a work. If they find an unknown quantity; the ego gets in the way of dealing. Kerwick is unusual in his intellectual curiosity, never afraid to joust with ideas, never threatened by them.

The dangers of being too open about Trump in conservative circles don’t deter him either. (Actually, some conservative websites are proving very competitive in the marketplace of ideas—their young millennial editors adapting to the new political landscape and embracing renegades far quicker than some libertarian sites. Kudos.)

In any case, in his latest TownHall column, Kerwick uses The Trump Revolution to drive home an important point I’ve not heard made before: “Bernie Sanders Is No Donald Trump.” To listen to the moron media, you’d think otherwise.

… For obvious reasons, this libertarian defense of the Trump process—the first of its kind—couldn’t be timelier. There is, however, another reason as to why it’s so critically important to read The Trump Revolution.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Bernie Sanders is not the Democrats’ counterpart to Trump. This is among the many points that Mercer makes in her fine work. Consider the following:

The difference, though, is that Trump has exposed—and defeated—this corruption.

Sanders, in glaring contrast, has acquiesced in it, for he is now urging his supporters—who, by the sounds of it, are much more principled than he—into voting for Hillary Clinton.

Secondly, Sanders hardly accomplished what Trump has accomplished—and what Trump continues to accomplish. Sanders won 22 states in his contest against Clinton. But it was only a two person race, he had been a politician in the Senate for nearly a quarter of a century, had virtually nothing but good press, and his rallies weren’t repeatedly disrupted by violent thugs.

Trump, on the other hand, a business mogul and “reality TV star,” came out of nowhere. Derided and marginalized by “the experts,” this “clown” and “buffoon,” a million-to-one-shot underdog, slayed 16 of the GOP’s best and brightest, including some of its most popular senators and governors. These were the party’s rock stars—and Trump relegated them to the ranks of the Has Beens one after the other. …

Kerwick counts 7 major differences between what the brave-heart Trump has endured—Trump still has a horribly hard row to hoe ahead—as compared to Sanders’s easy street, and ends the column thus:

Bernie Sanders has had nothing like the bumpy road that Trump has had to travel. Ilana Mercer compares the two in her own inimical way: Sanders is “a mouse of a man” compared to the “masculine force at full tilt” that is Trump.