Author Archives: ilana mercer

How Democracy Made Us Dumb


By ilana mercer

From the riffs of outrage coming from the Democrats and their demos over “our democracy” betrayed, infiltrated even destroyed—you’d never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought, and that those familiar with it would be tempted to say “good riddance.”

Voicing opposition to democracy is just not done in politically polite circles, conservative and liberal alike.

For this reason, the Mises Institute’s Circle in Seattle, an annual gathering, represented a break from the pack.

The Mises Institute is the foremost think tank working to advance free-market economics from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics. It is devoted to peace, prosperity, and private property, implicit in which is the demotion of raw democracy, the state, and its welfare-warfare machine.

This year, amid presentations that explained “Why American Democracy Fails,” it fell to me to speak to “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.” (Oh yes! Reality on the ground was not candy-coated.)

Some of the wide-ranging observations I made about the dumbing down inherent in democracy were drawn from the Founding Fathers and the ancients.

A tenet of the American democracy is to deify youth and diminish adults. To counter that, I’ll start with the ancients.

The Athenian philosophers disdained democracy. Deeply so. They held that democracy “distrusts ability and has a reverence for numbers over knowledge.” (Will Durant, “The Story of Philosophy,” New York, New York, 1961, p. 10.)

Certainly, among the ancients who mattered, there was a keen contempt for “a mob-led, passion-ridden democracy.” The complaint among Athenians who occupied themselves with thinking and debating was that “there would be chaos where there is no thought,” and that “it was a base superstition that numbers give wisdom. On the contrary, it is universally seen that men in crowds are more foolish, violent and cruel than men separate and alone.” (p. 11)

Underground already then, because so subversive—anti-democratic thinking was the aristocratic gospel in Athens. Socrates (born in 470 B.C.) was the intellectual leader against democracy and for the even-then hated aristocratic philosophy. Socrates’ acolytes, young and brilliant, questioned the “specious replacement of the old virtues by unsocial intelligence.”

The proof of the foolish, violent and cruel nature of the crowds is that the crowds, not the judges, insisted on making Socrates the first martyr of philosophy. He drank the poison at the behest of the people.

No wonder Plato, Socrates’ most gifted student, harbored such scorn for democracy and hatred for the mob—so extreme that it led this controversial genius to resolve that democracy must be destroyed, to be replaced by his planned society; “the rule of the wisest and the best, who would have to be discovered and enabled.”

Plato’s “Republic,” seconds the Economist, “is haunted by the fear that democracies eventually degenerate into tyrannies” (June 22, 2019). To libertarians, Plato of the planned society was wrong. However, the fear reverberating throughout his “Republic” is righteous.

A democratic utopia of freedom cannot come about because of the nature of man, thought Plato. Men “soon tire of what they have, pine for what they have not, and seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 19.)

Plato agreed, that “the diversity of democracy’s characters … make it look very attractive.” However, “these citizens are so consumed by pleasure-seeking that they beggar the economy”; so hostile to authority that they ignore the advice of sages, and so solipsistic and libertine that they lose any common purpose.

Most agreeable to libertarian thinking was Aristotle, who ventured that democracy is based on a false assumption of equality. It arises out of the notion that “those who are equal in one respect (under the law) are equal in all respects. Because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” (P. 70)

Tocqueville, too, was not sold on the new American democracy. He conducted “his extensive investigation into American life, and was prepared to pronounce with authority [about what he termed the new democracy].” (Russell Kirk, “The Conservative Mind,” Washington D.C., 1985, 205-224)

The American elite, Tocqueville observed, does not form an aristocracy that cherishes individuality, but a bureaucratic elite which exacts rigid conformity, a monotonous equality, shared by the managers of society.” (p. 218) Remarking on “the standardization of character in America,” Tocqueville described it as “a sort of family likeness” that makes for monotony. (p. 210)

What menaces democratic society … [is] a tyranny of mediocrity, a standardization of mind and spirit and condition …  The mass of people will not rest until the state is reorganized to furnish them with material gratification.”

“Pure democracy makes libertarian democracy impossible,” posited Tocqueville. (p. 213) “In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within certain barriers, an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them … his political career is then over, since he has offended the only authority able to defend it. … Before making public his opinions, he thought he had sympathizers, now it seems to him he has none any more, since he revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly, and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort, which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.” (p. 218)

Consider that Tocqueville was writing at a time so much smarter than our own.

Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.

This column, now in its 20th year, can attest that writing in the Age of the Idiot is about striking the right balance of banality and mediocrity, both in style and thought, which invariably entails echoing one of two party lines and positions, poorly.

Let us not forget Friendrich Nietzsche (admired by H. L. Mencken, whose genius would have remained unrecognized had he been plying his craft in 2019).

Born 39 years after Tocqueville, Nietzsche saw nothing good in democracy. “It means the worship of mediocrity, and the hatred of excellence. … What is hated by the people, as a wolf by the dogs, is the free spirit, the enemy of all fetters, the not-adorer, the man who is not a regular party-member. … How can a nation become great when its greatest men lie unused, discouraged, perhaps unknown … Such a society loses character; imitation is horizontal instead of vertical—not the superior man but the majority man becomes the ideal and the model; everybody comes to resemble everybody else; even the sexes approximate—the men become women and the women become men.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 324.)

For their part, America’s founders had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic.

In his magisterial “Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” constitutional scholar James McClellan noted that universal suffrage and mass democracy were alien to the Founders: “They believed that a democracy would tend toward mediocrity and tyranny of the majority.” Writing about the first state constitutions (penned between 1776-1783), McClellan attests that, “A complete democracy on a wide scale was widely regarded throughout the colonies as a threat to law and order.”

Why, Pennsylvania became the laughingstock in the colonies when it “abolished all property qualifications for voting and holding office. This confirmed the suspicions of many colonial leaders that an unrestrained democracy could drive good men out of public office and turn the affairs of state over to pettifoggers, bunglers, and demagogues.” A conga-line of those you witnessed at the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate, the other day.

“The Founders wanted representation of brains, not bodies,” observed McClellan, noting that, at least “for a number of years, the best minds in the country dominated American politics.” No more.

**

Watch ilana mercer’s entire address, “How Democracy Made Us Dumb,” on YouTube.

Advertisements

Dem’s Dystopia: End Anglo-America, Welcome the World, Evict the Unborn


By ilana mercer

How does one distill the worldview of the Democrats vying for their party’s presidential nomination?

Outrace each other on racial righteousness?

End Anglo-America? Welcome The World? Evict the unborn? Speak Spanish; English is your second language?

All the above—and worse.

On display, again, during the second in a series of Democratic primary debates were the racial (read anti-white) dynamics.

Genial and meek uncle Joe Biden bowed and scraped to his multicultural rivals, whereupon they set upon him like a flash mob; a multicultural mugging, Pat Buchanan called it.

Race—more accurately, anti-white politics—is the Democrats’ central cri de coeur. They have no other passion other than hounding and excommunicating others for what are thought crimes—for thinking, speaking or tweeting in politically unpleasing ways.

But practicing ageism gives these social-justice warriors no pause. There’s no social justice for the aged in Democratic politics.

Leading the purge of the party’s elders was Eric Swalwell, a nasty bit of work who had mercifully dropped out after the first round of debates, late in June. At the time, Swalwell had called  on older Democrats to “pass the torch.” “[I]t’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.”

“If we are going to solve the issue, pass the torch. If we are going to solve climate chaos, pass the torch. If we want to end gun violence and solve student debt, pass the torch.”

Swalwell obviously imagined such ugly sloganeering was a winning strategy. And who can blame him? However, other than a writer for the cause at The Atlantic, the representative from northern California galvanized nobody with his call to expunge Democrats in their dotage. (“The Millennial Left Is Tired of Waiting,” intoned said writer. That magazine is packed with verbally incontinent Millennials, all poised to torch deviationists.)

Mr. Nasty is gone, and Democratic voters are, so far, sticking with the safe bet: Looks like the party that habitually blackens white America is hoping the next U.S. president is an old, white American.

Are these hypocrites suggesting that there’s something confidence-inspiring about this much-maligned cohort?

The women on the stage, the lovely Tulsi Gabbard and the well-mannered Marianne Williamson excepted, alternated between the roles of shrew, scold and bully (of old, white men, naturally).

Following Kamala Harris’ lead, the insufferable Kirsten Gillibrand mooed  about an old Biden op-ed in which he had warned that women entering the workforce would imperil the family. Who will write the chapter about women like Gillibrand who enter politics and imperil the nation?

For comedic relief, consider the choreography that must have gone into positioning the oddball candidates, striding onto the Fox Theater stage in Detroit. One could hardly place mini-man Pete Buttigieg—boy, has the military lowered its physical requirements—alongside candidates who’d stare down at tiny Pete from vertiginous heights.

Height, however, did nothing to increase a tall Democrat’s stature. The group’s pathological, self-immolating progressivism was the great leveler, although an unspoken pack hierarchy was certainly apparent among the candidates. Naturally, that pecking order was racial.

The culturally more exotic candidates—Harris, Booker and Castro—were the undeclared top dogs. The commonplace, palefaced Democrats were the political underdogs, with less street cred.

The first round of Democratic debates, aforementioned, saw the Spanish supremacists quickly separate themselves from the English-speaking plodders.

Indeed, disunity and discord were everywhere apparent in these Democratic duels. Separation is the operative word in Rome and beyond, in the provinces. It’s Spanish vs. English; melody vs. maniacal ululation. I am referring here to the dissonant renditions of Christian hymns and patriotic songs.

If only symbolically, even the music spoke to the nation’s disunity. “America the Beautiful” and “Amazing Grace,” first, by Detroit’s Perfecting Church Choir, then, by Flint City Wide Choir, were jarring, atonal productions. One expects a melodic, musical rendition of a much-loved, shared oeuvre. Instead, one got maniacal ululations. 

And so it went. The over-crowded Democratic field rabbited on in unison about Trump’s racism and their own grand plans for state-run everything.

Most significant were the contradictions. Bernie Sanders lamented that 500,000 Americans live on the streets, but saw no inconsistencies in inviting the world’s poor to settle the same streets.

The same “quality” of contradiction came from Kamala Harris. In response to Tulsi Gabbard’s evisceration of her record as a fair prosecutor, Harris later told an adoring press gaggle that “people want public safety.” She was not going to shy away from her record in providing it.

How does “public safety” jibe with Harris’s open-borders promiscuity? (Oh, I forgot. Anyone marching 1000 miles to jump America’s southern border is, by definition, not a criminal, “reasoned” Bernie, below.)

Prosecuting illegal aliens is “a crisis of cruelty” alliterated Buttigieg. Decriminalize border crossing, bayed the rest. Illegal crossing should be a civil-law infraction, never a criminal violation.

Immigrants are America, crowed Amy Klobuchar. Anyone who walks 1000 miles to the U.S. is no criminal, seconded the irrational Mr. Sanders.

How can such an insane bunch of sell-outs talk about a “sane immigration policy”?

In a field distinguished by its ruthlessly radical mindset, one can understand how E-Warren—let’s jazz up the senator from Massachusetts a bit—has been described by TV’s activist anchors as strong and powerful.

Compared to the other candidates and the sob stories they foisted on viewers—Michael Bennet tethered his family’s history to the Holocaust; Gillibrand squealed about her daughter’s EpiPen—E-Warren is The Man.

When E-Warren says to expand immigration, we listen. Especially when she bolsters her words with that signature muscular move of hers: make the hair flaps covering her ear tips quiver.

Yes, E-Warren is The Man among the Democratic conga-line of cretins.

One thing is clear: While constituents have ranked immigration as a top issue for 2020, the Dems’ take on the issue was to speak to the need to pry the borders ever wider. Clearly, we have a sovereignty problem, not a humanitarian problem. We Americans have no representation.

In line with their political loyalties, every single one of the candidates practically sang from the one hymn sheet, a lot of it in Spanish: “We have to do more for families looking for a better life.” And they were not speaking of American families.

Duly, Julián Castro had memorized the name of a child and father who drowned attempting to break into the USA illegally and recklessly.

If “drowning exposes the risks of illegal crossing” is a true statement—and it indubitably is—then every American murdered by an immigrant exposes the risks of mass immigration.

But of the sons and daughters of Angel Moms, Castro had no memory. If Mayor Castro can’t spare a thought for the many young Americans dead by illegal aliens, you ask, how about a word of sympathy for an American dog?

Spare a thought, will you, Mr. Castro, for poor little Estrella? She was a helpless mutt, raped to death by a constituent of yours, an illegal alien by the name of Fidel Lopez.

What viewers and voters got from Castro amounted to, Drain and dry that Rio Grande! Level the land to ease the passage of Central America into North America. Let them come in their millions, no, in their billions. Decriminalize crossings. Disband ICE. Deify DACA. Deny no asylum claim. Table a marshal plan for Central America. Immigrants are Americans, only better and more inspiring. “We want more refugees”—so said the nogoodnik who runs my state, Washington.

John Hickenlooper chimed in by calling ICE agents kidnappers and child abusers. An Hispanic anchor, during the first round of debates, even bad-mouthed Obama’s proud record of 3 million deportations. (“Migrant kids who do not have proper claims will be repatriated,” roared Barack Obama, back in the good old days.)

All the above only served to cement the old white guy’s lead in the polls. Ordinary Democrats prefer the doddering Joe Biden to demonic females and their housetrained hombres. Certainly, only media is charmed by Ms. Harris, who is an insufferable scold (with an annoying nasal twang for a voice).

When all is said and done, not even Democrats wish to be governed by the likes of Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris, who rage as though permanently on the rag.

However this circus ends, let’s hope that regular Democrats continue to be put off by the rude displays coming from the demented, intersectional, social-injustice succubae overcrowding the democratic primaries.

**

 

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. New on YouTube: “America Belongs To The World; It’s Everybody’s Home.

 

Bernie’s Degeneracy: What Would George Canning Say?


©By ilana mercer

BERNIE SANDERS, the senator from Vermont, said he thinks “everyone should have the right to vote—even the Boston Marathon bomber … even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Bernie is right about a “slippery slope.” But the befuddled Bernie is worried about the wrong slope.

Denying the vote to some and conferring it on others is not a “slippery slope.” It’s exercising good judgment.

Insisting that the vote in America belongs to everyone, irrespective: now that’s a slippery slope, down which the slide is well underway.

As it stands, there are almost no moral or ethical obligations attached to citizenship in our near-unfettered Democracy.

Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.

Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates for the vote—and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American citizens.

The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a despot.

But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers, including America’s constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society would thus degenerate.

What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country—unconditional voting—is but an extension of “mass franchise,” which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.

Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk’s magnificent exegesis, “The Conservative Mind,” thought that “the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their particular corporations.”

By “corporations,” Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary, community-killing multinationals.

“Corporations,” in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in “the spirit of cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions, and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state.”

To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these “little platoons” (Edmund Burke’s iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for political participation.

“If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right,” cautioned Canning, “citizens become mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy,” which, in reality is “the enthronement of demagoguery and mediocrity.”  (“The Conservative Mind,” p. 131.)

That’s us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no longer valued.

This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.

The author of “Democracy and Liberty” (1896) predicted that “the continual degradation of the suffrage” through “mass franchise” would end in “a new despotism.”

And so it has.

Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by Lecky, attacked “institution after institution,” harbored “systematic hostility” toward “owners of landed property” and private property and insisted that “representative institutions” and the franchise be extended to all irrespective of “circumstance and character.”

Then as now, the socialist radical’s “last idea in constitutional policy” is to destroy some institutions or to injure some class.” (Ibid, p. 335.)

And so it is with the radical Mr. Sanders, who holds—quite correctly, if we consider democracy’s historic trajectory as presaged by the likes of Lecky and Canning—that a democracy must be perpetually “expanded,” and that “every single person does have the right to vote,” irrespective of “circumstance and character.”

The vote, of course, is an earned political privilege, not a God-given natural right, as Bernie the atheist describes it.

The granting of political rights should always be circumscribed and circumspect; it ought to be predicated on the fulfillment of certain responsibilities and the embodiment of basic virtues. “Thou shalt not murder,” for example.

Indeed, the case of the Boston Bomber is a no-brainer.

Tsarnaev came from a family of Chechen grifters. He got the gift of American political and welfare rights, no strings attached, no questions asked. That’s how we roll. That’s how little these rights have come to mean.

Yet Dzhokhar Tsarnaev didn’t merely pick a quarrel with one or two fellow Americans or with their government; he hated us all. If he could, Tsarnaev would have killed many more of his countrymen, on April 15, 2013.

But for a radical leveler like Mr. Sanders, virtue has no place in a social democracy. Sanders’ project, after all, is “legislating away the property of one class and transferring it to another.”

Since Bernie Sanders was so perfectly serious in protesting the removal of the Boston bomber’s political privileges—he should not be taken seriously.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Mueller And Atta: Fake Intel Runs Through … Prague, Part 1


By ©ilana mercer

No, the moral of the Mueller inquisition is not that the Left is incorrigibly corrupt and morally and intellectually bankrupt, although this is certainly true.

And, no. It’s not that the Republicans are meek, more eager for swamp-creature tenure than to save the country. However much state power flaccid Republicans capture, they quickly come to heel when Democrats crack the whip.

The moral of the Mueller inquisition, at least one of them, concerns the alphabet soup of acronyms that stands for the Permanent Security State—FBI, DOJ, DIA, DHS, CIA, NSA, on and on. That this intractable apparatus’ impetus is liberal is hardly new. What is counterintuitive to many is that the Permanent Security State’s modus operandi comports perfectly well with both Republican and Democratic administrations, alike.

When it comes to subverting an “America First,” sovereignty-centered, populist platform—the duopoly acts as one. Have not fans of Mr.  Mueller kept reminding us that the man is a loyal Republican? And he is—Mueller’s a Republican stalwart of the managerial class. (By the way, Mueller fans can find “Mr. Mueller-face earrings and Mueller devotional candles on Etsy, the e-commerce equivalent of a hippie grandmother’s attic.”)

To make sense of the Russia Monomania and the Mueller time we all served, it is essential to grasp the anatomy of American state power.

In particular, to comprehend the mass hysteria that is the war on Trump, it’s crucial to trace the contours of that other war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the way it was peddled to the American public.

The manufacturing of Fake News by the Deep State, circa 2017, is of a piece with the anatomy of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, in 2003. Except that back then, Republicans, joined by many a diabolical Democrat like Hillary Clinton, were the ones who dreamt up Homer Simpson’s Third Dimension in Iraq.

Fact: The Steel Dossier, which launched the Mueller inquisition, was as fantastical a fabrication as were the documents that fed the Bush administration’s will to war.

As it is, intelligence report-writing is more art than science; more flare than fact. It’s executed by many of the same, tinny, dogmatic, ex-CIA feminists whom we see plonked in CNN studios, ponderously pontificating about Our Russian Enemy.

From the CIA to CNN, the youthful talking heads (and their shapely keisters) have only ever gone from a swivel chair at the Langley headquarters to a seat in a CNN studio, in New York City.

It’s not at all unfair to conclude that the “intelligence” these cartoon characters produced as CIA or FBI agents is as intelligent as their commentary in the TV studio.

PRAGUE AGAIN?

Did no one but this writer have PTSD-related flashbacks when Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, was floated during the Mueller madness?

During his testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, the bewildered Michael Cohen—a tragic figure, really—was asked in all seriousness whether he had liaised with “Kremlin officials” in Prague. “I’ve never been to the Czech Republic,” Cohen shot back.

Curiously, Prague is umbilically linked to another notorious intelligence hoax.

According to manufactured American intelligence, a putative meeting between Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of Sept. 11, and Iraqi intelligence, was said to have taken place in … Prague.

Atta and the Iraqi assets never met in Prague. (At the time, Iraq had been 95-percent disarmed and was in possession of no weapons of mass destruction, an assessment backed by many an expert in strategic studies BEFORE THE WAR.)

The Prague apparition is a thread that runs through the Iraq and Mueller mythology.

Is Prague a figment of an intelligence officer (a female enterprise?) who had just read her first Milan Kundera novel? Inquiring minds have to wonder.

Seriously, Prague is the witches brew you get when you fuse the FBI’s highly-strung anti-Trump brigade with Christopher Steele’s “research” team.

Certainly, the publicly available CIA reports, offering “irrefutably” incriminating evidence against Iraq—the one I had perused in December of 2002—had novel-like qualities.

UNINTELLIGENT INTELLIGENCE

Hardly sober and scholarly, the bafflegab that convinced Republicans to destroy the balance of power in Iraq and the region went something like, “Saddam will probably”; “Give him time and he will eventually”; “With sufficient weapons-grade fissile material, he’ll doubtless”; “He doesn’t have the capability to develop enriched uranium or plutonium to fuel a nuclear bomb, but just you wait …”

This is obviously not the letter of the texts that convinced everyone (except a few of us) to destroy Iraq. But it’s close enough to its spirit.

How the CIA cobbled together evidence for an “interest in acquiring” or “an effort to procure”—considering that these WMD-related purchases never seemed to materialize—isn’t clear. What proof did we have that they were even initiated? None.

I hazard that much of the compositions masquerading as intelligence and continually cited by political actors in privileging their policies are in language that is manifestly intended to exempt the writer from having to substantiate much of the claims.

Be it against Iraq or Russia, the political storyline du jour is manufactured by America’s gilded elites. To this—to heading a principate like Rome—Republican Karl Rove famously confessed during the era of Bush II:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”  Not coincidentally, Karl is currently urging Republicans to “move on from Robert Mueller,” nothing here to see.

MANUFACTURING CONSENT

To manufacture consent over Iraq, elements in the intelligence community worked with neoconservative counterparts in Bush 43’s administration, in particularity with “the Office of Special Plans.” And while Fake News babes did wonders to sex up, stateside, the cause of senseless killing—the dissemination of Fake News, vis-a-vis Iraq, was hardly the exclusive province of Fox News. With some laudable exceptions, Big Media all was tuned-out, turned-on and hot for holy war in the cause of democracy, WMD, whatever.

Now, it’s all-out war on Trump. Then, the same Machine aligned against Iraq.

Salient in 2003, as in 2017, was the monolithic quality of the cheer-leading coming from the networks; an unquestioning uniformity that spoke to a slutty sell-out throughout the media establishment. For journalistic jingoism, it’s impossible to best the coverage of the high-tech media extravaganza known as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Embedded with the military turned out to be a euphemism for in bed with the military. Practically all network embeds focused exclusively on the Pentagon’s version of events, to the exclusion of reality on the Iraqi ground. Yet reporters who slept with their sources were treated as paragons of truth. Those of us who refused such cohabitation were labeled “unilaterals,” deniers, unpatriotic, and worse.

Reporting hearsay as truth and failing to verify stories were all in a day’s work on cable and news networks. A Geiger counter that went off in the inexpert hands of a young Marine, stationed in Iraq, became “Breaking News,” possible evidence of weapons-grade plutonium. Every bottle of Cipro pills located was deemed a likely precursor to an anthrax factory. Anchormen and women somberly seconded these “finds,” seldom bothering to issue retractions.

When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the U.S. government still is—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality by hook or by crook, abroad or at home.

More than anything, the moral of Mueller is that the Security State is dangerous to all Americans, Republicans, Deplorables—even Democrats.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Kamala’s Values Cudgel


By ilana mercer

Sen. Kamala Harris talks a lot about “our American values.” Ditto the rest of the female candidates who’ve declared for president in the busy Democratic field. They all lecture us about “values.”

“Our American values are under attack,” Harris has tweeted. “Babies are being ripped from their parents at the border …”

As her own proud “know your values moment,” the Democrat from California pinpoints the U.S. Senate Supreme Court confirmation proceedings inflicted on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

To manipulate Americans, politicians have always used the values cudgel.

With respect to immigration, the idea is to impress upon gullible Americans that the world has a global Right of Return to the U.S. Fail to accept egalitarian immigration for all into America; and you are flouting the very essence of Americanism. (Or, to use liberal argumentation, you’re Hitler.)

When politicians pule about the importance of preserving “our values,” they mean their values: Barack Obama’s values, Hillary Clinton’s values, Angela Merkel’s values, Chucky Schumer’s values, Jeff Bezos’ values, the late John McMussolini’s values, Lindsey Graham’s values, and Jared and Ivanka’s values (but not Trump’s).

When a politician preaches about “the values that make our country great,” to quote Mrs. Clinton, chances are they mean multiculturalism, pluralism, wide-swung borders, Islam as peace, communities divided by diversity as a net positive, and the Constitution (it mandates all the above, just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg) as a living, breathing, mutating philosophical malignancy.

For them, “protecting” the abstraction that is “our way of life” trumps the protection of real individual lives. “We must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are,” dissembled Obama in the waning weeks before he was gone. The empty phrase is meant to make the sovereign citizen—you—forget that government’s most important role, if not its only role, is to protect individual life.

In his last few addresses, Obama promised to speak up on “certain issues,” in times when he imagined “our core values may be at stake.” Likewise, in delivering her Control-Alt-Delete speech against the Deplorables, Clinton had asserted that “our country is great because we’re good. … Donald Trump disregards the values that make our country great.” The two’s groupthink, notwithstanding, only individuals can be virtuous, not collectives.

Self-government, and not imposed government, implies that society, and not The State, is to develop value systems. The State’s role is to protect citizens as they go about their business peacefully, living in accordance with their peaceful values.

When you hear an appeal to “permanent values”—”the values that make our country great,” to quote Clinton and the current crop of Democratic candidates—know you are dealing with world-class crooks. These crooks want to swindle you out of the freedom to think and believe as you wish. For in the classical conservative and libertarian traditions, values are private things, to be left to civil society—the individual, family and church—to practice and police.

The American government is charged purely with upholding the law, no more. Why so? Because government has police and military powers with which to enforce its “values.” A free people dare not entrust such an omnipotent entity with policing values, at home or abroad, for values enforced are dogma.

When incontestable majorities call on government to curb Islamic and other in-migration because this imperils American lives, President Trump’s unswerving opponents (within his party and without) and their media mafia—will invariably intone, “That’s not who we are.”

When you hear that manipulative mantra, tell them to zip it up; mind their own business, and stick to their constitutional mandate to protect the people, not police their minds.

Remember that through an appeal to values, the State aggrandizes itself.

A limited government, serving an ostensibly free people, must thus never enforce values. It follows that, because our form of government is incompatible with the enforcement of values, the American People can’t and mustn’t admit into their midst civilizations whose values are inimical to the survival of their own.

 

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics


By ilana mercer

Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media call it “identity politics.” “The left is playing identity politics.”

Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. For, 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 ire of the multicultural multitudes is directed exclusively at whites and their putative privilege. Anti-whitism is becoming endemic and systemic.

Take “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett deceived the country and the Chicago Police Department about having fallen prey to a hate crime, which, it transpired, he had crudely orchestrated.

The Chicago Police Department superintendent expressed the requisite righteous indignation that a black man (Smollett) would desecrate symbols of black oppression in the process of framing innocent Others. (A noose had been purchased at Smollett’s behest.)

Nobody, Superintendent Eddie Johnson included, said sorry to the accused group, whose reputation had been sullied: “Trump supporters or white persons.”

“Trump supporters” is indeed a proxy for “white persons.” The conflation of “white” and “Trump supporter” was made, for one, by an anti-white, anti-Trump, professional agitator: Trevor Noah of the “Daily Show.” Noah is neither funny nor very bright, but he is right, in this instance.

Conservatives, for their part, persist in skirting the white-animus issue. The Smollett libel fit the “progressive narrative,” they intoned. (Overuse has made the “narrative” noun a bad cliché.)

It was a right vs. left matter, insisted others.

Smollett was sick in the head, came another obfuscation. What would public expiation and excuse-making be without the rotten habit of diseasing misbehavior?! His antics might still make him a big-time actor, but Smollett is a small-time crook, a common criminal of low character. To disease immorality is a corruption of traditional conservative thinking.

We have here a politicization of crime, reasoned other compromising conservatives.

Come again? What is the hate-crime category if not a politicization of crime? With the hate crime designation, we are essentially saying that a murder committed with racial malice is worse than one committed without it. Is that a normative call or a political one? I’d say the latter.

Some conservatives remarked that the Smollett affair occurred against the backdrop of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Is TDS not a proxy for the white-hot hatred of whites?

Four minutes and 13 seconds in, a video filmed at the Washington State Evergreen College gives way to softly hissed, but deranged, diatribes by faculty. Theirs is unadulterated, anti-white agitprop. Yet the TV host who screened this pedagogic incitement chuckles lightheartedly about secondary, lesser issues like victimhood chic. Never once is the thing called what is it:

Incessant and dangerous incitement to hate innocent whites for their alleged pigmental privilege.

A recent and jarring anti-white incident involved the curriculum imposed on students by the Santa Barbara Unified School District. As if public education is not sufficiently corrupt, “educators” now contract out to an educational black op. These tax-paid mercenaries come to schools as social levelers to put your kids through an indoctrination boot camp. However, it’s not egalitarianism that the schools are increasingly teaching, but anti-whitism.

“Just Communities Central Coast” (JCCC) is such an “educational” black op. The reported outcomes of the “Just Communities” initiative tell us a lot about the impetus behind the course.

“JCCC’s discriminatory curriculum has led to increased racial animosity toward Caucasian teachers and students,” reported Eric Early, a Republican candidate for California attorney general.

American kids can barely read properly or speak and write grammatically. They’ll never know the wonders of the Western literary canon (banished because produced by the pale patriarchy). But they’ve committed to consciousness ugly, nonsensical, stupid, decontextualized grids that tabulate the ways of white oppression.

Talk about “The Closing of the American Mind”!

Yet, the litigant, a Republican candidate for California attorney general, had a hard time coming out with it. JCCC’s anti-white teachings were merely anti-American, he told Fox News apologetically. Is that all you’ve got, sir?

I read Esquire’s Feb. 12, cover story featuring Ryan Morgan, of West Bend, Wisconsin. Fox News’ Martha MacCallum called it “provocative,” before inviting U.S. Army veteran Darrin Porcher and activist-actor Rumando Kelley to trash “The Life of [this] American Boy at 17.”

The only reason the humdrum story of poor Ryan Morgan was deemed “provocative” is because he’s white. As it transpired from the disjointed “thoughts” disgorged by MacCallum’s two black supremacist guests, “There is [sic] more important people in the world than white middle-class.” (Ryan is not wealthy. He holds a job for which he rises at 6:30 a.m., before school. I’d put him in the working-class category.)

While the one unedifying black supremacist conceded that, “We do need to lend some credence to what a Caucasian man goes through,” the irate Rumando roared that, “Esquire dropped the ball on this.”

Rumando could not quite explain why the experiences of white boys deserved to be expunged, in the era of anti-whiteness and suicide rates rising among this very cohort: white American males.

Indeed, the suicide rate is declining everywhere in the world except for America, where it is 12.8 per 100,000, “well above China’s current rate of seven.” Dubbed “deaths of despair,” white Americans and native Americans are the most suicidal populations in the U.S.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Dead By Illegal Alien? You’re Just An Anecdote


By ilana mercer

THE topic: American lives snuffed out by illegal aliens.

The forum: The ubiquitous, Fox News, dual-perspective panel that never fails to dim debate.

Arguing in favor of letting potential killers come: Geraldo Rivera, a former daytime talk-show, bosom buddy of Sean Hannity, and a permanent fixture on Fox.

The Rivera “argument”: That some criminal aliens kill is incidental and immaterial to their status as uninvited, unvetted interlopers.  

Here are some of the stories Geraldo dismisses as anecdotes sensationalized:

The latest in a string of bereaved parents to appear on TV are the parents of young Pierce Corcoran, 22, killed by Franco Cambrany Francisco-Eduardo (44), recipient of the U.S. Professional Drunk-Driver Immigration Visa. And in 2012, a man named Ramon Hernandez took the tiniest of victims. Dimitri Smith, of blessed memory, was killed in-utero by this recipient of the same visa. The deceased preemie was shown on CNN, in 2012, being held for the last time by young mother Aileen Smith, before being laid to rest.

“In the last two years,” said a solemn President Trump, in his Jan. 8 address from the Oval Office, “ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”

It seems crystal clear that, were it not for Geraldo’s plucky, uninvited visitors—more American than a lot of Americans, sneered Comrade Ocasio-Cortez—there would likely be 100,000 fewer assaults in America, 30,000 fewer sex crimes in America, and 4,000 fewer murders in America.

It seems perfectly clear that young Pierce Corcoran would be alive, if not for a bad hombre who had no business being in the country.

Clear to you and me, but not to “brother” Rivera (Mr. Hannity’s appellation for this idiot).

With the same logical illiteracy that has been given sanctuary and sinecure on Fox News, Mr. Rivera proceeded to make his “case”:

“I would feel equally pained,” he roared, “were the killer Irish, Italian, Puerto Rican or Jewish, young or old.”

Could a killer illegal alien be “Irish, Italian, Puerto Ricans or Jewish, old or young”? Certainly. But these categories are irrelevant and superfluous to the central point. Rivera is mixing it up; mixing logical categories to the point of moral incoherence.

This studied stupidity led Rivera, in short succession, to his next point: American lives lost and recounted “sensationally” on television were “anecdotes.”

To be charitable, Geraldo here is following his own breaking-eggs-for-omelets argument—and it is that, since the murderers are statistical outliers, the murders they commit are the exception to the rule in what is an exceptional immigrant community.

The logic doesn’t add up, but the numbers of the dead do—each life lost is precious. Each loss comes with a world of hurt that never heals.

Death by illegal alien is not about group crime aggregates, as Geraldo contends. (In particular, his contention that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, therefore, let them come.)

Wrong. Death by illegal alien is about this life-cherishing, immutable logic:

If alien X HAD BEEN REMOVED from the U.S., as the law dictates, innocent American Y WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY.

What Geraldo continues to claim is that the value of the community from which alien X hails cancels out the value of the life of Y, an innocent, American individual. The same goes for the 4000 lives lost and counted by the president.

My guess? If the individuals snuffed out by illegal aliens belonged to Geraldo Rivera, Rivera would lose his callous calculus.

The argument made by open-immigration fundamentalists, left and establishment right—from Tamar Jacoby to Geraldo Rivera—is that the illegality of the perp is irrelevant to the crime.

These advocates have routinely dismissed as redundant to the facts of the case the illegal status of “Carlos Martinelly-Montano, 23, whose Aug. 1 collision, in 2011, in Prince William, seriously injured two Benedictine nuns and killed a third, Sister Denise Mosier, 66, all of Richmond.”

Again: For this kind of conceit to fly, open-border fetishists would have to show that had Bob Clark’s killer (whose identity is still zealously guarded by media) been deported or jailed, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate at the hands of another drunk driver (murderer, child molester, etc.)—a truly fanciful idea.

In case you don’t know, Bob Clark directed one of the most delightful, and most American, films ever made, “A Christmas Story.” He and his 24-year-old son would probably be alive today if not for a drunk, unlicensed, illegal alien careening down Pacific Coast Highway

As to Geraldo. He has been assaulting sensibilities for over a decade on the same Fox News shows, having modified his “argument” only slightly over time.

“It’s not an illegal alien story; it’s a drunk driving story,” he once asserted on “The Factor,” following the slaying of an innocent American in an oh-so familiar way.

Then as now, Geraldo was serious, although, then as now, he should not be taken seriously.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is 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 on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

 

« Older Entries