Tag Archives: David Duke

Coulter’s Berkeley Bluff

Ann Coulter has been undeservedly hailed a valiant heroine for the Battle at Berkeley, yet her perceived defiance of leftist mobs and censoring administrators was not really at all courageous.

In fact, Coulter never expected or intended to give a speech at Berkeley! It was all a clever ruse and publicity stunt. Bravado, not bravery, marked Coulter’s Berkeley bluff.

After successfully portraying herself as a courageous free speech warrior – having gotten exactly what she wanted: publicity and a new image – Coulter did not give what would have been a truly “free” (no honorarium) speech in what she herself insisted was the “safest place on earth” for her.

Before getting into details, let’s recall that Berkeley has justifiably been almost universally condemned (except by some on the far left) for not allowing Coulter to speak. Nevertheless, Coulter is not the courageous heroine she would have you believe her to be.

Coulter’s Last Stand

I gave Ann an Alamo Award in 1997 for her unquestioned courage – at that time – in speaking truth to power, at the risk of losing her livelihood. At Berkeley, Coulter risked nothing whatsoever. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Coulter expected to gain that which she sought: publicity and an image of being a heroic-martyr.

This epic battle of wills pitting liberty lovers against academic censors saturated national news coverage. Coulter’s gambit was actually just a PR stunt from the very beginning. And it worked.

Her #BerkeleyBound mission perfectly suited her purposes. Whether or not she spoke, she won. If she spoke, she was heroic; if not, she was a courageous martyr. Win-win.

The Washington Post reported: “In a classic case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’ conservative provocateur Ann Coulter emerged from last week’s events at the University of California at Berkeley as a free-speech martyr.”

Coulter couldn’t lose. That was the plan from the start. It was all braggadocio and bravado, a marketing ploy explicitly designed to reinvigorate her reputation and career.

Lauded as the courageous conservative facing down Berkley rioters and university censors, the truth is otherwise: Coulter never intended to speak at Berkeley.

“Pranav Jandhyala, who founded [YAF’s] UC Berkeley chapter,” “acknowledged that it was now clear that Coulter’s intention wasn’t to engage in any real dialogue, but to prove her own point.”

Of course, YAF also wanted to use the entire scenario to promote itself and highlight the rampant trampling of the First Amendment on college campuses (and elsewhere).

Coulter’s Glory

Everything Coulter says or does accrues to Coulter’s benefit. That which she seeks most of all is glory. She became addicted to fame and power in late 1997 and she has never recovered from that pathology.

Coulter generated a tremendous amount of positive media coverage with her Berkeley kerfuffle, far more than during her last book tour. She gloried in her glory on The View.

Milking the situation for all it was worth, Coulter told KTVU that she was better than Milo Yiannopoulos: “I’m not even Milo. I mean, for Pete’s sake, I’m a twelve-time New York Times’ bestselling author.” (Actually, she’s only a ten-time bestselling author, as even McInnes admitted at Berkeley.)

Coulter also likened herself to heroic figures in the past: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Winston Churchill!

She boasted to Tucker Carlson: “By the way, I am giving the speech. What are they going to do, arrest me? They can put me in the Birmingham jail.” (King would have rejected both Coulter’s racial paradigm and anti-Christian behavior.)

The host on KTVU asked Coulter the most pertinent question imaginable: “Some people would say, ‘Ann Coulter is all about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to promote Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter wants to come here – and she’s gonna come here on Thursday – and she’s gonna be a rabble-rouser and she’s gonna try to incite people.’”

Usually in situations like this, Coulter reverts to using Jesus as her model of civil disobedience (upturning tables in temple, brood of vipers speech) to justify her own vitriol. On this occasion, she argued, “Winston Churchill was promoting himself with that ‘We shall fight on the beaches’ speech.”

Then she stridently claimed, “The idea that I’m trying to get publicity off of this event could not be further from the truth on the facts.”

Timeline

Here’s the actual timeline of events according to Coulter and her speech sponsors:

BridgeUSA and YAF sponsored Coulter’s speech. She knew – given riots at Milo Yiannopoulos’ event in February – that she wouldn’t be giving her speech. The university and/or rioters would surely shut it down.

Berkeley placed ever-demanding restrictions on Coulter’s speech. She insisted that YAF concede to every single demand. Coulter could not quit. She had to wait – and wait patiently she did (because she knew it was inevitable) – for Berkeley to cancel, making her a martyr. She told Tucker Carlson, “Well, they changed the rules every ten minutes. I kept agreeing to all of their conditions – they were hoping I would cancel.”

In this high-stakes game of chicken, Berkeley flinched. Berkeley caved and cancelled her speech, enabling Coulter to play the heroic victim of institutional censorship and mob rule.

Under intense media and political pressure, Berkeley offered an alternative date, which Coulter refused, keeping the pressure on Berkeley. Her sponsors filed lawsuits.

Coulter demanded her original speaking slot, insisted she would speak, and suggested she would speak in Sproul Plaza, if need be.

Berkeley announced that it could not ensure the safety of the speaker and attendees. Then YAF folded. Coulter wrote, “We were on [the] cusp of victory and YAF backed down, refused to seek a court order or allow the College Republicans to request a court order.  It’s a sad day for free speech.”

Coulter’s sponsors caved. Coulter was incensed. Why? She wanted Berkeley to cave and herself be vindicated as a heroine. Instead, she would have to speak outdoors, something she did not want to do.

In the end, Gavin McInnes, her good friend and latest knight in shining armor, gave Coulter’s extremely-short speech on her behalf in Sproul Plaza. Coulter was there, in Berkeley, but not at that peaceful event. Afterward, she joined McInnes and supporters for drinks at George and Walt’s.

Broken Vow

To KTVU, Coulter vowed: “I was invited to give a speech. I have a contract to give a speech. I’m giving a speech.” To the Hollywood Reporter, Coulter swore, “Yes, it was officially banned, but they can’t stop me. I’m an American. I have constitutional rights.”

Just the night before, Coulter told Sean Hannity: “I do think it is possible that the Berkeley campus will be the safest place on the face of the earth because so many people are flying in to defend me.”

At the airport, Coulter said, “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards! Who has a better idea of what the campus is gonna be like than the person who’s going there as opposed to the moron sitting in Washington?”

So – both the day before and the afternoon of “the speech” – Coulter declared Berkeley “the safest place on earth for me,” yet she assigned her speech to McInnes! She gave him that assignment the day before the speech, which she emailed to him.

Coulter is there, but does not speak herself?

Gavin McInnes tweeted the day before the speech: “The @AnnCoulter event in Berkeley is NOT canceled. I will be speaking tomorrow with @Lauren_Southern @FaithGoldy @BrittPettibone #POYB.”

Two days earlier, Coulter tweeted: “Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” implying she would give her speech in the plaza, if necessary. Coulter told AP, “I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.”

Five days later, Coulter told Lou Dobbs, “I would have preferred to have spoken.”

Coulter regularly advertises upcoming speeches on her website as soon as she has them booked. She never advertised her Berkeley speech on her own website – even though YAF did on theirs – complete with date, time, and location. Why?

She never intended to speak. It was all a charade. She wanted credit for courage without being courageous. She knew Berkeley would give in.

Nothing changed between Milo and Ann and the results were wholly predictable – and expected.

Coulter’s Speech

If Coulter really planned on speaking, then she must have prepared an astonishing speech. Indeed, Coulter boasted to Carlson that it would be “a searingly brilliant speech on immigration.”

McInnes said, “Ann sent me her speech,” and then he read it, breaking in with his own running commentary. Coulter’s actual speech was less than four minutes and contained nothing new, except for her comparison of immigrants to rat feces (contained in the lead paragraph). It contained zero references to Berkeley.

Hardly “searingly brilliant.”

Coulter told Carlson that her speech was about enforcement of existing immigration laws. Her speech – given by McInnes – never addressed that issue.

Earlier that week, Coulter said she would be updating her speech. Pretty good gig, $20,000 for a four-minute speech.

McInnes introduced her speech, saying, “Ann was betrayed. She was censored. They put all the legal onus upon her so that if someone gets hurt tonight, it would have been on her head. Now it’s on my head.”

If it was so dangerous that Coulter couldn’t give her speech, why did she have McInnes risk his life – and the lives of those in the audience – to do so on her behalf?

But what did she say shortly before McInnes gave her speech? “Safest place on earth for me, but these cowards!”

Yet, Coulter wasn’t about to nail her 95 Theses on Berkeley’s wall. She let her friend do it for her, while she took all the credit.

Speech Sponsors

The non-partisan BridgeUSA and conservative Young America’s Foundation co-sponsored Coulter’s speech. [Both YAF and BridgeUSA were non-responsive to my interview requests.]

The founder of BridgeUSA explained why his organization co-sponsored Coulter’s speech – “to facilitate dialogue between political opposites.” Ironically, he wrote: “Free speech isn’t about provocation, violence, publicity stunts, selling books or testing limits” – precisely what Coulter does on a regular basis.

Further, BridgeUSA “refuse[s] to invoke the right to free speech to inflame, attack and generate publicity” – exactly the modus operandi Coulter has embraced for the past two decades.

He added, “instigating controversy for publicity does not fix a broken system,” yet BridgeUSA sponsored a self-proclaimed provocateur and polemicist to do just that. How well would David Duke be received by the Black Panthers?

At CPAC 2002, Coulter posited the notion that she should keep going further and further right to draw the culture and the left toward her. Shortly thereafter, Coulter coined a series of “rules” for talking to a liberal: being as outrageous as you can be to inflame them. No reconciliation there.

Alheli Picazo writes, “People like Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren’t brought to campus to contribute substance – hearing either speak for a few minutes quickly puts lie to claims of their brilliance. They are skilled antagonists who can reliably incite backlash from a perceived enemy.”

It is unclear why Coulter is the best spokesman for YAF on anything, even immigration (the purported topic of the series of speeches spearheaded by BridgeUSA).

YAF has 100 speakers on its roster. Only five speakers are listed for immigration; Coulter is not among them. Were none of the actual “experts” on immigration available?

Moreover, only eight YAF speakers require an honorarium of $20K or more. Surely YAF could have selected a better representative of conservatism for less money.

YAF previously sponsored Milo Yiannopoulos, who isn’t even listed on its roster. Coulter claimed she is not like Yiannopoulos, yet they are both leaders of the Alt-Right and share an Alt-Right worldview. Is YAF in agreement with those views?

Unanswered Questions

One YAF tweet was particularly confusing: “At no time was there ever a space or lecture time confirmed for Ann Coulter to speak.” Yet YAF’s event page listed the location, date, and time as 110 Sprout Hall from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on 4/27/17. What really happened?

Would it be fair to say that YAF chose both Yiannopoulos and Coulter to generate controversy, anticipating a backlash which would then highlight the thuggish behavior on the Left and their threats to the First Amendment?

Coulter’s Courage

Conservative heroine Ann Coulter has proven herself a cowardly fraud. The free speech battle at Berkeley was merely a publicity stunt for this polemicist and provocateur.

As noted above, Coulter exhibited genuine courage in 1996-97. Hence her Alamo Award.

Since then, Coulter has gotten edgier and edgier while simultaneously abandoning her principles and ideals. In doing so, Coulter has actually embraced her fears. Now she is desperately grasping for the glory she once had and which increasingly eludes her.

What she fears most is facing the truth about the person she has become. Moreover, Coulter fears that she is beyond redemption, so why not continue on her downward path. (Ann, My Redeemer Lives, and so does yours!)

Ann Coulter isn’t a voice for freedom or free speech. Ann Coulter is a voice for Ann Coulter.

[#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Advertisements

Got Racism?

Renowned for her racism, Ann Coulter again heralded the racial superiority of the white male over minorities (particularly women).

got-racism

In her column (1/11/17), Coulter asserted (emphasis added), “the 21st-century white American male is the most pacific – and least rock-throwing – Y-chromosomed being ever to walk the Earth..”

In contrast, Coulter contends, “Black women accusing white men of throwing rocks at them are thinking of what they would do.”

Moreover, Coulter declares rock throwing at Occupy Wall Street events was not committed by the “directionless, white (alleged) ‘men’” but “was done by their minority backup.”

During the last presidential cycle, Coulter claimed that she deserved a racism credit because of her good intentions. Her deepest desire is to recreate a WASP America, arguing that true diversity is white. Oh, and the superiority of WASP culture can be traced to its genes.

Coulter has become the high priestess of the Alt-Right movement, yet denies that its worldview and agenda emulate those of David Duke. She even confused the Confederate and American flags.

Coulter’s racist views keep bubbling out in her tweets, columns, and books because she regards herself as genetically superior to other people.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Ann Coulter Can’t Count, Read or Reason

In a stunning twitterstorm, Ann Coulter proved that she cannot count, read, or reason.

ann-coulter-cant-count-read-or-reason

Coulter was outed on January 5th, with a big controversy over her three-character tweet – “14!” – which shed obviously meant to identify the number of days until Trump’s inauguration but which was misconstrued as a white supremacist code word.

Defending herself, an irate Coulter unleashed her fury in a 2 ½-hour Twitter tirade (emphasis added):

6:16 pm – As I have been doing periodically since January 2016, today I tweeted out the number of days left in Obama’s presid… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
6:17 pm – Inasmuch as today is Day 14 on the Obama Countdown Clock, I tweeted “14.” https://t.co/ArR3JMApGV
6:20 pm – Unknown to me, but VERY well known to hysterics, “14” has some mystical significance for the 5 or 6 ppl who believe themselves to be Nazis.
6:21 pm – Being the target of idiotic attacks can be fun! But being called a Nazi – even by ppl who are really really really dumb – isn’t so fun.
6:21 pm – The ringleader, a CUNY prof who specializes in – you’ll never guess! – social activism on the taxpayer’s dime, can’t figure out Twitter.
6:22 pm – This loathsome creature takes taxpayer money in order to waste students’ time and ensure that they are unemployable.
6:23 pm – His students don’t know how to read or write, but a guy too stupid to use Twitter, count or follow the news, is teaching them how to protest
6:246 pm – This charlatan ADVERTISES: I teach students to make life hell for taxpayers, white ppl and workers. (But not learn anything useful.)
6:24 pm – The others work at HuffPo & Mediaite, under the insane delusion that some day it will read to a paying job. (It won’t, Jenna.)
6:26 pm – To sh*t-for-brains, desperate hysterics: If you put your head on the desk & think really, really, really hard, I be… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
7:57 pm – No, 14 days, moron. See “Obama Countdown Clock” which I’ve been using for my countdown tweets since LAST JANUARY.… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
8:49 pm – 14: Angus Johnston’s percentile on the verbal SAT. twitter.com/studentactivis…
8:49 pm – 14: The last age at which girls were nice to Angus Johnston. twitter.com/studentactivis…

Coulter seemed particularly incensed over being called a Nazi, an appellation which actually deserves some consideration.

(It seemed obvious to me that “14!” was part of a countdown and not a secret code word – and that she had simply miscounted – but her critics’ confusion is understandable given Coulter’s prominence in the Alt-Right movement and her ideological affiliation with David Duke.)

Counting

As for counting, well, Coulter needs some lessons.

Her Twitter counteroffensive ignored this self-evident truth:

20 days – 5 days = 15 (not 14) days!

The countdown clock itself read 14 days plus. (It’s always the plus which seems to escape Coulter’s grasp.)

Nevertheless, Coulter has accused Republicans of stupidity, saying, “It’s not even just cowardice on the part of Republicans. It’s abject stupidity. It’s an inability to do math.”

Indeed, her rebuttals merely proved the point of her critics. Coulter’s error could easily be corrected by 1) counting on one’s fingers, 2) accurately reading source material, and 3) reason.

Both literacy and numeracy appear to evade Coulter. She even thinks the Great Depression was a time of unparalleled prosperity for America. Now that’s bad counting.

Reading

Actually reading her source material would have given her the clue. Her justifying tweet contains the answer to her error. Immediately above the countdown clock, the text reads, “we also have the countdown to 12 noon the same day, when inauguration actually occurs.”

countdown-2

In other words, Coulter was using the clock counting down to midnight, not noon (when the inauguration actually takes place). Each countdown is X days plus hours, minutes, and seconds.

In the military, it would be called 14 days and a wake-up, meaning more than 14 days. (A partial day counts as a day.)

Coulter should have used the noon countdown clock to determine the time until Trump’s inauguration (as plainly stated on the clock).

By her own account, for a year Coulter has been counting down to the day of the inauguration, not to the inauguration (and failing to see the difference).

The next day, Coulter – with rapid-fire humorous tweets – attempted to deflect attention from her miscalculation, to no avail (emphasis added):

3:25 pm – 13! (which is not a satanic, Nazi, Klan or reference, Lindsey Ellefson & Angus Johnston, you pathetic morons.)
3:28 pm – 13! Hey @Mediaite! Is it the number of brain cells in Lindsey Ellefson’s head??? https://t.co/une7ya8rUM
3:28 pm – 13! Could it be the jersey number of Russian hockey player Pavel Datsyuk as a secret code to Putin??? Get on this… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
3:30 pm – 13! Is it the average number of times a day Angus Johnston swears at his parents for naming him Angus? https://t.co/sUwm1PW8Ko
3:30 pm – 13! Hey Angus! Could this be a reference to our 13th president, who had SLAVES??? https://t.co/jivwOYJ6mf
3:32 pm – 13! Is it the average number of years Angus Johnston’s students have to live with their parents after they graduat… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
3:34 pm – 13! Hey sleuths! It’s *Friday* the 13th! A cryptic message to Jason to put on his hockey mask fire up the chainsaw… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
3:36 pm – 13! Is it a subtle reference to the number of hours liberals spend lying about me per day??? https://t.co/2P7e7Xq1OU
3:37 pm – 13! Is it a DOG WHISTLE referencing the average number of fake news stories by HuffPo per day? https://t.co/qHzKNmgmNv
3:38 pm – 13! An unlucky number … unless it’s the number of days Obama has left in office!!!!! https://t.co/O8dKPE8DdZ

Reasoning

Humor notwithstanding, Coulter replicated her mistake from the previous day.

Berating her critics for their paucity of brain cells, Coulter showed herself immune from reason.

countdown-1

Let’s read the countdown clock she used.

It reads, “Time until Obama leaves office.”

It gives the days, hours, minutes, and seconds.

Let’s reason: Once the 13 days have expired, there remains over eight hours “until Obama leaves office.”

In other words, more than 13 days (i.e., 13 days plus part of a 14th day). It’s not in 13 days, it’s on the 14th day.

So, Coulter’s critics – and everyone else who knows how to count on their fingers – knows it’s 14 days until Trump becomes president.

(This isn’t like a birthday, which is traditionally marked at midnight, but a legal ceremony with a specific time of implementation.)

Coulter’s critics were rash – but understandably so – to impart a nefarious meaning to Coulter’s “14!” tweet. For her part, Coulter has again demonstrated that she doesn’t handle criticism very well, is quick to justify herself, and loathe to admit error.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Media Advisory: New book released – #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia

#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia explains what Donald Trump’s “New American Revolution” portends and why we should oppose it.

nevertrump

The Alt-Right is a central feature of the Trump movement. The Alt-Right worldview permeates every aspect of the Trump phenomenon, its self-identity, its view of America and the world, and its view of individuals and liberty itself.

Ann Coulter is the high priestess of the Alt-Right and Trump’s consigliere, propagandist, muse, and wannabee consort. (Coulter offers herself up as the model, the quintessential American.)

The Alt-Right has transformed patriotism into an isolationistic nationalism which eschews both foreigners (outside) and immigrants (inside) alike. It redefines the very terms “American” and “citizenship.”

The Alt-Right is the mirror image of leftist social justice warriors.

The New Trump Party also borrows much from the antebellum Know-Nothing Party: anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, nativist, and isolationist.

#NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia is available at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M9JQU7Q/.

For removal from future distribution, please reply to this email.

###

Ann Coulter = David Duke — In Denial

In an Esquire profile, David Duke, notorious former Klansman and white supremacist, claimed a strong affinity with Ann Coulter, high priestess of the Alt-Right.

ann-coulter-david-duke-in-denial

David Duke said, “Ann Coulter is so savaged by the media, I guess she’s gotta feel like, ‘Well, at least I’m not David Duke!’ But if you really look at what she says, if you read her books, it’s very close to what I’ve been saying.”

Why did Duke call out Coulter? He responded to Coulter’s claim on Real Time (1014/16): “I don’t even think David Duke exists. He appears every four years so that you can use him as a boogeyman.”

Coulter also facetiously claimed, “For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double.”

On the very day Duke expressed being ideologically simpatico with Coulter, she again denied Duke’s very existence, writing, “No one even knows if Duke actually exists or is just a phantom produced by the media every four years to smear Republicans.”

There are actually two David Dukes. One was a former Grand Wizard and the other dresses in a miniskirt as she ministers to the Alt-Right.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]

Coulter’s Colors of the Rainbow

In a fascinating interview with Scottie Nell Hughes, Coulter revealed her racial confusion and racist inclinations. She said, “No normal person thinks of themself as Hispanic. They think of themselves as ‘I’m Mexican,’ ‘I’m Cuban,’ ‘I’m Ecuadorian.’ [Hispanic] is an invention of the political parties.”

coulters-colors-of-the-rainbow

Really? Coulter continued:

“Trump transcended this. He’s appealing to ‘Hispanics’ [Coulter placed air quotes around Hispanics], blacks, Asians, Americans, white Americans.”

If Hispanics don’t think of themselves as Hispanic but of various nationalities, then why is that not true of blacks? Aren’t they Kenyan, or Jamaican, or Haitian, or Nigerian, or …. [fill in the blank]? Yet, Coulter doesn’t deny that they are black. (In fact, she also claims that America still owes blacks for slavery, even those who emigrated after emancipation.) So, why deny that Hispanics are “Hispanic?”

What about whites? Are whites, as Coulter implies, homogenous? Are there no cultural and linguistic differences between Swedes, Polacks, Britons, French, and Italians? Yet, when it suits her, Coulter emphasizes those differences, always in favor of English WASP culture. Moreover, Coulter actively courts “white” votes to the exclusion of non-white ones.

Does anyone say “I’m Asian?” No. They refer to their national origins, whether China, Korea, Japan, Nepal, or elsewhere. Would Coulter suggest “Asia” “is an invention of the political parties?” Hardly.

It’s funny. When Coulter listed peoples to whom Trump appeals, she said: “Hispanics, blacks, Asians, Americans, white Americans.” When she said “Americans,” she quickly corrected herself and qualified it as “white Americans,” almost as if she doesn’t regard non-whites as Americans, or, perhaps more accurately, to emphasize the group of Americans she values most: whites.

Whites are crucial for Coulter’s restoration of a WASP (i.e., white) America.

Apparently, “Hispanics” (don’t forget those air quotes), blacks, Asians and other non-whites aren’t real Americans to Coulter.

David Duke Denial?

Ann Coulter, the queen of the alt-Right, attacked the media for focusing on David Duke and the alt-Right.

david-duke-denial

She wrote: “For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double.”

Has Coulter forgotten that David Duke raved over her book, Adios, America! Duke heavily promoted her book for his legion of fans. Moreover, Trump very prominently endorsed Donald Trump for president.

davidduke

Body double? Cute, Ann.

[A new book, #NeverTrump: Coulter’s Alt-Right Utopia, examines the origins, worldview, and impact of the Alt-Right movement. It is now available on Amazon at http://amzn.to/2fzA9Mr.]