Author Archives: ilana mercer

Let’s Mobilize An Army Of Stone Throwers On Border


By ilana mercer

In the United States, even Customs and Border Protection apologizes for doing its job. CBP is supposed to “protects the public from dangerous people and materials attempting to cross the border …”

On one of the networks that wants all people, dangerous or not, to cross the southern border into the U.S., if they so desire, a CBP officer was bending over backwards to appear like a “global force for good.” (That, believe it or not, was the U.S. Navy’s motto, between 2009 and 2015!)

Tear-gassing rubble-rousing migrants, who were charging his officers and breaching the U.S.-Mexico border, was in the service of protecting … the migrants, especially The Children. Perhaps that’s in the oath of office a CBP officer takes?

Law enforcement officers entrusted with the safety of the American people struggle to articulate pride in executing their mandate. Attached to the expected self-loathing repartee is, invariably, a declaration of loyalties to The World. (Of a piece with this confused loyalty is the typical argument made by the typical TV talker: Illegal immigration must be stopped, so as to … save migrants from the journey’s depredations.)

It’s instructive to contrast the apologetics around defending the U.S. border and the American people with the absence of apologies on Israel’s borders.

In May this year, “Tens of thousands of Palestinians massed near Gaza’s border fence, threatening to ‘return’ to the lands their forefathers lost when Israel was created in 1948.” They wanted in.

Israeli soldiers responded not with tear gas, but with bullets. They killed over 60 protesters who threatened to breach the border. The number has since risen to 120.

Most of us, this writer included, would condemn such excessive force.

Yet surprisingly, the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly—pondered but briefly and nonchalantly about Israel’s army having used excessive force, concluding almost callously: “Every state has a right to defend its borders.”

Come again?!

This from the very same editorialists who never tire of protesting any disruption in the holy quest of weary columns of Christ-like caravanners, planning to defy the U.S. government, by illegally entering the United States of America.

Moreover, calmly and with no histrionics does the Economist report, matter-of-fact, that “Any Palestinian, even a farmer, coming within 300 meters of the fence [with Gaza] is liable to be shot.”

And while the august magazine has declaimed dutifully that “Israel must answer for the deaths in Gaza,” its writers have also evinced a good deal of impatience with the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), stating: “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”

In other words, grow up. The stone throwing was cute when your “Struggle” was in its infancy.

Go figure.

For the longest time, the world raged about Israel’s refusal to accept the necessity for its citizens to be blown to bits or be overrun demographically (by people who’re “only seeking a better life” for themselves and their posterity).

Israel paid no attention to the liberal lunatics aligned against its oft-excessive habit of defending its citizenry’s rights.

In fact, the Jewish State has recently gone one better. Israel has automated the process of defense, creating a set of “auto kill-zones” “by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.”

Bluntly put, Israel has deployed gizmos to Gaza; “Robo-Snipers” instead of flesh-and-blood men and women.

The nation’s “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” are still deployed to the front—but virtually. They sit at a safe distance “behind computer screens,” waiting on “approval by a commanding officer” before “pushing the kill button.”

The IDF Southern Command’s rules of engagement along the Gaza fence are, shall we say, particularly aggressive.

Oh, it’s still pro forma for the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to open every one of their sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel’s actions on its borders and everywhere else.

But even the U.N., a cesspit of venality and stupidity, has gotten the message over the decades. And it is this:

Israel’s army is not going to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs, thereby not committing the crime of using excessive force.

Israel’s action on its borders is not unlike action taken by the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of borders not our 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

 

Advertisements

Apartheid In Black And White: Truth About The Afrikaner (1)


By ilana mercer

In a recent translation of Tacitus’ “Annals,” a question was raised as to whether “there were any ‘nations’ in antiquity other than the Jews.” Upon reflection, one suspects that the same question can be posed about the Afrikaners in the modern era.

In fact, in April of 2009, former South African President Jacob Zuma infuriated the “multicultural noise machine” the world over by stating: “Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word. Up to this day, they [the Afrikaners] don’t carry two passports, they carry one. They are here to stay.”

Indeed, the Afrikaners fought Africa’s first anticolonial struggles, are native to the land and not colonists in any normal sense. Yet the liberal world order has only ever singled out Afrikaners for having established apartheid, considered by the Anglo-American-European axis of interventionism to be “one of the world’s most retrogressive colonial systems.”

However, while the honing of apartheid by the Afrikaner National Party started in 1948, after Daniel Malan assumed the prime minister’s post, elements of the program were part of the policy first established in 1923 by the British-controlled government.

There was certainly nothing Mosaic about the maze of racial laws that formed the edifice of apartheid. The Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be classified by bureaucrats in accordance with race. The Group Areas Act “guaranteed absolute residential segregation.” Pass laws regulated the comings-and-goings of blacks (though not them alone), and ensured that black workers left white residential areas by nightfall.

Easily the most egregious aspect of flushing blacks out of white areas was the manner in which entire communities were uprooted and dumped in bleak, remote, officially designated settlement sites— “vast rural slums with urban population densities, but no urban amenities beyond the buses that represented their slender lifelines to the cities.”

Still, apartheid South Africa sustained far more critical scrutiny for its non-violent (if unjust) resettlement policies than did the U.S. for its equally unjust but actively violent mass resettlement agenda, say, in South Vietnam. (See Sophie Quinn-Judge, “Lawless Zones,” The Times Literary Supplement, February 26, 2010.)

Or, before that. In his magisterial “History of the American People,” historian Paul Johnson, a leading protagonist for America, details the rather energetic destruction and displacement by Andrew Jackson of the “the oldest American nations,” the Indians.

Nor should we forget subsequent American military misdeeds. There was, for instance, the 1890 “Wounded Knee” bloodbath in South Dakota (where a U.S. cavalry regiment wiped out, within an hour, between 150 and 300 Native Americans, women and children included). A decade later occurred the war in the Philippines, where a million Filipinos perished at American hands. The 1990 book “In Our Image,” written by historian Stanley Kurnow, reports that at least 200,000 of the dead Filipinos in that war were civilians. Many of the civilians breathed their last in disease-ridden concentration camps which were known as reconcentrados.

It was the British, not the settler ancestors of the contemporary Afrikaners, who vanquished the locals with the express purpose of producing British-type “free” societies. The horrors of British concentration camps during the Boer War are well documented. And there is little to be said in extenuation of Britain’s Zulu Wars, which were summarized in an extract from the once-famous 1930 historiographical parody “1066 And All That”: “War Against Zulus. Cause: the Zulus. Zulus exterminated. Peace with Zulus.”

Why so many conservatives still defend Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt is a mystery. The fact is that between 1942 and 1945, the FDR administration dispensed with habeas corpus in order to relocate en masse, and confine in camps, some 112,000 Japanese aliens and American-born citizens of Japanese ancestry. These Japanese internees were penned in camps, their bank accounts frozen often for years, without being charged with any crime.

Nothing in Afrikaner rule, even at its least enlightened, can match such episodes in American history.

The offending National Party began to dismantle apartheid almost a decade before the transition to democracy. By 1986, the party had already brought down apartheid’s pillars. “Beginning in the early 1980s, the South African government expanded democracy by drawing colored people and Indians into Parliament.” By the end of the 1980s, the pernicious influx control laws had been scrapped, public facilities desegregated, and racial sex laws repealed. “Blacks were allowed full freehold rights to property” and admission to historically white universities.

**

Next week: “Apartheid: A Strategy for Survival”   

Citations are in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa” (2011) by ilana mercer, who has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

 

 

 

 

Land Reform In Ramaphosa’s South Africa. (Theresa May Is Down With It*)


©2018 By ILANA MERCER

He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner. “As the old legal adage goes, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ as it is the best evidence in our uncertain world of legitimate title. The burden of proof rests squarely with the person attempting to alter and abolish present property titles.” (From “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa”.)

It is to this potent principle that democratic rule in South Africa has taken an axe—or, rather, an assegai.

Here is how taking land legally currently works, in South Africa, a place the US State Department has only just lauded as “a strong democracy with resilient institutions…,” a country merely  “grappling with the difficult issue of land reform.” “Land reform,” of course, is a euphemism for land distribution in the Robert Mugabe mold.

The process currently in place typically begins with a “tribe” or group of individuals who band together to claim vast tracts of private property.

If these loosely and conveniently conjoined groups know anything, it’s this: South Africa’s adapted, indigenized law allows coveted land, owned and occupied by another, to be obtained with relative ease.

See, the country no longer enjoys the impressive Western system of Roman-Dutch law it once enjoyed. Lax law and poorly protected property rights signal a free-for-all on the lives of white owners and their livestock.

No sooner does this newly constituted “tribe” (or band of bandits, really) launch a claim with the South African Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, than related squatters—sometimes in the thousands—move to colonize the land.

They defile its grounds and groundwater by using these as one vast toilet, and terrorize, sometimes kill, its occupants and their animals in the hope of “nudging” them off the land.

Dr. Philip du Toit, a farmer (with a doctorate in labor law) and author of “The Great South African Land Scandal,” speaks of recurrent attacks on farm animals that “hark back to the Mau Mau terror campaign which drove whites off Kenyan farms.”

Farmer’s Weekly used to be packed with pitiful accounts of cows poisoned with exotic substances, battered with heavy metal bars, writhing in agony for hours before being found by a distraught farmer.

“Encroachment is the right word,” a farmer told du Toit. “They put their cattle in, then they cut the fences, then they start stealing your crops, forcing you to leave your land. And then they say: ‘Oh well, there’s vacant land, let’s move on to it.’

It’s a very subtle way of stealing land.” “When there is a farm claim I say ‘Look out!’ because attacks may follow to scare the farmers,” confirmed the regional director of the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU).”

Agri SA, an organization representing small and large-scale commercial farmers, reports the annual theft of hundreds of thousands of priceless livestock.

The ANC’s old Soviet-inspired Freedom Charter promised this: “All shall have the right to occupy land wherever they choose.” And so they do today.

Because of legal claims they are powerless to fight, squatters whom they cannot fend off, and cattle, crops and families which they can no longer protect, farmers have already been pushed to abandon hundreds of thousands of hectares of prime commercial farmland.

“Since the end of apartheid in 1994, when multi-racial elections were held,” wrote Dan McDougal of the London Times, millions of “acres of productive farmland have been transferred to black ownership. Much of it is now lying fallow, creating no economic benefit for the nation or its new owners.”

South Africa has become a net importer of food for the first time in its history.

“My visit to Mpumalanga came immediately after crossing the frontier from Zimbabwe,” attests Aidan Hartley, also of the Times, “and what struck me was how similar the landscapes were after redistribution had taken place. Once productive maize fields now grow only weeds. Citrus orchards are dying, their valuable fruit rotting on the branches. Machinery lies about rusting. Irrigation pipes have been looted and farm sheds are derelict and stripped of roofing. Windbreak trees have been hacked down and roads are potholed.”

Dr. du Toit has traversed the “beloved country” from the Limpopo to the Cape, from Natal to the North West to document the transfer and consequent trashing of the country’s commercial farms.

Without exception, splendid enterprises that fed the country many times over have been reduced to “subsistence operations with a few mangy cattle and the odd mealie patch.” (Mealie is Afrikaans for “maize,” deriving, apparently, from the Portuguese word milho.)

In even the best-case scenario, farms belonging to the whites who feed the country and produce surpluses are being handed over to subsistence farmers who can barely feed themselves.

Now, it’s about to get worse—unless a super hero comes to the rescue. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s government is denying it, but the South African press reports that “the first two farms have been targeted for unilateral seizure.”

If anyone can make the thuggish African National Congress and its leader, Ramaphosa, reconsider their plot to simply steal privately owned land from whites and gift it to the clamoring black citizens of South Africa—it’s President Donald Trump.

Another super hero, Fox News broadcaster Tucker Carlson, has served as the catalyst. Tucker got the American government, in the person of Donald Trump, to respond to indisputable crimes against humanity underway for decades against rural, white South Africans.

President Trump’s resolve to sic Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the case is possibly the first impassioned, official, American reaction to what a genocide expert has been warning about.

South African “whites and Boers” Dr. Gregory H. Stanton has placed in these stages of genocide: classification (number 1), symbolization (2), polarization (number 6 in 10).

Classification of whites as The Other has occurred. And attendant symbols of this hatred have been developed and are ingrained in the culture. To wit, in the new, highly polarized South Africa, there’s a renewed appreciation for the old slogan, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,” chanted at political rallies and funerals.

Citations are in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa” (2011) by ilana mercer, who has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

Yes, The Left Stole Liberalism And Sold Out The West


By ilana mercer

Liberals have taken to promoting socialism, which is the state-sanctioned appropriation of private property. Or, communism.

In communism’s parlance, this theft of a man’s life, labor and land is referred to as state-ownership of the means of production.

Liberals are less known for misappropriating intellectual concepts. But they do that, too.

Take the term “liberal.” It once belonged to the good guys. But socialists, communists and Fabians stole it from us.

Having originally denoted the classical liberalism of the 18th and early 19th century, “liberal” used to be a lovely word. However, to be a liberal now is to be a social democrat, a leftist, a BLM, antifa and MeToo movementarian; it’s to be Chris and Andrew Cuomo.

A French classical liberal, Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), explained what liberalism stood for:

“Individuals must enjoy a boundless freedom in the use of their property and the exercise of their labor, as long as in disposing of their property or exercising their labor they do not harm others who have the same rights.” This is the opposite of communism aka socialism.

By harm, classical liberals mean aggression, as in damage to person or property. To contemporary liberals, “harm” encompasses anything from Donald Trump’s delicious tweets to the economic competition posed by a kiddie lemonade stand.

In the UK, those in-the-know still use the word liberal in the right way. The august Economist—essential reading for, unlike American news outlets, it covers The News—has recently lamented that democracies are drifting towards “xenophobic nationalism,” and away from liberal ideas.

At the same time, the magazine allows that “liberalism is a broad church.” It mentions the “Austrians” as being among liberalism’s “forerunners”—a mention that gave me, as a devotee of economist Ludwig von Mises, the opening I needed.

So, let me ask the following:

Have the Economist’s left-liberal editorializers (excellent writers all) read what liberal extraordinaire von Mises had to say about nationalism vis-à-vis immigration?

Mises was a Jewish classical liberal in the best of traditions—a political economist second to none. He escaped the Nazis only to be treated shoddily in the American academy, by the Fabian “forerunners” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s teachers.

Another formidable, younger classical liberal thinker is David Conway (a friend). Dr. Conway has argued most convincingly and methodically—he’s incapable of arguing any other way—that nationalism is in fact a condition for the emergence of liberalism.

To that end, Conway invokes Mises. In  “Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition,” published in 1927, Mises warned that,

“In the absence of any migration barriers whatsoever, vast hordes of immigrants … would … inundate Australia and America. They would come in such great numbers that it would no longer be possible to count on their assimilation. If in the past immigrants to America soon adopted the English language and American ways and customs, this was in part due to the fact that they did not come over all at once in such great numbers. … This … would now change, and there is real danger that the ascendancy—or more correctly, the exclusive dominion—of the Anglo-Saxons in the United States would be destroyed.”

Mises was not only a true liberal, but a master of the art of argument. Still, he didn’t imagine he needed to explain why the West had to stay Western to be free.

And in “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War,” published in 1944, Mises could not have been more emphatic:

“Under present conditions the adoption of a policy of outright laissez faire and laissez passer on the part of the civilized nations of the West would be equivalent to an unconditional surrender to the totalitarian nations. Take, for instance, the case of migration barriers. Unrestrictedly opening the doors of the Americas, of Australia, and of Western Europe to immigrants would today be equivalent to opening the doors to the vanguards of the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan.”

As Conway surmises, “Mises feared a massive immigration into the liberal democracies of peoples of vastly different ethnicity, culture and outlooks. Without strict immigration controls, Mises thought, host populations would rapidly become national minorities in their own lands. As such, the hosts would become vulnerable to forms of oppression and persecution at the hands of new arrivals.”

As far back as 1927, when the seminal “Liberalism in the Classical Tradition” was published, Mises, a gentleman from Old World Vienna, understood the following:

Once illiberal, unassimilable people gain “numeric superiority,” they will turn their population advantage into political advantage, using the host population’s liberalism against it.

***

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

Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa


By ilana mercer

Once upon a time there were two politicians.

One had the power to give media and political elites goosebumps. Still does.

The other causes the same dogs to raise their hackles.

The first is Barack Hussein Obama; the second Vladimir Putin.

The same gilded elites who choose our villains and victims for us have decided that the Russian is the worst person in the world. BHO, the media consider one of the greatest men in the world.

Obama leveled Libya and lynched its leader. Our overlords were unconcerned. They knew with certainty that Obama was destroying lives irreparably out of the goodness of his heart.

Same thing when Obama became the uncrowned king of the killer drone, murdering Pakistani, Afghani, Libyan and Yemeni civilians in their thousands. That, too, his acolytes generally justified, minimized or concealed.  

In June of 2008, Obama marked his election as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Media did not mock their leader’s delusions of grandeur.

All the estrogen-oozing amoebas of mainstream media would do in response to the Obama charm offensive was to turn to one another and check, “Was it good for you? Did he make the earth move and the oceans recede for you, too?”

Recently, Obama romped on to the Third World stage “bigly.” He delivered an address in this writer’s birthplace of Johannesburg, South Africa. The occasion: the centennial commemoration of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

On that occasion, Obama praised “the liberal international order,” which is founded on inverted morality: Good is bad and bad is good.

Small wonder, then, that nobody—broadcaster Tucker Carlson excepted—was willing to shame Obama for lauding genial thug Cyril Ramaphosa as an inspiration for “new hope in [his] great country.”

President hope-and-change Ramaphosa has gone where his four peer predecessors had not dared to go. He led a wildly fruitful effort to tweak the already watered-down property-rights provision in the South-African Constitution. Theft of land owned by whites will now be permitted.

Other than their modern-day-messiah status, BHO and his hero Mandela share something else. Both were silent about the systematic ethnic cleansing and extermination, in ways that beggar belief, of South-African farmers, in particular, and whites in general.

Does the barefaced Barack care that white men, women and children are being butchered like animals, their bodies often displayed like trophies by their proud black assassins?

An example among thousands are Kaalie Botha’s parents: “You can’t kill an animal like they killed my mom and dad. You can’t believe it.” The Achilles tendons of Kaalie’s 71-year-old father had been severed by his assailants so he couldn’t flee. He was then hacked in the back until he died, his body dumped in the bush. The head of wife Joey had been bashed in by a brick, wielded with such force that the skull “cracked like an egg.”

A day in the life of farming South Africa.

Yet, there was Mr. Obama touting the new South Africa as the instantiation of the ideals promoted by Mandela.

Mind you, Obama might be on to something, in a perverse way. As stated, Mandela was mum about these killings, labeled genocidal by the expert Dr. Gregory H. Stanton.

As for “Madiba’s” fidelity to the cornerstone of civilization, private-property rights: In September of 1991, “Mr. Mandela threatened South African business with nationalization of mines and financial institutions unless business [came] up with an alternative option for the redistribution of wealth.

Had he lived to 100, Mandela would likely be cheering Ramaphosa for authorizing a free-for-all on white-owned private property.

You know who’s not ignoring or minimizing those ongoing attempts at extermination and immiseration in South Africa? President Putin.

Russia has purportedly offered to give shelter to 15,000 white South African farmers, so far, recognizing them for the true refugees they are.

But Mr. Putin must be a racist. At least that’s what the cruel and craven African National Congress (Mandela’s party) dubs any nation daring to succor white South-Africans. The very idea that black Africans would persecute white Africans is racist in itself, say South Africa’s ruling Solons.

In fact, the ANC regularly intervenes to set aside findings made by Refugee Boards across the West in favor of South Africa’s endangered minority.

Putin, of course, has a history of such “racism.” Take his “unhealthy” fixation with saving Christians in Syria. Yes, that community is thriving once again because of the Alawite and Russian alliance.

True to type, “racist” Russia is now looking out for the Afrikaner settlers of South Africa.

In 2011, when “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” was published, there were approximately 40,000 commercial South-African farmers who remained on the land of their ancestors. Minus about 3000 slaughtered.

The total number of commercial farmers who feed South Africa is now less than half the number of “refugees” the US takes in each year. To date, “there has been a trickle of South Africans applying for asylum in the United States on the grounds of racial persecution. Almost all have been deported.”

It should be news to no one that American refugee policies favor the Bantu peoples of Africa over its Boers.

As Obama would drone, “It’s who we are.”

Whichever way you slice it, on matters South Africa, Russia is the virtuous one.

 

***

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

Whites, Men, Republicans And Other Scum


By ilana Mercer

To listen to political psychologists and demographers, women are “abandoning the Republican Party” and voting for progressive policies because “they care about reproductive rights.”

Get it?  Women “care.” What do they care about? “Rights.”

The implication, at least, is that “the gender gap in American politics” is related to something women possess in greater abundance than men: virtue.

Put bluntly, women believe they have a right to have their uteruses suctioned at society’s expense. For this, they are portrayed favorably by those citing these proclivities. 

Whereas women are depicted as voting from a place of virtue, men are described by the same cognoscenti as “sticking with the Republicans” for reasons less righteous.

Men are “buttressing the Republican party,” complained the Economist, in an article claiming to “mansplain” why male voters—young even more so than old—are sticking with the GOP.

If not for men, the party “would otherwise be falling over.” As spare and as strong as the Economist’s text always is; the writer was unmistakably cross.

Academics conducting surveys no longer stick to reporting the trends observed in their often-dubious data, but attach value judgments thereto.

Their default bias in the matter of the yawning “gender gap in American politics” is this: Support for the Republican Party is wrong, perhaps even wicked. By leap of illogic, the reasons for such support must surely lie in the dark recesses of the male mind.

In search of such confirmation-bias, you have to wonder how would our brainiacs dismiss Republican women? Let me guess: Unlike men, women are good. Therefore, if they vote Republican it must be because they’re still oppressed by the patriarchy (if only).

Research methodology has moved away from impartially reporting emerging trends, and toward attaching value-judgments to them. These come in the shape of fancy sounding constructs. Most are purely political.

The nebulous concept of “status threat,” in this case, is galvanized by ill-intentioned and intellectually ill-equipped academics, to cast men as bad actors.

When men depart from the “righteous” electoral choices taken by females, and exhibit a preference for the Republican Party—they are said to be acting because of an unseemly fear that women will usurp them to take their rightful place in the world of work. Or so researchers posit.

As any researcher worth his salt should know, there are reasons other than “status threat” to vote for the Republican Party (in as much as these men don’t yet recognize the GOP for what it is: a party of quislings who seldom keep promises).

For instance, men are being crowded out of colleges; 56 percent of college students are women. And, merit be damned, company human-resource departments now put a premium on recruiting women over men.

Survival, not necessarily status, is at stake. That sort of thing.

From the smart set comes the same type of response to the demographic implications of mass migration.

Everybody, the Republican Party establishment excepted, knows that Trump voters voted because of immigration. Deplorable Americans sense that their country’s slipping away. They no longer recognize their communities.

Accompanying this transformation are strict instructions to accept, never question, the “browning of America” (in the words of a progressive at Vox.com). For this is “some vast natural process,” as Steve Sailer puts it. It’s “like the drift of the solar system through the Milky Way.”

Prosaic types that they are, deplorable Americans are not feeling the poetry. Becoming aliens in their own homeland is no fun. For these pitifully small expectations, they’re labelled “nativists, “racists” and “bigots.”

For once, however, “Ezra Klein, founder of Vox and paladin of mainstream Democratic thinking,” avoids passing ad hominin for analysis.

Instead, Klein has at least described the political effects of putting the American majority on the road to political extinction.

Without once saying “nativist, “fascist,” “racist” or “tribalist know-nothings,” Klein admits that “demographic change is fracturing our politics,” and that whites feel threatened by “the browning America.”

Klein’s essay “suggests a bit of a step toward realism among Establishment punditry,” concedes Sailer.

Again, to explain voting patterns, Klein has avoided brandishing political constructs like “status threat” as weapons to shame. Rather, he practically admits (although doesn’t quite state) “that white Americans are slowly waking up to the fact that they don’t really want to get pushed around by newcomers just for being white.”

Progressives, alas, seldom progress. To the rest of the commentariat of CNN, MSNBC, BBC, wanting a place you can call home while white is … racist.

Klein certainly won’t completely disappoint his prog peer group. To overcome that lamb-to-the-slaughter dread the majority harbors, Klein advises elites to “lie harder” to Americans. Isn’t California a good example of the glories of an inevitable majority-minority transformation?! Klein certainly thinks so (and says as much).

Name calling remains the purview of the Economist, which is forever grumbling about Trump’s “white-identity politics.” (Or the Russians.)

However, without exception and without let, progressives—one-worlder, open-border wonders that they are—celebrate that nothing Mr. Trump can do “will interrupt how America is changing.”

This “combination spells a long-term disaster for [the Republican] party,” gloats the Economist.

***

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

 

Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community


By ilana mercer

Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12.

In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely expressed the hope that “the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior.”

But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.

Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated “Intelligence Community,” itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus, now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.

Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can’t take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames … Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter.

He’s an overlord, having risen “to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division.”

As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover.

Neither is the Intelligence Community Philip Haney’s IC any longer.

Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired if they don’t get with the program. He didn’t.

Haney’s method and the authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others. Instead, his higher-ups in the “Intelligence Community” made Haney and his data disappear.

Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.

A “blind bootlicking faith in spooks” is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish.

What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the “Intelligence Community”?

As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, “Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your own lying eyes?” The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr. Strzok.

Similarly, it’s hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan—he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.

The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump.

The former Bush employee hollered treason:

“One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader,” Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like … Mr. Hayden.

As one wag noted, not unreasonably, ours is “a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency.”

The latest pillorying heaped upon the president by the permanent establishment has it that, “Trump chose to stand with Vladimir Putin, instead of the American People.” Trump, to be precise, had the temerity to “openly question his own intelligence agencies’ firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S.”

Pray tell, since when does the Deep State—FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on—represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.

That’s a LOT of support.

Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks—Deplorables, if you will—have to sympathize with the president’s initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community’s collective intelligence.

This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars.

And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveil and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to hire as an informant. The same “community” has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help shape FBI counterterrorism training.

The FBI might not be very intelligent at all.

About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed—it calls itself a news org—reported that “the Russian foreign ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC.”

Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire stipulated that the funds were meant “to finance the election campaign of 2016.”

Was this not “meddling in our election” or what? Did we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so.

“Worse still, this was only one of 60 transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,” wrote the Economist, in November of 2017. “Similar transfers were made to other countries.”

As it transpired, the money was wired from the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds to Russian embassies “to organize the polling for expatriates.”

While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question their sources in the unimpeachable “Intelligence Community.”

Most news media are just not as inquisitive as … President Trump.

***

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