With his decisive victory on Super Tuesday II (March 15), Trump is already winning for America. We’ve won a reprieve. There will be no 13th Republican debate. It was cancelled by the candidate. Megyn Kelly can save her new outfit and mink eyelashes for the next liberal shindig she attends.

Despite the best efforts of Scarlet Letter “E” Republicans and conservatives, Trump has 673 out of the 1237 delegates required, 263 more than runner-up Ted Cruz. The New York Times—it lies a little less than Fox News—has conceded that “Rubio’s exit leaves Trump with an open path to 1,237 delegates.”

Alas, bar the last debate, in Coral Gables, Miami, March 10, the other 11 debates have not showcased the best of Trump.

And it’s not that Trump doesn’t talk like a conservative. Talking like a conservative is meaningless.

The Marco Mattel Doll mouthed near-perfect conservative bulletin points. Pull a string, and Barbie’s beau would disgorge conservative words and phrases from a rotating repertoire. Look the other way, and the Cuban Ken was passing liberal legislation with Chucky Schumer (Dem).

Talking like a conservative doesn’t mean a politician will act like a conservative. Come to think of it, Republican presidents who talk and act conservatively are as elusive as Big Foot. There hasn’t been a sighting in maybe a century. A purist would cite Democrat Grover Cleveland as America’s last conservative president. He preached and practiced the maxim that “the people must support the government, but the government must not support the people.”

True, too, is that conservatives, younger ones, it seems, have adopted much of the Left’s Orwellian, illiberal thinking, thankfully alien to The Donald.

While the Left controls the intellectual means of production—schools (primary, secondary, tertiary), media, foundations, think tanks, publishing prints—the “Respectable Right” is hardly on the outs with the liberal smart set.

Both factions are agreed:

Endless immigration is a net good, as long as it’s legal.

Source of immigration is insignificant, as long as it’s legal. At heart, every Afghani, Iraqi or Somali are just closeted Jeffersonians.

Racism: Whites have come a long way and have a long way to go, ad infinitum. 

Michelle Fields: New Conservatives get as exercised as liberals about pursuing legal remedies for hysteria. In such a national emergency as Fields caused, the advice of Humphrey Bogart, playing Rick Blaine in “Casablanca” (channeled by Woody Allen in “Play It Again Sam”), should be considered: “I never saw a dame yet that didn’t understand a good slap in the mouth …”

Fields, a reporter, claimed she was assaulted by the Republican front-runner’s surrogate. She offered iffy evidence for her allegations. Fields had scrummed Trump. She was too close for comfort to a candidate who’s the target of daily death threats. Solemnly, conservatives took to debating the “assault” endured by Fields and the merits of a legal remedy. The law is an ass. But so are these conservatives. (The Fields matter has since been settled: Megyn Kelly will get Fields a spread in Vogue, Kelly’s alma mater.)

Which brings me to gender: New Conservatives will debate as hotly as any Democrat girl whether something is or isn’t “sexist.” Feminized discourse, conducted in fussy falsettos by men in trendy eye wear, is now as pervasive on the Right—and certainly as “conservative”—as the cause of women in combat.

Political Correctness: Like liberals, New Conservatives form a party of “isms,” not individualism. Diligently do they dissect controversial speech for signs of the dread sexism, racism, ageism. Mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech or inventing Orwellian linguistic mutations. As an example you have Cornell Williams Brooks (radical leftist, head of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and S.E. Cupp (unsharpened pencil, self-styled, “conservative”), both accusing Trump of “otherizing” other people. (Tautology? Circularity? WTF?)

Other defining issues over which New Cons and liberals practically converge: Multiculturalism is America’s strength, but Europe’s weakness.

Islam is peaceful, except for a few bad Abduls.

Crime and race. Very important. Old Rightists would have defended Hillary Clinton’s 1996 statement about predatory youth. By virtue of having no conscience, no empathy, some kids can be called super predators, she reasoned. “We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel.”

The fact that media still ignore America’s perennial race riots and their signature sock-it-to-cracker knockout game; the fact that the press and the pols have rechristened the perps as “teens letting off steam,” “juveniles,” “unruly youths,” “unaccompanied young people”—this does nothing to alter the veracity of the Old Mrs. Clinton’s strident, coherent position on violent offenders.

Not unlike Black Lives Matter, conservatives currently admonish the Old Hillary—you guessed—for her racism.

You get the drift. Conservative talk is not all it’s cut out to be. When it comes to philosophical convictions (the stuff discussed above), most conservatives more closely resemble their beltway liberal friends than Republican Party voters.

From the country’s dismal finances and propagandized population, a sizable segment has concluded that conservative power-brokers and liberal power-brokers are indistinguishable.

The problem with Trump is not that he speaks unconservatively, but that he talks incoherently.

“I’m the only one on this stage who’s hired people, full stop!'” Trump once thundered. Judging from the repetitive phrases and undeveloped ideas Trump repeats, the singularly gifted people Trump promised to hire have yet to materialize.

Hillary Clinton can talk the hind legs off a donkey. Time to hire talent, Mr. Trump, to help shape a cogent message.

In hiring epistolary and policy talent, Mr. Trump should steer clear of all neoconservatives. In Miami, Mr. Trump rattled off a list of army brass he may hire. He mentioned Colonel Jack H. Jacobs, an honorable man who’s not a warmonger (and thus unknown to Fox News viewers).

Luring the only decent Democrat currently in public life to a Trump administration may prove strategic, in scooping up Bernie Sanders’ voters. Being a Democrat generally comes with the presumption of asininity, which is why Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is unusual. She’s an Iraq War veteran, who serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. She’s poised, articulate, beautiful—and she never whinges like Michelle Fields. Tulsi stands firm against gratuitous wars, opposes the deposing of Bashar al-Assad, and despises Debbie Wasserman Schultz, despicable DNC Chair and handmaiden to Hillary.

Experienced hand Ed Rollins is a tough and principled conservative warrior. He ought to be tapped by Trump. Another Old-Right conservative is the ever scrappy, always brilliant populist Patrick J. Buchanan. He’ll be indispensable if Trump is to explain to a sissified generation that Trump Nation will not cower before the Alinskyite activists who’re trying to silence the hitherto Silent Majority and sunder its right to peaceful assembly.

Self-defense is righteous, not violent. Pacifism is for pinkos.

Ann Coulter writes pellucid prose. She and Pat should help The Donald craft the rationale for a moratorium on America’s legal, million-migrant-a-year, immigration policy. Needed is a restoration of pre-1965 thinking to back before Ted Kennedy lied America into multicultural immolation by immigration. Because of Ted, one in five people residing in the U.S. is a foreigner, with next to no English. Because of Ted, Americans are aliens in their own homeland.

The destruction of this country’s social fabric has never bothered liberals. But what of its natural environment? Roy Beck and his NumbersUSA outfit could assist Mr. Trump to make environmentalists aware of the impact of an annual influx of 2-3 million people (counting the illegal intake), on the country’s ecosystems, animate and inanimate.

Donald Trump’s mortal enemies in mainstream politics and media have shifted strategy. In the ramp-up to the Iowa caucuses, February 1, the culprits have been pushing presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio onto a defiant Republican base. The Cartel has taken to discussing Trump as a nightmare from which they’ll soon awaken. Candidate Trump’s energetic, politically pertinent speeches, and near daily rallies—packed to the rafters with supporters—are covered by media only to condemn this or the other colorful altercation. Ted Cruz, we’re being lectured, is poised to topple Trump in Iowa.

But what do you know? On the eve of January 12, as if in recoil to the concentrated toxicity of Barack Obama’s last State of Disunion address, featuring the divisive Nikki Haley in the GOP’s corner, Trump punched through the lattice of lies. The media-political-complex was caught trousers down again. National polls have Trump at 36 percent, Reuters at 39 percent. A CBS/NYT poll placed him 17 points ahead of Ted Cruz, his closest rival. In Iowa, Trump leads Cruz 28 to 26 percent.

The central conceit that currently defines media’s self-serving surmises is that the Trump Revolution is confined to the Right and is thus self-limiting.

While the Right is always more courageous in bucking sclerotic authority, the Trump Revolution isn’t exclusively Republican or rightist. I get the distinct impression that this Revolution encompasses Left and Right; Democrats, Republicans and Independents. As The Atlantic magazine cautioned, the polls are underestimating Trump’s support. The slow kids of media have yet to discover the methodological flaws inherent in survey methodology. Subjects are more likely to reply truthfully in anonymous, online surveys than in face-to-face or telephonic questionnaires. As if to confirm that Trumpites are coming out of the closet, a January 13, YouGov.com poll, courtesy of the Washington Examiner, catapulted Mr. Trump to near 50 percent.

Something else has made the special-needs media boil with bile: It’s the role of America’s much-maligned, white majority—65 percent and rapidly declining—in Trump’s meteoric ascent. Trump’s supporters are disenfranchised whites, left, right and center (or in an ideological no-man’s land). The silent majority that dare not speak its name—other than to flagellate for collective sins and perceived privilege—is still the largest demographic bloc in the US.

Working class whites, in particular, have been led down a political cul-de-sac.

Omitted at last year’s November 10, Fox Business, presidential debate were two loudly whispered secrets. The one was Marco Rubio’s expensing the Republican Party for personal spending. The other: Terrifying data that a large segment of white America was … dying. “Mortality among middle-aged Americans with a high-school degree or less increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people between 1999 and 2013,” wrote Olga Khazan of The Atlantic.

Mortality among working-class white Americans has risen by half a percent a year. “That means ‘half a million people are dead who should not be dead.'” Since these whites are dying from “suicide, alcohol and drug poisonings, and alcohol-related liver disease,” Khazan concluded sadly that, “Middle-aged white Americans are dying of despair.” Otherwise, nobody has probed deeper than to advance reductive economic and educational causes.

My sense is that, “while Americans in their 40s and 50s don’t have enough money saved for retirement,” there’s more afoot than money. Most of us have come across emaciated, gaunt, poor white men and women in our communities; middle-aged, often younger whites standing on the curb, begging for change. Indeed, we members of the informal, White Lives Matter movement notice that poor whites in America are very badly off. But a political whiteout prohibits the candid discussion of their plight. Unless they’re being dubbed throw-away racists, bigots, or has-beens who can’t let go of white privilege—white, working-class America is invisible. It has been so for decades.

Consider what befell Martin O’Malley, Democrat for president, at the Netroots Nation conference, in Phoenix. “Black lives matter, black lives matter,” activists chanted at O’Malley, who dared to respond with the catchphrase, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” The maniacal reaction to O’Malley’s truism was so vociferous, that soon he and the Democrats were denouncing the notion that all lives mattered, and apologizing to blacks for daring to imply that white lives mattered, too. A weak Bernie Sanders was practically chased off a Seattle stage by two Black Lives Matter women, and has since been silent about poor whites, except to promise proxy wars on Walmart and Wall Street.

Politically, at least, white lives are forfeit.

Bernie is full of humanist bromides. This Democrat candidate’s immigration plank, however, is “humane” to migrants and inhumane to their poor white American hosts. Sanders managed to discuss the plight of working class white America with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, without once mentioning immigration. Or the decimation of the coal industry in West Virginia, courtesy of Obama policies that saw 332 coal mines shuttered. These working-class white men came to D.C. hard hats in hand, to beg for their jobs. Nobody listened until Trump.

Stuff happens, poor whites are told. Quit being racist.

If you’re working-class and white, you’re invisible. You have been for decades. You used to be the backbone of the economy. No more. You’re still the backbone of the US military, more likely to die in the service of The State in far-flung countries. Your love of country is sanctioned provided it is confined to dying in the wars launched by Rome-on-the-Potomac.

You may find belonging only by risking your life abroad in the service of strangers, or opening your home to them, stateside. If you survive the combat-to-coffin career path, your love of community will need to encompass a million immigrants, each and every year, who’ll have the run of your schools, hospitals, libraries, parks and workplace. Destined to fight against subsistence farmers in foreign lands, you find yourself harassed on your homesteaded land, at home, never free from federal aggression.

As a share of America’s adult population, Donald Trump’s invisible, poor white army likely forms less than 48 percent. To them could be added other whites who favor borders and hanker after closely-knit communities and such Burkean peculiarities. I would imagine ranchers Hammond and Bundy are eager to hear from the one candidate who has not called them terrorists.

This, large, mostly white cohort is waiting on the ropes for … Donald Trump.

The following is a conversation with Jack Kerwick, author of “The American Offensive: Dispatches From The Front.” Jack received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University. A lifelong Roman Catholic, his work on philosophy, politics, religion and culture has appeared in various publications. He teaches philosophy at Rowan College at Burlington County in Mount Laurel, NJ.

Ilana Mercer: In “The American Offensive,” you address the demographic drumbeat meant to downgrade and demoralize what is derisively called the “white vote” in this country. Explain, with reference to 2016.

Jack Kerwick: To no slight extent, it is GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s American-friendly position on immigration that accounts for why both Republican and Democrat Establishmentarians alike despise him. For a half-of-a-century, American policy has overwhelmingly favored non-white immigrants from the Third World. I think that the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism”—the doctrine that America was “founded” upon some ahistorical abstraction (an “idea” or “proposition”)—coupled with an ideology of anti-“white racism”—the belief that whites are uniquely “racist”—informs contemporary immigration policy. The objective is to simultaneously neglect and repudiate the country’s Eurocentric, Christocentric history. Trump challenges this narrative. Thus, he is vilified by those who stand to gain from it. 2.

Mercer: No sooner does one immigration give-away fail (the Schubio Gang of Eight), than a new political zombie will resurrect the marvelously intuitive idea of importing masses of migrants from countries in which Christians are being exterminated. On the eve of Christmas, tell us who’s killing whom around the world.

Kerwick: For all of the talk about “Islamophobia,” in reality it is Christians (as well as other religious minorities) in Islamic lands around the globe who are routinely subjected to unimaginably barbaric treatment courtesy of their Islamic oppressors. In as much as this phenomenon of Islamic-on-non-Islamic cruelty transpires throughout Africa and the Middle East, it transcends ethnicity, nationality, and culture. Open Doors (OD) is an organization “dedicated to serving persecuted Christians throughout the world.” OD reports that 40 of the worst 50 countries on Earth for Christians are countries with majority Muslim populations. Still, to listen to the left and (faux) right, with all of their talk of “Islamism” or “extremism,” one could be forgiven for thinking that none of this is happening, that the problem is with something they call “Islamism” or “extremism,” rather than with everyday practitioners of Islam.

Mercer: Slavery was abolished by white Christians; it is still practiced robustly—even religiously regulated—by some Muslims. Tell our readers about this never-discussed reality and the tenets that permit slavery in Islam.

Kerwick: Though, as you mention, white Christians of the 18th century spearheaded a moral revolution that resulted in the abolition of slavery around the world, it is still practiced in parts of the Islamic world. Not being an Islamic scholar, I can only say so much as to why this is the case. Unsurprisingly, the Qur’an not only authorizes, but commands, the practice of slavery. Moreover, Muhammad owned slaves, and—this is crucial—observant Muslims are expected to emulate the example of “The Prophet.” While it’s true that the Bible—the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures—also allow for slavery, there is no analogical relationship between it and the Qur’an on this score. The Bible’s teachings are contextualized within a narrative interpretive framework. The Qur’an, in glaring contrast, has no such framework. The kind of chronological or historical sequencing of events in the Bible is not to be found in the Qur’an.

Mercer: I take it you mean to say that the rough passages in the Hebrew Testament do not apply to anyone any longer, unless, in the words of scholar of Islam Robert Spencer, “you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite.”

Kerwick: Exactly. When God commands the Hebrews to kill “unbelievers,” He always refers to some specific group, in a specific place and at a specific time. In Islam, however, “unbelievers” refers to all non-Muslims, everywhere, forever after.

Mercer: Very many black Americans are adopting Islam. Why is this a powder keg?

Kerwick: That Islam—or at least a racialized version of it—has attracted scores of black Americans, to say nothing of black American criminals, over the decades is no secret. This connection between black Americans and Islam is at once revealing and troubling. It’s revealing in that it suggests that those who have been reviled for noting the impulse for militancy within the Islamic tradition just may have been on to something all along, for it is precisely the perception of militancy that appeals to those blacks who feel alienated from mainstream American culture. After all, it isn’t Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism or some other non-Western faith to which they’re gravitating, but Islam. That the phenomenon of alienated black Americans endorsing a militant ideology is troubling is self-explanatory. Those who are already ripe for violence now have a theological justification for violence.

Mercer: What do you mean by the terms “Racial-Industrial-Complex” and “racially correct suicide”? How can they be combated and averted?

Kerwick: The RIC consists of those who stand to gain from promoting the myth that “racism”—white “racism”—is an omnipresent, omnipotent force. Since the RIC is every bit as entrenched and powerful as any other industry, its countless agents must labor inexhaustibly to create ever-expansive notions of “racism.” Only if these professional “anti-racists” can show that there is a need for their “services” can they justify their existence. “Racially correct suicide” consists in valuing some delusion of “racial justice” over any and all other considerations—including that of improving, or even just maintaining, the quality of life in America. For example, following recent incidents of Islamic mass murder in places like France, American commentators were quick to jump on their high horses and castigate Europeans for allowing the formation of “No Go” zones, high-crime bastions of Islamic immigrants into which even authorities dare not travel. Yet America has its own share of “No Go” zones—even if many of these are bastions of Hispanic immigrants. I refer to America’s barrios. And to judge from the backlash that Donald Trump has faced in the wake of his proposal to suspend Muslim immigration—a proposal that is hot on the heels of the mass killing in San Bernardino—it’s hard not to conclude that his critics would prefer to avoid the charge of “racism” or “Islamophobia” rather than avert harm to Americans. This is “racially correct suicide.” Combatting the RIC is no easy task. The only way that I can think of to fight this juggernaut is to cut through the rhetoric and unmask—continually unmask—this self-serving sham for what it is.

Mercer: Barack Obama as a devotee of “Blackism.” Explain. Why do you think this president is incapable of empathizing with the untold number of white Americans dead by blacks and Muslims?

Kerwick: What I call “Blackism” is an ideology, a recipe for achieving racial “authenticity.” Like any ideology, it is the distillation, the cliff note, of a cultural tradition, the tradition of black Americans. Biological blackness is necessary for authentic “blackness.” It is not, though, sufficient. Blackism is designed for the Barack Obamas of the world, those who are at least partially black biologically but for whom black culture is a foreign language. The ideology is a simple method that, being a method, is comprised of a few principles that need only be affirmed in order to achieve “racial authenticity.” One of these principles is that ultimate reality is comprised of collectivities, primarily racial collectivities. Another principle is that non-whites are perpetually oppressed by whites. It isn’t that Obama or any other Blackist would think to deny that whites (and others) can and have been harmed and killed by blacks and Muslims. It’s only that they must see such violence as stemming from “root causes”—”racism,” a “legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” “the Crusades,” “imperialism,” “poverty,” etc.—that, ultimately, whites should have rectified.

Mercer: Like me, you are still haunted by the “Knoxville Horror”? Why?

Kerwick: This real life story is the stuff of nightmares. In 2007, in Tennessee, a young white couple in their early 20s, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were carjacked, abducted, raped, tortured, and finally murdered by four black men and a black woman. Newsom was blindfolded, sodomized with an instrument, and shot execution-style. His body was then set on fire.According to The Knoxville News Sentinel, “Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus, and mouth. She was not only raped, but savaged with ‘an object’…She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed by the same solution [.]” “She was then ‘hog-tied,’ with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small white trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets.” The medical examiner concluded that “Christian died slowly, suffocating [.]” Far from being the chronic victims of interracial crime, as the Racism-Industrial-Complex would have us think, blacks are much more likely to be the victimizers: In roughly 90 percent of all attacks involving blacks and whites, the former are the perpetrators. Thankfully, your average black-on-white attack doesn’t involve the savagery of the “Knoxville Horror.” Yet the latter is the textbook illustration of the reality of black-on-white racial violence, as well as the randomness and mercilessness that far too many such attacks do involve. Beyond this, the “Knoxville Horror” is the textbook case of the media’s complicity in the evil of black-on-white violence, for just as it routinely refuses to cover the latter, so the national media refused to cover the ghoulishness in Knoxville.

Mercer: In “The American Offensive,” you recount the forgotten, white, race riots of the 1800s. You reach an unexpected conclusion about the founding American people, also a pathologically passive population. What is it?

Kerwick: Black crime in-general, and black racial mob violence specifically, are huge, persistent problems in contemporary American life. Only the most self-delusional and shameless of race propagandists would think to deny this (though even they admit that black criminality is a problem, albeit, to hear them tell it, the result of a larger problem: “white racism”). WND’s Colin Flaherty is one courageous journalist who has meticulously, unapologetically, chronicled this phenomenon. Given current racial realities, then, it may surprise people to hear that most race riots in this country until well into the early decades of the 20th Century involved white perpetrators and black victims. And they were brutal, making the black perpetrated riots of today look like temper tantrums. My point in noting this is not to engage in but another exercise of white guilt-mongering. Rather my point is to remind people that just because whites no longer engage in the type of racial mob violence for which blacks are known today doesn’t mean that history couldn’t repeat itself if circumstances were just right. Since enough violence has a way of provoking more violence, this is something worth bearing in mind.

Mercer: Since you went to press, it has become even clearer that the Grand Old Party that lies about its commitment to liberty must die. What do you suppose Edmund Burke would’ve said about the Republican Party?

Kerwick: Burke is widely regarded as “the patron saint” of modern conservatism. Burke appeals to me for a couple of reasons. First, he exhibits an acute awareness of the messiness of social reality: Burke doesn’t shy away from—he insists upon—the tradition-specificity of social orders. This, I believe, is why you never hear his name invoked by “conservatives” (neoconservatives) championing “American Exceptionalism.” Second, while Burke repudiates the abstract universalism of his opponents (those who would locate society’s origins in an “ideal” or “idea”), he never rejects universality. Rather, he knows that both universality and particularity are indispensable to morality. Yet unlike, say, proponents of “the rights of man” or “American Exceptionalism,” Burke knew that true universality is found within particulars. I can’t imagine that Burke, particularly the Edmund Burke who railed against the French Revolution, would’ve recognized the Republican Party as a conservative party, much less a party committed to preserving liberty. Burke was well aware of the tradition-specific particularities of social orders, and especially those of his own social order. He loathed the metaphysical abstractionism of his enemies among the French Revolutionaries and their apologists. Yet the Republicans’ creed of choice, “American Exceptionalism,” the creed that America is the only society in all of time to be rooted in an abstract proposition, is of a piece with Burke’s enemies’ insistence that societies must be organized around “the rights of man.” I think that Republicans (and their mouthpieces in the so-called “conservative media”) know that Burke would have no affinity for them. This would explain why they never invoke him.

Mercer: How does the Bashar-must-go; Putin-is-Lucifer lunacy comport with your deconstruction of neoconservatism—the creed that animates the foreign policy prescriptions of every single Republican presidential hopeful other than Rand Paul and Donald Trump?

Kerwick: Because of the neocons’ radically ahistorical notion of America as an “exceptional” nation, the only in all time to have been founded upon a “proposition” or “principle” affirming self-evident, universal “rights”—which they in turn translate into “Democracy”—and because principles have no borders, so to speak; neoconservatives have no regard for the particularities and contingencies that define societies. All that counts is that the universal, “rights,” be defended. Yet the only way for this to occur is for the United States government to have virtually unlimited power. That’s right, for all of their talk of “limited government,” neocons ache every bit as badly for a huge, activist government as do leftists of any other stripe. And this, in turn, implies that they must see enemies around the globe—or at least where there is no “Democracy.”

Mercer: À la Frédéric Bastiat, author of “The Law,” you teach: “Laws do not tell citizens what to do … they tell citizens how they must avoid acting regardless of what they choose to do.” How does this classically liberal concept of “The Law” clarify why NOT ONE “conservative” is indeed a conservative in the mold of Russel Kirk or Burke?

Kerwick: Laws have no purpose in the sense that they aren’t devices for achieving predetermined outcomes. Laws qualify, they do not specify, actions. In this crucial respect, they differ in kind from commands, orders, and policies. The great apostles of liberty in the classical conservative and libertarian traditions have always understood this. Neocons and other leftists do not. The proof of this is in the neocons’ obsession with policy, particularly foreign policy, and the incessant chatter about “leadership” in government that their foreign policy prescriptions entail. Leaders have followers, those who the former compel, one way or the other, to do as they are told. In contrast, free men and women are self-directed. This is what the law makes possible. Policies, commands, and orders preclude it.

Not so fast, Rachel Dolezal. The country is not finished with you yet. It merely got distracted. We scampered in other directions: onto the “genocidal” Confederate flag and the depraved-heart murders of Freddy Gray (black) and Kathryn Steinle. More “Black Lives Matter” riots took place. Not one “White Lives Matter” march was held. (And as one wag tweeted, Ms. Steinle didn’t sufficiently resemble Barack Obama’s daughters for him to give a damn.)

Since Dolezal dropped-off the radar, a lot has happened. It’s safe to say, however, that everyone is still barking mad, forever poised to heap scorn on her fake Afro.

Dolezal, if you’re from Deep Space, is the lily white woman who dared to “identify” as a black woman. The “Racial Industrial Complex” (a Jack Kerwick coinage) is populated with frauds, shysters, imposters, phonies, morons; black, white and 50 shades of gray. Ms. Dolezal had been posing as all of these, teaching mambo-jumbo studies at the bush college of Eastern Washington University. Our American Idiocracy confers the respect and the authority of a pedagogue on many like her, allowing them to spread the disease to college kids and beyond.

Why not Rachel?

The Age of the Idiot sees killers exculpated, just because they kill. As the reasoning goes, if an individual has murdered, raped, or is a feckless jailhouse whore—then he or she must have been abused, neglected, racially oppressed (if black or brown); not wealthy enough, mentally ill, lacking in self-esteem. Anything but plain bad, slothful, sociopathic or parasitical. The more aberrant the crime; the more thrill-seeking, vulgar, immoral or wicked the conduct—the more elaborate, fanciful and scientifically baseless the excuse-making.

In fact, around this if B then A, backward, erroneous reasoning, an industry has arisen. It’s called psychiatry. The psychiatric endeavor—voodoo, really—is premised on the medicalization of misconduct. The reason Ms. Dolezal has been denied the benefits of this excuse-making industry is that she has encroached on black supremacy’s turf. This protected turf acts as a medieval guild or a modern trade union. In cahoots with the state, the “Racial-Industrial Complex” protects its members from competition, by limiting entry into the professionally aggrieved class.

To be black, you see, is more than a pigment; it’s an identity, a politics, an entitlement, one-upmanship, a lifetime IOY (I Own You).

Poor Rachel painted her face orange, gave herself a Sideshow Bob hairdo, and adopted the ideology of the eternally oppressed. Big deal. Most of America’s authentic poseurs are phonies who’ve never been oppressed. Unlike most blacks, Dolezal—by the admission of the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Washington-State chapter—had done “quality work” to “elevate the issues of civil rights.”

“I just want to feel beautiful, and this is how I feel beautiful,” the woman said rather plaintively. Yes, Dolezal is the white face of parental and societal displacement. Why am I the only one to find her pitiful, even deserving of pity?

In America, black is beautiful. To be black is to be more righteous, nobler; carry the heaviest historic baggage—heavier than the Holocaust—and be encouraged to perpetually and publicly pick at those suppurating sores.

To be black is to have an unwritten, implicit social contract with wider, whiter society.

To be black it to be born with an IOY; it is to be owed apologies, obsequiousness, education, and automatic exculpation for any wrongdoing.

Why can’t Rachel have some of that? Was not Ms. Dolezal displaced for real in her parents’ affections? Rachel’s story should begin with parents Larry and Ruthanne Dolezal, who adopted four children, “three of whom were African-American while the other was from Haiti.” Does this fashionable adoption not send a message to a vulnerable girl that she and her biological brother are too pale for their pious parents?

Spokesperson for the quasi-black Brady Bunch is Ezra Dolezal. Ezra grew up in the diversity worshiping, evangelical, Dolezal household. He now lectures his estranged sister about her shenanigans in black-face. The Chutzpah!

The once anemic-looking, fair-skinned Rachel was raised with a real sense that she was not black enough for her parents. Why do I say “real”? Because, like Angelina Jolie, Larry and Ruthanne Dolezal kept acquiring kids more colorful than their own. Kids are needy creatures. Parenting is a complex endeavor. However great their reservoirs of love, sense of fair play and goodwill—two parents do not have enough of the good stuff to spread among six kids. Mark my words: Brangelina’s beautiful, biological offspring will also one day display signs of childhood racial abuse.

Lest I be called on the carpet (or the mosaic floor, rather) for deploying the backward reasoning I previously deplored:

I am not here psychologizing Dolezal’s perplexing behavior. No need. By reality’s standards—not those unscientifically set by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–∞/eternity)—Rachel was displaced. Dolezal has thus recreated the primal scene of her childhood by becoming in adulthood—experientially, at least—blacker than her adopted brothers and sisters.

She deserves a break.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Quarterly Review, Praag.org,
The Libertarian Alliance & The Unz Review
July 17, 2015