Author Archives: ilana mercer

A Global ‘Right Of Return’ To The U.S.? Who Knew?


By ilana mercer

No good deed goes unpunished. Jeff Sessions wants to restore to America the “sound principles of asylum” and long-standing tenets of immigration law, abandoned by American leaders over the decades.

That makes the attorney general a Hitler, to use liberal argumentation. Condemned for all eternity.

As the left sees it, if America isn’t going to police the world; it must at least provide shelter to all people from unpoliced parts of the world.

That’s the left’s reason du jour for opposing the restoration of American immigration sovereignty.

And now, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is piling on.

By narrowing promiscuously broad asylum criteria—the system is being gamed, attests  Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge—Sessions stands accused of flouting the “right to life” of the women of the world.

No matter that America has its own share of abused women “persecuted by their husbands and ignored by their own governments.” The last, parenthetic remarks were uttered by immigration lawyers, who mask greed with prattle about values.

This legal club is looking out exclusively for the women of the world, not the women of America. To them, we are the world.

Over the objections of such rent-seekers, Sessions has dared to say “no!”

“Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems—even all serious problems—that people face every day all over the world,” reasoned Sessions, quite sagaciously.

To manipulate Americans, politicians (save the likes of President Trump and his attorney general) use the values cudgel.

With respect to immigration, the idea is to impress upon pliable 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.

When a politician or a high priest like Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the USCCB, pules about “the values that make our country great” (originally the mantra of Mrs. Hillary Clinton), this is what they invariably mean:

Wide-swung borders, multiculturalism, pluralism; accepting Islam as peace and the majority in America as dangerously pale and privileged; “recognizing” that communities divided in diversity are a strength, and that a living, breathing, mutating Constitution mandates all of the above.

Just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

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 Barack Obama in the waning weeks before he was gone.

Meandered  U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrat from the state of Nevada:

“Attorney General Sessions continues to betray every American value of compassion, justice, and respect for the rule of law. This is not who [sic] America is.”

The hollow values phrases are meant to make the sovereign citizen forget government’s most important role, if not its only role: to uphold the individual rights of its citizens.

Self-government, and not imposed government, implies that society, and not The State, is to develop its own value systems.

The State’s role is to protect citizens as they go about their business peacefully, living in accordance with their peaceful values.

Whenever you hear an appeal to “permanent values”—”the values that make our country great”—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 setting or policing values, at home or abroad.

For values enforced are dogma.

When incontestable majorities call on government to curb Islamic and Latin-American in-migration because this imperils American lives, President Trump’s unswerving opponents, on this front—Ryan, McCain, Graham, Schumer and their media mafia—invariably intone, “That’s not who we are.”

When you hear that manipulative chant, tell them to mind their own business. Tell them to stick to their strict constitutional mandate to protect the people, not police their minds.

Remember: Through an appeal to values, the State aggrandizes itself.

A limited government, serving an ostensibly free people, has no right to push through illegitimate government policy by merely appealing to “our values,” because a legitimate American government has no right to enforce values.

****

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

Advertisements

The Demonization Of Whites By Mrs. Bill Gates & Other Dangerous Idiots


By ilana mercer

Melinda Gates, a silly woman with an enormously wealthy husband, has decided to reinvent herself as a venture capitalist. With a difference.

With her husband’s billions, Mrs. Gates announced her intention to venture into funding start-up companies that are likely to fail.

In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Gates “bashed ‘white guys,’” and vowed to favor women and people of color in her investment choices.

Using pigment and gender as criteria in allocating her abundant resources is hardly a prudent investment strategy.

But Mrs. Gates can afford to lose money. Her husband is Bill Gates, a lily-white billionaire (with lots of liver spots).

From the vertiginous heights of ignorance, Mrs. Bill Gates has scolded the venture-capital industry:

“Enough with your love for ‘the white guy in a hoodie’” (whatever that means).

Thanks to her husband’s vast riches, Melinda’s son, Rory John Gates, will remain insulated from discrimination visited on white men, by vindictive women like Mommy Dearest, in the name of “white privilege” (whatever that means).

“White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it”:  While the article is from 2015, Salon and other influential leftist news sites have furnished sequels to the “salutary” warning, issued by the magazine in time for Christmas.

“White men must be stopped”? What precisely does that mean?

In the postmodern tradition, the pseudo-academics behind the concept of white privilege have invented for themselves an artificial, political construct.

Political constructs confer power on those who dream them up. For politics is the predatory process through which the figment of sick minds is weaponized.

In defense of their world salads, our ideological overlords never argue or prove their case. They simply assert it.

Clever catchphrases such as “white privilege” create political reality, they don’t reflect it.

By banging on about systemic racism and the evils of whiteness, the lunatics running the country’s academic and corporate asylums indoctrinate the dumb and terrorize deviationists.

Here in the US, these sub-intelligent assault on the identity of Europeans, Caucasians, melanin-deficient men—whatever you wish to call the majority that founded America—is being institutionalized.

In South Africa, the writer’s birthplace, this impoverished, linguistic onanism is already institutionalized. We know where that has led.

Ominously, American universities, the University of Wisconsin-Madison is an example, are offering courses framing “whiteness” as a “problem.” “The Problem of Whiteness” in UW–Madison’s vernacular.

Notice how that’s phrased. A problem is something good people get rid of, solve.

“The Problem of Whiteness.” “The Jewish Problem.” See where this might lead?

Note the linguistic similarities between the language of white haters and Jew killers.

The program known as “The Final Solution” was the Nazi’s solution to what they termed “The Jewish Problem.”

Likewise, whites as whites are said to be a problem. Whites qua whites are described as intrinsically bad.

Lightweight conservatives, the kind constantly empaneled on TV, cast the assault on whites as “goofy,” to quote a Fox News guest. That’s all. They make fun of it as no more than white noise, to be ignored.

The fate of the minority in South Africa suggests otherwise.

There is nothing remotely “goofy” about the demonization of whites. Of any group, for that matter.

It so happens that whites are fair game. No other group would tolerate being blackened.

Yes, profound stupidity is involved.

In an affirmative-action generated class of intellectuals who’re not very intelligent, we have a monster of our own creation.

Certainly, by teaching and preaching collective guilt and guilt by association, this Idiocracy is committing both logical and moral errors.

Why so? Because you cannot blame a collective for your misfortunes (real or imagined), unless each individual within that collective has harmed you.

Alas, problems of atavistic anti-intellectualism, institutionalized stupidity, and plain wickedness, culminating in institutionalized anti-whiteness—these are never merely “goofy.”

They are dangerous.

Dehumanization is part of a broader process that leads to, and legitimizes, violence—and worse.

“Dehumanization,” warns genocide expert Gregory Stanton, “overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.”

To give the reader a sense of how far into Dr. Stanton’s danger zone American society has “advanced”: “Dehumanization is fourth in Stanton’s “Ten Stages of Genocide.”

As for aider, abettor and all-round idiot Melinda Gates: She might want to back the best and the brightest in her venture-capital exploits. This way, Mrs. Bill Gates will have more money with which to prop-up her failing, racially and sexually pure business ventures.

***

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

School Shootings: A Moral-Health, Not Mental-Health, Problem


By ilana mercer

The tele-experts assert that to do what he did—kill 10 and maim 13, at Santa Fe High School, in Texas—Dimitrios Pagourtzis had to be insane.

Likewise, Nikolas Cruz—killer of 17 in Parkland, Florida—and many shooters before him: All were victims of mental disorder. Or, so say the experts.

Come to think of it, the structure of argument coming from conservative and progressive corners is the same:

Conservatives blame mental health.

Progressives blame the National Rifle Association.

Both factions see the locus of responsibility for these murder sprees as beyond the reach and bailiwick of the individual and of what were once formative and corrective institutions: the church, for example.

As the language deployed in the culture might suggest, crimes aren’t committed, but are caused. Perpetrators don’t do the crime, but are driven to do their deeds by a confluence of uncontrollable factors.

The paradox at the heart of the disease theory of delinquency is that causal theoretical explanations are invoked only after bad deeds have been committed. Good deeds, however extravagant, are in no need of extenuation.

The evidence our tele-therapists advance for a killer’s “madness” is … the murder or murders he has committed.

Whatever the logical fallacy the psychiatrists commit—circular reasoning or backward reasoning—thinking people can agree: This is bad logic.

Fact: When they suggest a shooter is sick, they do so based on the fact that he committed murder.

Let’s run with this “logic”: The reductio ad absurdum of what the mental-health mavens are saying is that to kill, an individual must be deranged.

Does that not imply that the default condition of humanity is goodness?

Indeed, evil has been cast as a symptom of illness. It’s certainly so if to judge by the language used by the experts.

This is dangerous, because evil responds to punishment, not to kid gloves, which is what medicalizing misbehavior amounts to.

The more we medicalize dysfunctional conduct, the more of it we will get.

Why? Because the therapist’s couch—the chaise longue sofa in the movies—or his hallucinogens are a lot more pleasant than the hard work involved in reforming conduct and character.

Pleasant is a reward. Reward evil and you’ll get more of it.

That’s where the disease theory of delinquency leads. It rules out evil and brings us closer to marginalizing goodness.

By all means, scan the brains of shooters in search of significant pathology. You’ll find none—not when variables like drug-taking are controlled for, and when the absence of baseline measurements for comparison purposes is factored-in.

Moreover, most individuals classified as mentally ill do not murder.

See, evil is part of the human condition, always has been, always will be. Evil can’t be wished away, treated away, medicated away or legislated away. Evil is here to stay.

Bad people—little Damiens included—do bad things. All the more so when barriers to bad behavior are removed across the board, and when everything goes.

The infamous Nikolas Cruz was a feral boy bereft of family, friends, faith and church affiliation. Cruz was loosely attached to a sprawling, impersonal, school system that taught him and his peers about safe sex, but shielded them from the Ten Commandments.

His example of systemic institutional failure typifies instances of school shootings across America.

Failure of state institutions—FBI, education and social services—and failure of familial and faith-based institutions came together to dreadful effect. The latter, in particular, are no longer there for bad boys in the forceful, firm way they need.

Ultimately, the disease theory of delinquency is as morally fraught as it is logically wrong. You will never solve pervasive problems of character and morality, personal and societal, by medicalizing them.

****

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

Whodunit? Who “Meddled” With Our Democracy? (Part 2)


©2018 By ILANA MERCER

Not a day goes by when the liberal media don’t telegraph to the world that a “Trumpocracy” is destroying American democracy. Conspicuous by its absence is a pesky fact: Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

One of the ways in which the republic was destroyed was through the slow sundering of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The 10th was meant to guarantee constitutional devolution of power.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The de facto demise of the 10th has resulted in “constitutional” consolidation.

Fair enough, but is that enough? A perceptive Townhall.com reader was having none of it.

In response to “Whodunit? Who ‘Meddled’ With Our American Democracy” (Part 1), the reader upbraided this writer:

“Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”

In other words, to advance the erosion of the 10th in explaining who did our republic in, without mentioning the 14th: this was an omission on the writer’s part.

The reader is admirably correct about Incorporation-Doctrine centralization. 

Not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to concede that the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine have obliterated the Constitution’s federal scheme, as expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment.

What does this mean?

You know the drill but are always surprised anew by it. Voters pass a law under which a plurality wishes to live in a locality. Along comes a U.S. district judge and voids the law, citing a violation of the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

For example: Voters elect to prohibit local government from sanctioning gay marriage. A U.S. district judge voids voter-approved law for violating the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

These periodical contretemps around gay marriage, or the legal duty of private property owners to cater these events, are perfectly proper judicial activism. It flows from the 14th Amendment.

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.

Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of a judiciary. Yet not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to cop to this constitutional fait accompli.

The gist of it: Jeffersonian constitutional thought is no longer in the Constitution; its revival unlikely.

A Court System Centralized

For another example of the endemic usurpation of The People, rendering the original Constitutional scheme obsolete, take the work of the generic jury. With his description of the relationship between jury and people, American scholar of liberty Lysander Spooner conjures evocative imagery.

A jury is akin to the “body of the people.” Trial by jury is the closest thing to a trial by the whole country. Yet courts in the nation’s centralized court system, the Supreme Court included, are in the business of harmonizing law across the nation, rather than allowing communities to live under laws they author, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

States’ Rights All But Obliterated 

Like juries, states had been entrusted with the power to beat back the federal government and void unconstitutional federal laws.

States’ rights are “an essential Americanism,” wrote Old Rightist Frank Chodorov. The Founding Fathers as well as the opponents of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, agreed on the principle of divided authority as a safeguard to the rights of the individual. 

Duly, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison perfected a certain doctrine in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. “The Virginia Resolutions,” explains historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “spoke of the states’ rights to ‘interpose’ between the federal government and the people of the states; the Kentucky Resolutions used the term nullification—the states, they said, could nullify federal laws that they believed to be unconstitutional.”

“Jefferson,” emphasized Woods, “considered states’ rights a much more important and effective safeguard of people’s liberties than the ‘checks and balances’ among the three branches of the federal government.”

And for good reason. While judicial review was intended to curb Congress and restrain the Executive, in reality, the judicial, legislative and executive unholy federal trinity has simply colluded, over time, in an alliance that has helped abolish the 10th Amendment.

Founding Faith Expunged  

And how well has First Amendment jurisprudence served constitutionalists?

Establishment-clause cases are a confusing and capricious legal penumbra. Sometimes displays of the Hebraic Decalogue or manger scene are taken to constitute the establishment of a state religion. Other times not.

This body of law forever teeters on conflating the injunction against the establishment of a state religion with an injunction against the expression of faith—especially discriminating against the founding faith in taxpayer-supported spaces.

The end result has been the expulsion of religion from the public square and the suppression therein of freedom of religion.

On the topic of religious freedom, Jefferson was prolific, too. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was a crowning achievement for which he wished to be remembered, along with the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia.

Jefferson interpreted “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof”—as confirms by David N. Meyer, author of Jefferson’s Constitutional Thought—to guarantee both “an absolute free exercise of religion and an absolute prohibition of an establishment of religion.”

Yet somehow, the kind of constitutional thought that carries legal sway today prohibits expressions of faith or displays of a civilizing moral code in government-controlled spheres. Given my libertarian view of government’s immoral modus operandi, I find this amusingly apropos. Still, this is not what Jefferson had in mind for early Americans.

Indeed, why would anyone, bar Nancy Pelosi and her party, object to “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not commit adultery, steal or covet?” The Ten Commandments can hardly be perceived as an instrument for state proselytization.

Nevertheless, the law often takes displays of the Decalogue or the nativity scene on tax-payer funded property as an establishment of a state religion.

“I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercise,” Jefferson expatiated.

He then gets to the soul of the subject: “This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of religion but also from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states [or to the people] the powers not delegated to the U.S.”

So, dear reader, if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that the Russians didn’t deep-six our republic of private property rights and radical decentralization; we did.

***

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

Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset


©2018 By ILANA MERCER

I recently traveled to Texas to speak about South Africa, at the Free Speech Forum of  the Texas A & M University.

To travel from the Pacific Northwest all the way to College Station, Texas, without experiencing more of the “Lone Star State” was not an option.

So, after driving from Austin eastward to College Station (where I was hosted by two exceptional young, Southern gentlemen), I headed south-west to San Antonio. There I lingered long enough to conclude:

The Republic of Texas is a civilization apart.

Ordinary Texans—from my brief travels—tend to be sunny, kind and warmhearted. Not once did I encounter rude on my Texas junket.

On the Pacific Coast, however, kindness and congeniality don’t come naturally. State-of-Washington-statists are generally aloof, opprobrious, insular. And, frankly, dour.

Southern historian Dr. Clyde N. Wilson tells of receiving “a package containing a chamber pot labeled ‘Robert E. Lee’s Soup Tureen.'”

It came from … Portland, Maine.

Unkind cuts are an everyday occurrence around here, where the busybody mentality prevails.

Stand still long enough, and they’ll tell you how to live. They’ll even give chase to deliver that “corrective” sermon. A helmeted cyclist once chased me down along a suburban running trail.

My sin? I had fed the poor juncos in the dead of winter. (Still do. Bite me, you bully.)

Having caught up with me, SS Cyclist got on his soap box and in my face about my unforgivable, rule-bending. Wasn’t I familiar with the laws governing his pristine environmental utopia?

Didn’t I know that only the fittest deserved to survive? That’s the natural world, according to these ruthless, radical progressive puritans.

Yes, mea culpa for having an exceedingly soft spot for God’s plucky little creatures.

When a Washington statist gets wind of your core beliefs—why, even if your use of the English language irks His Highness—he will take it upon himself to fix your “flaws,” try to make you over in his sorry image.

For the distinct cluster of characteristics just described, Dr.  Wilson aforementioned uses the term Yankee.

The professor, whose métier is American intellectual history, was described by Eugene Genovese as “an exemplary historian who displays formidable talent.” Another stellar scholar, Thomas Landess, lauded Wilson as “a mind as precise and expansive as an encyclopedia.”

Duly, Dr. Wilson makes the following abundantly clear: By “Yankee,” he does not mean “everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio.”

“The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees.”

“Yankee” as a designation belongs to “a peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and a penchant for ordering other people around.”

“A perversity of character,” said Thomas Jefferson succinctly of the Yankee character.

Indeed, “Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good about their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.”

The cover of Wilson’s “The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma” is bedecked with the quintessential Yankee mugs of Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and John Brown, each a murderer in his or her own right. The one butchered with his bare hands. The other two killed by proxy.

The contemporary face of the fanaticism alluded to here is pundit Richard Painter, who is the spitting image of Brown. A Republican until Trump, Painter is now a member of the anti-Trump high-command at MSNBC.

In zealotry, Painter could pass for the terrifying Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens.

A broader truth hit me in the solar plexus during the sojourn from the American Deep North to The South. On hand to better contextualize it is my friend, Clyde Wilson:

Texas is still a Red State, despite a large number of minorities. That is because Texas, as you observed, Ilana, has a real culture. That means that there is a reality there that minorities can identify with and assimilate to. Unlike, say, Chicago or New Jersey or L.A., where they simply become aggrieved ‘victims,’ clamoring for special benefits, that being the only culture present.

The peculiar character of the Yankee was observed by Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th. The first great American novelist, James Fenimore Cooper, wrote a whole series of books about the New England Yankees who spread into and destroyed the unique culture of his home country of Upstate New York.

Plenty of Northerners, like Governor Horatio Seymour of New York and Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, blamed the War between the States on New Englanders, and not the South, which simply wanted to be let alone. One cannot really grasp American history unless you understand how Yankees have dominated and distorted it since the late 18th century.”

 

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

Are Liberal Pervs Sexually Obsessed With Refugees?


By ilana mercer

It’s hard to feel sorry for liberals when they reap the results of the policies they force on the rest of us.

A middle-aged woman, who campaigned against the deportation of migrants from her native Sweden, was raped by the very refugees she advocates for.

She met two Afghani teens on the street, outside a bar—no slut-shaming, please—voluntarily accompanied them to their taxpayer-funded pad. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Behind the European obsession with importing tall, dark, Middle-Eastern young men are hordes of horny, menopausal, Social Justice Warriors (SJW).

“Bohemian witches” or “tie-dye hags” is how one risqué, Swedish, YouTube commentator calls this degenerate distaff.

Left-liberal women (like Chancellor Angela Merkel) certainly have a fixation—could it be erotic?—with rescuing dark, handsome, exotic-looking strangers.

Judging from their irrational, histrionic protests against President Trump’s travel ban, we appear destined to live or die by these females’ hormones (or their replaced hormones).

Some men in that part of the world are not much better.

A Norwegian male was raped by a Somali asylum seeker. The last term—Somali asylum seeker—is something of a contradiction like the first (Norwegian man).

The asylum-seeker honorific is given to practically anyone from the Dark Continent or the Middle-East who washes up on Continental Europe’s shores.

The politician, Karsten Nordal Hauken, who says he’s heterosexual, went public with the details of his awful ordeal. “I was raped by a Somalian asylum seeker,” he wrote in a Norwegian newspaper. “My life fell into ruin.”

But it was Nordal Hauken, not his assailant, who proceeded to assault sensibilities with a confession that rivals the crime for reprehensibility. Hyperbole? I don’t think so.

As Hauken, a self-described left-wing feminist, tells it, he has been wracked by guilt because one night of passion had caused his Somali assailant to be returned to sender.

After resting up in a Norwegian prison, the rapist is said to have been deported to Somalia. (I can find no evidence of said rapist’s whereabouts. Maybe he’s en route to America?)

Hauken laments being overcome by “a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility. I was the reason that he would not be in Norway anymore …”

And: “I see [the Somali] mostly as a product of an unfair world, a product of an upbringing marked by war and despair.”

In his perversity, our leftist political powerbroker further mischaracterized the light sentence given to his rapist by the Norwegian State as “the ultimate revenge,” meted out by “an angry father confronting it’s [sic] child’s attacker.”

Mr. Hauken also moans that the rapist, we’ll call him Mr. Priapus, would be “sent to a dark uncertain future in Somalia,” instead of enjoying, presumably, the bright future that awaits a man with his priapic proclivities in welcoming Norway.

Hauken has since come to the conclusion that he might not have been raped after all, but simply subjected to “a cultural difference.”

What a penetrating observation!

A somewhat shallow analysis of this sorry specter was offered up in the British Spectator. It chalks up Hauken’s confession to a simple case of “Stockholm syndrome,’ used to describe hostages who take on the perspectives of their kidnappers.”

“Perhaps the Hauken case,” opines The Spectator’s Douglas Murray, “could be used to coin the term ‘Norway syndrome,’ an affliction that causes rape-victims to feel concern over the prospects of their rapists?”

Tellingly, Mr. Murray collapses the distinction between the reaction of this male heterosexual and that of another rape victim: “a ‘no-borders’ activist on the French-Italian border.”

She “was gang-raped by a group of Sudanese immigrants but was persuaded to keep quiet about her own rape, in case it was used to undermine the open-borders cause.”

The woman is another fool who reaped the results of her folly. As far as we know, however, the raped woman has never publicly expressed a kinship with her gang rapists and is said to have been coaxed into silence.

Good or bad, the Norwegian Nordal Hauken has spoken openly about a reality few straight men would reveal: rape by another man. Hauken, not the female vanquished by the invaders, is the one said to feel for his violator. So far, Hauken has certainly shared his inappropriate feelings more promiscuously than most women would.

Indeed, the liberal program aims to dissolve “the constitution of man” in the service of sexual sameness. It is predicated on the imbecilic belief that biology is incidental, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable.

Egalitarianism, the goal of the Left and the Political Right, rests on the blunting of male-female differences. In the service of egalitarian sameness, the man-vs.-female biological imperatives are rapidly, if reflexively, being dissolved.

Survival, however, has a biological dimension. A submissive, effete civilization, made up of men like Mr. Hauken will not endure.

The repulsive specter of Karsten Nordal Hauken just about turning the other cheek to the man who spread both his cheeks is not an isolated case.

The pale, liberal patriarchy is a pioneer in forever scrutinizing itself for signs of racism and deficits in empathy toward “The Other,” while readily accusing others of the same.

It’s as though liberal men derive erotic pleasure from prostrating themselves to assailants and ceding to racial claims-making.

Could it be that liberal men are driven by a powerful homo-erotic impulsive?

Who knows, but as the example of Nordal Hauken shows, this specimen is queering at a rapid pace.

 

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

Trashing Populism: Dim-Bulb Academic Vs. Deplorables


By ilana mercer

To say that academic elites don’t like ordinary folks is to state the obvious.

To them, Lanford, Illinois—the fictional, archetypal, working-class town, made famous by Roseanne and Dan Conner—is not to be listened to, but tamed.

A well-functioning democracy depends on it.

Taming Fishtown—Charles Murray’s version of Landford—is the thread that seems to run through  a new book, “The People vs. Democracy,” by one Yascha Mounk.

You guessed it. Mr. Mounk is not an American from the prairies; he’s a German academic, ensconced at Harvard, and sitting in judgment of American and European populism.

If only he were capable of advancing a decent argument.

“The number of countries that can plausibly be described as democracies is shrinking,” laments Mounk (“Populism and the Elites,” The Economist, March 17, 2018):

Strongmen are in power in several countries that once looked as if they were democratizing … The United States—the engine room of democratization for most of the post-war period—has a president who taunted his opponent with chants of ‘lock her up’ and refused to say if he would accept the result of the election if it went against him.

 

Elites ensconced in the academy are likely selected into these mummified institutions for a certain kind of ignorance about political theory or philosophy.

Plainly put, a chant, “lock her up,” is speech, nothing more. This Trump-rally chant might be impolite and impolitic, but on the facts, it’s not evidence of a “strongman.”

Notice how, deconstructed, nearly every utterance emitted by the technocratic and academic elites turns out to be empty assertion?

Even the subtitle of the book under discussion is sloppy political theory: “Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It” implies that democracy is the be-all and end-all of liberty. Quite the opposite.

America’s Constitution-makers did everything in their power (except, sadly, heed the Anti-Federalists) to thwart a dispensation wherein everything is up for grabs by government, in the name of the people.

Today,” claims our author,  “the popular will is increasingly coming into conflict with individual rights.” To this end, “liberal elites are willing to exclude the people from important decisions, most notably about immigration in the case of the European Union.”

He has excluded Americans from the immigration, decision-making equation. But they, too, have been eliminated from decision-making on these matters. Perhaps the anti-populism tinkerer, for Mounk is no thinker, views the levels of “exclusion” in the US, on this front, as acceptable.

Perhaps he thinks that the flow of up to two million into the US every year—changing it by the day—is done with the right degree of democratic inclusion. (How about a federal referendum on immigration, to test that?)

The popular will is fine—provided it restores the obligations of government to its constituents, not to the world, protects nation-state sovereignty, respects the founding people of Europe and the West; and protects their traditions, safety and identity. For example, by eliminating the weaponization of political concepts against The People. In the context of immigration, constructs that have been weaponized are multiculturalism and diversity.

If anything, populist leaders who want to denuclearize constructs which have been weaponized by the state are authentic leaders. The opposing elites are the interlopers.

Your common, garden-variety academic is selected and elevated in academia precisely because of a pre-existing condition: a globalist, deracinated disposition.

For that matter, humanity does not have a right to immigrate en masse to the United States or to Europe. There is no natural right to venture wherever, whenever—unless, perhaps, migrants can be confined to homesteading frontier territory.

Regrettably, the developed world is running out of frontier territory to homestead.  Besides, the only potential immigrants who still have that frontier spirit are South-African farmers. But American and European elites are uninterested in refugees who are ACTUALLY and actively being killed-off.

That would be too much like preserving “white privilege,” which is certainly not what Mounk’s about. He moans, instead, about dangerous populists, and how they’re “willing to dispense with constitutional niceties in the name of ‘the people.’”

Which “constitutional niceties” have populists dispensed with? Repealing statutory, man-made law the Left, invariably, depicts as fascism, when in fact repealing positive law is often liberating; strengthening the natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“Politics,” our author continues, “is defined by a growing battle between illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, on the one hand, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy, on the other.

It’s hard to know what to make of such bafflegab, only that the author’s political theory has been through the progressive smelter. Democracy unfettered—social democracy, Third Wayism—adopted by all “free” nations, the US as well, in antithetical to the liberty envisioned by the American Founding Fathers.

Why so? Because in this fetid democracy, every aspect of individual life is up for government control. The very idea that a few hundred clowns in two chambers could represent hundreds of millions of individuals is quintessentially illiberal. And impossible.

The kind of “undemocratic liberalism” the author sneers at is likely the classical liberalism of the 19th century, where the claims the mass of humanity could levy against individuals in a particular territory were severely curtailed, if not non-existent.

Finally, what would an academic be without a brand of demeaning, economic reductionism? The lumpenproletariat are economically distressed. That’s Yascha Mounk’s final diagnosis. That’s why populism is surging.

Tossed in their direction, Chinese-made trinkets will do wonders to improve the mood of this seething, racist, mass of Deplorables. Then Mounk and his friends can move in to make the right decisions for us.

Harvard’s Chosen’s One chalks populism up to “the laws of globalization.” Deal with it or die.

Or, as advocated by Kevin D. Williamson, a NeverTrumper formerly of National Review:

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets … The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.” (“The Father-Führer,” March 28, 2016.)

 

You see, working-class “losers” are being labelled illiberal fascists for—wait for it!—wanting a local economy around which to center flesh-and-blood communities.

A real Heil-Hitler moment!

This populism-detesting academic (Yascha Mounk) is a theoretical utilitarian and bad one at that. He refuses to “grapple with the nuances” of the issues that make for misery or mirth among ordinary men and women. Instead, he grumbles that his gang of “technocratic elites” needs to moderate its ambitions, given that they’re not working with much (dumb Deplorables).

Here’s the truth about the nationalism against which the political and pedagogic elites rail:

[It] has often been cast by the historically triumphant Left as fascistic. Yet historically, this Right rising has represented broad social strata: It has represented the bourgeoisie—middle-class, liberal and illiberal, standing for professional and commercial interests. It has stood for the working class, the landed aristocracy, the (Catholic) clergy, the military, labor unions, standing as one against the radical Communist or anarchist Left, which promised—and eventually delivered—bloody revolution that destroyed organic, if imperfect, institutions. (“The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” p. 234

***

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