Category Archives: Conservatism

Richard Spencer Forces The Truth About Demographics Out Of Me

Conservatism, Democrats, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Politics, Republicans

Richard Spencer forced the Meta out of me on demographics. He was probably right to do it. In a blog post,Candace Owens In Immigration Wonderland, ‘Discovers’ Demography,” I had marveled at how Candace has discovered a plot to change the country’s demographics and thanked Tucker for helping her get the word out.

Hmm. I wonder what Peter Brimelow, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter or myself have been writing about for decades? Next, Candace will discover that, “legal immigration is the real catastrophe.” (from “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” 2003.)

Tweeted Richard:

Ilana, how long are you guys going to complain about “demographics”? If your goal is to sustain a 1950s White America, that is clearly impossible at this point. Secondly, Hispanic waves are clearly not decisive in creating cultural change; they might even be retardant. …

And:

You guys have this issue, to which you have no real solution, but which you can complain about *endlessly*.

Mercer:

“You guys”? U lump my thinking b/c you haven’t read it w/care. Had u, you’d know I no longer write about immigration for a reason, to quote 11/020: “U might have to accept the Tipping Point has arrived.” I focus on anti-politics & ethnocide awareness, notice? Think before u lump, sir.

Richard:

Fair enough. Just reacting to the people you mentioned. Ann Coulter discovered demographics precisely at the point that nothing could be done. She’ll have a lot to whine about in upcoming columns.

Mercer:

Republicans keep the dance going; like liars that they are, the players move into opposition place to pretend ‘Democrats did it; they ended America.’ Maybe it’s good you made me state where I am. But it’s obvious from my focus. The Candace blog post was a historic comment.

 I try not to broadcast the Mercer meta, because of dumb clones, but careful readers will have noticed a focus on dismantling [conservative] Orwellian speak, in service of combating enthnocide a la South Africa. I’m in anti-politics, GOP/RIP mode, highlighting duopoly politics as Big LIE.

As for Candace Owens, let me repeat: “A media conservative has no intellectual history or coherent philosophy; he or she is but a grab-bag of talking points. For the media conservative, the history of ideas begins when he or she gets their TV gig. All is tabula rasa before that. The GOP circus goes on—on TV.”

Candace Owens In Immigration Wonderland, ‘Discovers’ Demography

Africa, Conservatism, Critique, IMMIGRATION, Media, Republicans

Candace Owens says we should welcome more black immigrants from Africa, because they constitute only 2 percent of the United States’ immigration intake.

At the same time, she complains about a plan she has documented—and is happy Tucker Carlson is finally discussing—to change the demographics of the USA.

Hmm. I wonder what Peter Brimelow, Michelle Malkin, Steve Sailer, Ann Coulter or myself have been writing about for decades?

I recall, when first I wrote about immigration, in 2002, I had read and referenced Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow,  because I considered that without it—one could not write about immigration with any credibility. I still think this.

Next, Candace will discover that, “legal immigration is the real catastrophe.” (from “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” 2003.)

A media conservative has no intellectual history or coherent philosophy; he or she is but a grab-bag of talking points. The GOP circus goes on—on TV.

For the media conservative, the history of ideas begins when he or she gets their TV gig. All is tabula rasa before that.

Ben Domenech: Selling Soothing, Snake-Oil Conservatism On FOX News Primetime

Argument, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Free Speech, Israel, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Technology, THE ELITES

With Ben Domenech’s somnambulist, soothing, well-articulated, Establishment conservatism, Fox News is lulling viewers back into a meaningless, middle-of-the-road, political impotence.

And a load of claptrap.

Last night, June 5, Big Tech censorship was obviously panned vigorously for speech oppression, but an Israeli actress ensconced in Hollywood got to make allusions on air to her preference for censoring anti-Israel comments, when those are uttered by people lacking “expertise” on Israel. More philosophical bunkum, but certainly in line with neoconservatism’s Israel First position.

Americans—certainly this writer, who is pro-Israel—support unfettered speech! That used to be the American position—which includes the rights of people to express anti-Israel positions no matter the state of their expertise, which the silly sabra seemed to be demanding as a condition for speech on Israel.

Discussed too was the incitement to murder whites, expressed by a deviant at Yale, Aruna Khilanani. This, according to panelist Liz Wheeler, was best understood not as murderous anti-whitism needing to be aggressively combated, but with the aid of her unscholarly, unlearned allusions to the Frankfurt School… Wheeler’s ignorant theoretical escapism will help your life as much as voting Republican did.

In this context, Lynette Ackermann asked me, “Ilana, Have you any suggestions for a new paradigm for the 21st century?”

Reply: “What I am strongly suggesting in my commentaries about anti-whiteness is… keep it real. When it comes to anti-whiteness—a very serious, grave reality—you need a scrappy strategy, not a paradigm.” No theoretical escapism!

But the worst slot belonged to Douglas Murray, much revered for his accent and inchoate, wishy-washy positions. The segment dealt with Facebook’s verdict to ban Donald Trump for another two years. (Frankly, President Trump had not stood up for voters like myself, whose websites are banned for life, presumably, with no ability to appeal. And the former president’s response to Facebook’s Nick Clegg was, to put it charitably, puzzling: “Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. It will be all business!”)

Likewise, for his part, Domenech evinced great concern over Facebook curtailing the power of politicians; not so much about the power of the people curtained.

But Murray is really something. The sassy, salient line he repeated again and again on the live broadcast—it doesn’t appear in the Fox News online video—was this: The Big Tech meddlers are “not fit for purpose“:

“… it is high time we make it clear that we cannot and will not live under the rules of Big Tech. They are not up to the job that they have taken upon their shoulders to perform.”

The premise of that statement is that, while Deep Tech is not up for the job;  someone is up for the job of censor and speech adjudicator. On display here is “Bic Con” deception, Tory deception, too. These establishment conservatives do not trumpet absolute free speech: Richard Spencer’s, Nick Fuentes’, Tommy Robinson’s, Michelle Malkin’s, mine. They seldom come to the defense of dissidents. For this reason, Murray is wont to make a stupid (cleverly worded) statement:

“We are dealing with kids here,” he said, adding “these companies got everything about the last year wildly wrong” and citing Big Tech’s censorship of the Wuhan lab leak theory.

Crystal clear premise once again of the Murray fatuity is this: If Deep Tech were more mature and accurate in their prediction (Murray awoke pretty late in life to most truths, too)—they might be in a position to adjudicate which speech if fit for consumption, which not.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong, but well-spoken.

UPDATED II (6/11): WATCH: How to Distinguish Anti-White Critical Race Theory From Marxism

Argument, Communism, Conservatism, Race, Racism

Lynette Ackermann asks: “Ilana, Have you any suggestions for a new paradigm for the 21st century?”

Reply: “What I am strongly suggesting in these commentaries about anti-whiteness is… keep it real. When it comes to anti-whiteness—a very serious, grave reality—you need a strategy, not a paradigm.” No theoretical escapism!

Videos on “How to Distinguish Anti-White Critical Race Theory From Marxism” are on CNSNews.com, The Unz Review and WND.COM.

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. That means you, if you are white!

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….

How to Distinguish Anti-White Critical Race Theory From Marxism” is on CNSNews.com, The Unz Review and WND.COM.

UPDATE I (6/7):

UPDATE II (6/11):

Finally, someone is listening to Ilana Mercer: CRT is antiwhite, period!