Author Archives: ilana mercer

What Cultural Marxists Like BBC News Say About Looting


Tucker Carlson and his guest Dan Bongino raised what you might call a look-away issue: Looting.

As the two looked on at footage of looters in post-Irma Florida, TV talker and guest volunteered that “this” was “not about race.” “This,” presumably, being a reference to the looting.

Here was one of those, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” moments.

Messrs. Carlson and Bongino were watching an embarrassingly uniform group of outlaws in action. Mr. Carlson even went on to quip that the looting landscape comprised not mothers in search of diapers and infant formula, but people dressed to the nines in gold chains.

If the “gold-chains” allusion is not a proxy for race in our navel-gazing nation, what is?

What, then, is one to take away from these obfuscations coming as they do from our side? That looting can “strike” anyone? That anybody can “catch” looting from Florida’s contaminated flood waters? (Incidentally, wastewater infrastructure is buckling under, due in large part to unmanageable population growth. Immigration is stinking up Florida. Literally.)

Please don’t tell your viewers that flaws of character marring individuals in certain groups in significant numbers are a systemic, societal, structural problem. That argument is taken. It’s the case made by Cultural Marxism and its watered-down political offshoots of multiculturalism and political correctness.

In a manner of speaking, when conservatives hearken back to the “Democrats'” Welfare State to explain away the color of crime; they, too, are making the Cultural Marxist argument.

Recall how blacks rampaged through Milwaukee, hollering their white-hot hatred for whites? “He white. Beat his shit,” yelled one hoodlum in footage featured on “Hannity.” But crime, race and the reality of such racial hatred was quickly averted in the ensuing discussion. Instead, Mr. Hannity and Sheriff David Clarke blamed … Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Or, something like that.

To go by the doctrine of Cultural Marxism, looting in Florida and elsewhere is black because blacks are locked-out of American institutions. Never mind that the black agenda (perspective and attendant claims) is echoed throughout the culture (in music, art and film), transmitted by the education system (at primary, secondary and tertiary levels); is repeated by most media, most think tanks, by the publishing industry and by public administration. Why, Sen. Tim Scott, a black Republican, has just read President Trump the riot act over the president’s comments following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Metaphorically speaking, free African-American politicians and activists are boiling the bones of their enslaved ancestors to make soup. The suffering of slaves is being exploited posthumously to shape discourse in politically advantageous ways.

As ostensible outsiders, blacks (gays, feminists and the antifa Idiocracy, too) are compelled, in Cultural Marxism, to continue upending what remains of America’s staid, stifling institutions.

For a central tenet of this institutionally victorious form of Marxism is that middle-class values—the kind that built America—are evil and fascistic. (Also fascistic are monogamy, the nuclear family, heterosexuality, whiteness, conservatism, Christian conservatism, the quaint idea of good and bad, God and the Ten Commandments. Like Regan MacNeil, played by Linda Blair in “The Exorcist, any symbol of goodness will send a Cultural Marxist into paroxysms typical of the possessed.) Thus, does Cultural Marxism march on, an ill-founded, purely political construct that appeals not to empirical evidence and reason, but to the roiling, base emotions of rage and resentment.

In its triumphant march through this country’s institutions, Cultural Marxism’s representatives have sought to eviscerate bourgeoisie morality. One such middle-class idea upon which an entire justice system once rested was that the individual bore responsible for his crimes—not a political structure, conjured by well-fed communists in academia, in a thinly veiled push to supplant traditional morality.

On the BBC News, age-old truths have long since been replaced with the abstractions mentioned. BBC anchors exculpated the looting in Florida, and elsewhere in British territories, with reference to desperation, disparity and … slavery. To the BBC’s editorializing “news” anchors, blacks don’t commit crimes, but are driven to commit crime by an inherently unjust white society, in which power relationships are rigid (so ossified as to elevate a black man, Obama, to the presidency).

Overall, conservatives are to be commended for upholding the principle of individual responsibility irrespective of skin color. But in the same way that it’s obvious the left-liberal BBC News has become a creature of Cultural Marxism, it should be plain to see that where conservatives reduce the reality of crime to a political theory—too much welfare, too little capitalism, not enough Trumpism—they’re flirting with Cultural Marxism lite.

Conservatives will have taken a giant leap for civilization (and against the Southern Poverty Shakedown Center) were they to candidly confront the indisputable realities of race and crime in America.

Writes polymath Ron Unz: “[T]he statistical relationship between race and crime so substantially exceeds the poverty/crime relationship [poverty being one of those societal structural impediments, I presume] that much of the latter may simply be a statistical artifact due to most urban blacks being poor.” To discount the immutable reality of race and crime in urban America is to discount “the real-world impact of these grim statistics.”

Never-ever are righteous individuals within a community to be fingered for what the wicked among them do. Still, seekers of truth should be able to talk about trends within communities without fearing a loss of reputation and marginalization. The kind of trends social science measures. Or, once measured.

As I put it in Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa:

Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested. (pp. 41-42)

****

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

Advertisements

The Radical Republicans: The Antifa Of 1865


By ilana mercer

“Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil,” said a sage reader. This applies in spades to anyone who would laud the Radical Republicans of 1865, as one TV GOP blonde has recently, and asininely, done.

The Radical Republicans, if you can believe it, considered Abraham Lincoln a moderate (a bad thing, in their book). Lincoln successor Andrew Johnson these fanatics branded a reactionary (punishable by obstruction and impeachment).

Praised these days by the blonde-ambition faction of the Republican Party, the Radicals were stars of America’s own Reign of Terror over the South, at the end of the War Between the States.

If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown. (His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords, in an act of biblical retribution gone mad.)

Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction. In his biography of Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian, historian Hans Trefousse even makes a brief reference to the Jacobin Club, a term reserved for the most extreme Republicans in Congress (p. 168). Other club members: Henry Winter Davis, Benjamin Butler, Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade, Zachariah Chandler.

Although Republicans shared “the drive toward revolution and national unification” (the words of historian Clyde Wilson, in The Yankee Problem, 2016), the Radicals distinguished themselves in their support for sadistic military occupation of the vanquished Rebel States, following the War Between the States.

While assorted GOP teletarts may find the rhetoric of Radical Republicans sexy; overall, these characters are villains of history, for helping to sunder the federal scheme bequeathed by the Founding Fathers. In their fanatical fealty to an almighty central government, Radical Republicans were as alien to the Jeffersonian tradition of self-government as it gets.

Today’s Republicans should know that the Radical Republicans were hardly heartbroken about the assassination of Lincoln, on April 14, 1865.

A mere month earlier (March 4, 1865)—and much to the chagrin of the Radicals—Lincoln had noodled, in his billowing prose, about the need to “bind up the nation’s wounds and proceed with “malice toward none … and charity for all.”

Radical Republicans were having none of that charity stuff. They promptly placed their evil aspirations in Andrew Johnson. A President Johnson, they had hoped, would be a suitable sockpuppet in socking it to the South some more.

Alas, Johnson, a poor, white tailor from North Carolina, turned out, in today’s political nomenclature, to be something of a populist. In going against the Radical Republicans, the 17th president of the United States was the Trump of his time, up against the Rubio-McCain-Graham Radical Republicans. (Marco Rubio, incidentally, has gone as far as to rationalize the Antifa ruffians’ violence, tweeting: “When [an] entire movement [is] built on anger and hatred towards people different than [sic] you, it justifies and ultimately leads to violence against them.”)

When Johnson failed to deliver the radical changes Radical Republicans demanded, our 1865 Antifans accused him of being “tainted by Lincolnism.”

Let’s unpack this:

To rational and righteous individuals, Lincoln did a radical thing in prosecuting a fratricidal war in 1861. Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S.  and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves.

But to Radical Republicans, the late Lincoln had not been radical enough and Johnson had disappointed.

While number 17 was a Southern Unionist, President Johnson was, nevertheless, still a Democrat. Then as now, the Republicans were the party of the crony capitalist centralized State. Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.

And it was proving a little harder to take the old republic of radical decentralization out of President Johnson.

Consequently, Johnson allowed “each of the Rebel States to determine its suffrage.” Remember, only the rights to life, liberty and property are inviolable natural rights. Not so the right to vote. The franchise is a grant of government privilege, never a natural right.

And it was to field hands that the Radicals gave the vote and, subsequently, governorship of the South. “Nearly four million slaves had been freed overnight. Very few of these were equipped to meet the rudimentary responsibilities of citizenship.” (A Complete History of the United States, by Clement Wood, p. 342.) Confessed one freedman: “I can’t read, I can’t write. We go by the [Union League’s] instructions. We don’t know nothing much.” (In their strong-arm, violent tactics, Union League members were most definitely the Antifa arm of Reconstruction-era Republicans.)

Is there any wonder that the South under Radical-Republican Reconstruction became a “howling Babylon of Corruption”? This was to be expected from the “riffraff of conquerors and conquered alike.” The planter class had been destroyed. “Many whites and Negroes of the new ruling class could not even sign their name,” attests historian William Miller.

In mitigation, the less-radical Lincoln had proposed that “the right to vote be given to the most capable [blacks].” Johnson’s advice was to give the vote to propertied blacks worth $250. (Wood, P. 349.)

Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South. Johnson had dared to flout congressional Radicals by showing some fairness to these vanquished Southerners.

“When the South came to elect its Senators and Representatives in 1865, it had but one class of men it would trust to turn to, and that was leading secessionists.” (Wood, P. 349.)

“Northerners were [being] asked by the Southern States to recognize, on terms of civic and official equality, confederate cabinets members, congressmen and brigadier generals.” (P. 346.) Radical Republicans set about preventing such charitable normalization.

During the lame-duck session of December 1865, the Radicals excluded “men elected in the rebel states.” Full-well did they know that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional  (A New History of the United States by William Miller, p. 220). Over Johnson’s veto and advice to the South to reject the rigged ratification process—the Radicals demanded the South ratify the 14th Amendments as a condition of representation in Congress.

Johnson’s riposte, bless him, was to accuse Republican Representative Thaddeus Stevens of “seeking to destroy the rights of Southern states” (Wood, p. 349). And with good reason:

The Supreme Court had ruled against the legality and constitutionality of martial law in the South. Against the SCOTUS’s ruling, the Radical Republicans went on to,

  • “Throw out the governments of all confederate states (but Tennessee) and bring the South under military rule.” “Military governors backed by national troops” replaced governments whose formation Johnson allowed in 1865.” Twenty thousand “troops were quartered in the South,” shades of the reason an earlier generation of Americans fought the War of Independence.
  • Radical Republicans next divested the SCOTUS of its constitutional role. They removed the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court over deciding—yea or nay—about martial rule over the South. Neither was the SCOTUS permitted to test the First Reconstruction Act.
  • Radical Republicans also made the ratification of the 14th Amendment subject to a quid pro quo: If the Rebel States ratified it, they’d be let into the Union again.
  • The Radicals “disqualified all trusted leaders of the Confederacy from holding either national or state office,” “branding them as criminals, depriving them of political rights at the same time that [they] gave civil rights” to all Africans.

In a word, white electors were largely disqualified.

“Having brushed aside the Court, the Radicals tried to subordinate the Executive.” These odious types turned to divesting the commander-in-chief of his constitutional authority and role.

These days, the Army ignores President Trump’s executive order as commander-in-chief, a precedent Radial Republicans may have helped cement, when they “forbade President Johnson to give the army orders except through [Generalissimo] Grant.”

The Radicals soon put in place new state constitutions which—wouldn’t you know it?—were liberal in the extreme, prescribing much of the publicly-funded miseducation that has propagandized America’s kids even since.

The nation’s schools soon became a conduit for the “dispensing of radical doctrine,” starting with the un-American Radical Republican orthodoxy.

So, Ms. Liz Wheeler, one can’t at once claim a commitment to the ideas of a decentralized constitution and regional autonomy yet twerk (politically) on TV for the Radical Republicans.

 

* My thanks to historian Dr. Boyd D. Cathey for useful comments and corrections.

† Historian Clyde Wilson corrects historian Clement Wood, quoted in the column: “The Southern states,” writes Dr. Wilson, “in the first elections after the war, did not elect ‘secessionists’ to office. In fact, they carefully elected, and Johnson appointed, men who had not been active secessionists.”

****

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

Lincoln Or Lee? What Would Hitler Say?


By ilana mercer

“Some crazy person just compared President Abraham Lincoln to Hitler. Yes, this just happened on CNN and Brooke Baldwin’s reaction was perfect.”

So scribbled one Ricky Davila on Social Media (Twitter).

Indeed, an elderly Southern gentleman had ventured that President Lincoln, not General Lee, murdered civilians, a point even a Court historian and a Lincoln idolater like Doris Kearns Goodwin would concede.

While the Argument From Hitler is seldom a good one; Ms. Baldwin’s response was way worse. Were she an honest purveyor of news and knowledge; anchor-activist Baldwin would have sought the facts. Instead, she pulled faces, so the viewer knew she not only looked like an angel, but was on the side of the angels.

Pretty, but not terribly bright, Ms. Baldwin would be shocked to hear that the civics test administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recognizes as correct the following answers to questions about the “Civil War”:

If asked to “Name one problem that led to the Civil War,” you may legitimately reply: “States’ right.”

If asked to “Name the war between the North and the South,” you may call it, “the War between the States.”

Brook would wince, but, again, your reply would be perfectly proper if you chose to name “economic reasons” as one of the problems that led to the Civil War.

Not even the government—the USCIS, in this case—will risk denying that the 1861 Morrill tariff was one cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln, a protectionist, was expected to enforce the tariff with calamitous consequences to the “the import-dependent South, which was paying [at the time] as much as 80 percent of the tariff.”

It’s fair to assume that the civics naturalization test (I took it) was not written by pro-South historians. Yet even they did not conceal some immutable truths about the War of Northern Aggression—truths banished from Brooke Baldwin’s network.

And from Fox News.

There, you must tolerate progressive Republicans, like John Daniel Davidson of the Federalist, warning about the dangers of identity politics in a majority-white country like the US. (Davidson should try out identity politics in a minority white country like my birthplace, South Africa, where the lives of white farmers are forfeit.) Another Federalist editor seen on Fox is Molly Hemingway. She has vaporized about the merits of “taking down Confederate statues.” If memory serves, that was a position the oracular Chucky Krauthammer was willing to dignify.

Back to the white, marginalized gentleman, mocked on CNN.

In all, Lincoln’s violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals, including 50,000 Southern civilians, white and black. It maimed thousands, and brought about “the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation’s economy.”

While “in the North a few unfortunate exceptions marred the general wartime boom,” chronicled historian William Miller,  “[t]he south as a whole was impoverished. At the end of the war, the boys in blue went home at government expense with about $235 apiece in their pockets.”  “[S]ome of Lee’s soldiers had to ask for handouts on the road home, with nothing to exchange for bread save the unwelcome news of Appomattox.”

Many years hence, Americans look upon the terrible forces unleashed by Lincoln as cathartic, glorious events. However, “The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality,” noted Mises Institute scholar David Gordon, in Secession, State & Liberty.

At his most savage, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged “total war” on civilians and did not conceal his intent to so do. On commencing his march through Georgia, in September 1864, Sherman had vowed “to demonstrate the vulnerability of the South and make its inhabitants feel that war and individual ruin [were] synonymous terms.” To follow was an admission (of sorts) to war crimes: “The amount of plundering, burning, and stealing done by our own army makes me ashamed of it.”

For Sherman’s troops sacked and razed entire cities and communities“:

Sherman’s troops exhumed graves to loot the corpses. Sherman’s troops tore up little girls’ dolls and nailed family pets to doors. Sherman’s troops left countless civilians – including the slaves they were supposedly liberating – without food or shelter. Sherman ransomed civilians to armies in the area, threatening to execute them or burn their homes if they did not comply. Sherman had a few contemplative moments and was always careful to maintain plausible deniability, but he knew what was happening and let it happen.

Here’s the brass tacks (via William Miller, Yankee sympathizer) about Lincoln’s brutality and the extent to which the North upended life in the South:

“Confederate losses were overwhelmingly greater, representing a fifth of the productive part of the Confederacy’s white male population. Thousands more died of exposure, epidemics, and sheer starvation after the war, while many survivors, aside from the sick and the maimed, bore the scars of wartime and most war malnutrition and exhaustion all the rest of their lives.”

The South sustained direct damage as the war was fought, for the most, on its soil.

“Land, buildings, and equipment, especially of slaveless farmers … lay in ruins. Factories … were simply forsaken.” “Poor white and planter were left little better than ex-slave. … [A]n every-day sight [was] that of women and children, most of whom were formerly in good circumstances, begging for bread from door to door. In the destruction of southern life few suffered more than the ex-slaves.” By estimations cited in Miller’s A New History of the United States, “a third of the Negroes died” in their freemen, informal, “contraband camps,” from “the elements, epidemics, and crime.”

“The weakening of purpose, morale, and aspiration among the survivors was depressing enough to make many envy the dead,” laments White, noting that “rebel losses in youth and talent were much greater than the devastating total of human losses itself.”

“The men in blue,” said one Southerner late in 1865, “destroyed everything which the most infernal Yankee ingenuity could devise means to destroy: hands, hearts, fire, gunpowder, and behind everything the spirit of hell, were the agencies which they used.”

Still, despite having just fought a civil war, there was a greater feeling of fellowship among our countrymen then than there is today.

Struck by how achingly sad the South was, a northern observer, on a visit to New Orleans in 1873, cried out with great anguish: “These faces, these faces, one sees them everywhere; on the streets, at the theater, in the salon, in the cars; and pauses for a moment struck with the expression of entire despair.”

Today’s America lectures and hectors the world about invading Arab leaders for “killing their own people.” What did the sixteenth American president do if not kill his own people?

Yes, “Emerson’s ‘best civilization’ was about to be ‘extended over the whole country’ with a vengeance.”

Of this, Adolf Hitler wholly approved.

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin will be shocked—OMG! kind of shocked—to know that in his Mein Kampf, Hitler “expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization.” (Primary sources: http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v2c10.htm & https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt)

Hitler vowed that in Germany as well, he and his National Socialists “would eliminate states’ rights altogether,” political decentralization being the greatest obstacle for all dictators.

In a word, Ms. Baldwin, Hitler liked Abe Lincoln’s impetus and for good reason.

Pull faces all you like. Your guest was right. “Confederate generals, despite hearing news of death and destruction from home, strictly enforced orders protecting the person and property of Northern civilians.”

****

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

Barcelona and Beyond: How Politicians & Policy Wonks Play God With Your Life


By ilana mercer

No sooner do terrorists attack, than those who monopolize the conversation revert to abstractions: “terrorism returned,” “terror struck,” when, of course, not terrorism, but terrorists struck Barcelona, Spain, on August 17. Terrorists did the same days later, in Newcastle, England and in Turku, Finland.

The men who murdered 14 in Spain, maiming and injuring over 100, 15 of them critically, are flesh-and-blood. Young, Muslim, Moroccan men with murder on their minds. It is the duty of governments to bar such men from civilized society, or keep such barbarians at bay.

So, drop the Orwellian bafflegab when describing what elites have wrought through their policies. The Maghrebi Muhammadans—aged, 17, 18, 22 and 24—had been given free range and limitless access to their victims, in the name of those victims’ freedoms.  The only lucky sorts living safely are the elites who grant the barbarians license to kill.

Thus were Theresa May, the Spanish royals and other leaders—well-protected courtesy of their taxpayers—able to flout the reality faced by the ordinary fellow and utter fatuities like, “These assassins, these criminals won’t terrorize us.” The truth is that these darling buds of May and Merkel do and will continue to terrorize ordinary men and women, but will spare invulnerable elites for reasons obvious.

Of Spain’s many millions, “only” 14 lives were lost in one day, in Barcelona. Similar numbers obtain in London, Manchester, Melbourne, Paris, Nice, Normandy, Stockholm, Saint Petersburg, Berlin, Hamburg, Columbus (Ohio): Only a few people were picked off in each attack, this year. In the grand scheme of things, the numbers are relatively small. Or, so we’re lectured by the contemptible aggregators who decide who will reside among us.

On TV, June 1, 2017, Alex Nowrasteh, immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, argued that “foreign-born terrorism is a hazard,” but a “manageable” one, “given the huge economic benefits of immigration and the small costs of terrorism.”

Spoken like a collectivist, central planner and utilitarian rolled into one.

This is the Benthamite “utilitarian calculus” at its cruelest. It requires, first, for someone to play God. Whether she sits in Downing Street, D.C., Brussels, or Barcelona; the Godhead has determined that Muslims in our midst are a must in bringing “the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens.” Along the way, a few people will die. For the greater good.

In the words of “Stalin’s apologist” Walter Duranty, ”You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

However, a natural-rights libertarian values the life of the innocent individual. Only by protecting each individual’s rights—life, liberty and property—can the government legitimately enhance the wealth of the collective. Only through fulfilling its night watchman role can government legitimately safeguard the wealth of the nation. For each individual, secure in his person and property, is then free to pursue economic prosperity, which redounds to the rest.

See, statistics are silly unless given context. If you have one foot in fire, the other in ice, can we legitimately say that, on average, you’re warm? Hardly.

Probabilities, in this case the chance that any one of us will die-by-Muslim, are statistically insignificant—unless this happens to you or to yours, to me or mine.

It is this crude calculus that politicians and policy wonks like the Catoite mentioned peddle.

Were it possible to arrange for wonks, pols and their beloved to pay for the policies they promulgate—were these ugly aggregators told, “Yes, we like your idea of flooding western societies with Muslims at the price of a few lives—provided that those lives lost belong to you and yours. The John McCains and Jeff Flakes of the world would quickly retract their policy follies.

 

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube channel.

James Damore Confronts The Hags of High-Tech (& Loses)


By ilana mercer

Of the many men who toil in high-tech, few are as heroic as James Damore, the young man who penned the manifesto “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In it, Damore calmly and logically exposed the tyrannical ideological edifice erected to perpetuate the myth that, in aggregate, women and men are identical in aptitude and interests, and that “all disparities in representation are due to oppression.”

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (“Engineering by the Numbers,” By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

As Damore, and anyone in the world of high-tech knows, entire human resource departments in the high-tech sector are dedicated to recruiting, mentoring, and just plain dealing with women and their ongoing nagging and special needs.

In high-tech, almost nothing is as politically precious as a woman with some aptitude. There’s no end to which companies will go to procure women and help them succeed, often to the detriment of technically competent men and women who must do double-duty. Their procurement being at a premium, concepts such as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to coddled distaff.

A woman in high-technology can carp constantly about … being a woman in high-tech. Her gender—more so than her capabilities—is what defines her and endears her to her higher-ups, for whom she’s a notch in the belt.

While male engineers—and, indubitably, some exceptional women—are hired to be hard at work designing and shipping tangible products; women in high tech, in the aggregate, are free to branch out; to hone a niche as a voice for their gender.

Arisen online and beyond is a niche-market of nudniks (nags): Women talking, blogging, vlogging, writing and publishing about women in high-technology or their absence therefrom; women beating the tom-tom about discrimination and stereotyping, but saying absolutely nothing about the technology they presumably love and help create.

Young women, in particular, are pioneers of this new, intangible, but lethal field of meta-technology: kvetching (complaining) about their absence in technology with nary a mention of their achievements in technology.

The hashtag “MicrosoftWomen” speaks to the solipsistic universe created by females in high-tech and maintained by the house-broken males entrusted with supporting the menacing matriarchy. Are these ladies posting about the products they’ve partaken in designing and shipping? Not often. Women in high-tech are more likely to be tweeting out about … being women in high-tech. Theirs is a self-reverential and self-referential universe.

For example, to learn more about the unbearable lightness of being “principal engineering lead at Microsoft” when woman, turn to “I Want Her Job™.”  Mind your P’s and Q’s, numskull. This isn’t a website—but a “community,” in the lingua franca of feminized America—bolstering women’s pursuits and careers. In trendy speak: “Connection. Community. Conversation.”

One featured techie’s professional title, aforementioned, is impressive: “principal engineering lead at Microsoft.” As is to be expected of a woman hard at work in the ruthlessly competitive field of high-tech, she spends her days as “a female tech ambassador,” writing fluffy, gyno-centric books on self-affirmation, “mentoring other women via Skype,” “answering emails … on how they, too, can enter the world of tech,” designing clothes, and, according to her impartial boosters, being the “next greatest female tech rock star.” It’s all in a woman’s day’s work.

The techie men known to this writer don’t have time to design clothes, although they dream of it (men and women being interchangeable, and all that stuff).

So intent are women on equal outcomes at all costs, as opposed to equality of opportunity, that they’re pleased to serve as political props; ornaments in a corporate world compelled to affirm the idea that under the skin—and but for the Great White and his wicked ways—men and women are similarly inclined and endowed.

Working from the premise that equality of representation—engineering being 50 percent female—is an achievable, desirable and laudable goal for all, Pinterest’s Tracy Chou, at gigaom.com, calls for “a ‘state of the union’ every year, where companies” are compelled to cough-up their latest “demographic data,” and are thus held “accountable” to the public, while also tracking which of their initiatives has worked.

To incriminate, presumably, Chou has published a series of charts detailing the male-to-female ratios in America’s technology titans. (Delve deeper and you find, moreover, that men are still doing most of the technical work; women the non-technical work.)

Yes, women are making different career choices. Vive la différence.

Of course, to say that “science [or applied science] needs women,” reasoned Theodore Dalrymple, in a 2014 Taki’s magazine column, is as logically consistent as saying that, “Heavyweight boxing needs Malays,” “football needs dwarf goalkeepers,” “quantity surveying needs bisexuals,” “lavatory cleaning needs left-handers.”

“Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

***

 

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube channel.

An X-Rated Conversation about LGBTQ & XX In The Military


By Ilana Mercer

PREDICTABLY, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already pooh-poohed President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directives, banning the politicized transgender production from the theater of war.

Why “predictably” (preachy, too)? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that can kill. Read more

Truman Would Have Agreed With Trump On The CIA In Syria


By Ilana Mercer

Said the president: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and, at times, a policy-making arm of the Government. … [T]his quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.” Read more

« Older Entries