Category Archives: Immigration

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

Advertisements

Nullification Is Justice’s Jaws of Life


By ILANA MERCER 

Planning for a show-down, a column of 1,500 Central Americans, largely from Honduras, has been beating a path to the Mexican-American border.

Some report that the column has been halted; others dispute that. Interviewed by Reuters in Mexico, a sojourning mother of seven—what are the chances none is an MS13 gangster?—signaled her intention to proceed to the US, if only to teach President Trump a lesson.

Yes, “Make America Great Again” to you, too, Colindres Ortega.

Organizers and participants in this farce aim, very plainly, to publicly demonstrate that the US doesn’t have borders. Led by anti-American agitators, the procession catalyzed the urgency of action to stop an ongoing invasion. 

Whether it arrives or not, the caravan is a positive bit of theatre. For one thing, the actors are quite correct. The US doesn’t have borders. For another, the caravan vividly exposes the antagonists in this ongoing tragedy: our overlords in DC. All of them.

To narrow the indictment a tad, note the extent to which the Democrats and their news media have avoided mentioning or covering the caravan. At a time when Democrats are fielding populists like Conor Lamb (who won in Pennsylvania) and former rodeo champion Billie Sutton (he hopes to govern South Dakota)—the mess on the border damns them like nothing else.

It’s these villains who’ve agreed to laws that permit anyone—other than white South Africans—to arrive at that border, do their Les Misérables act, claim to face a “credible fear” back home, get a court date, and bolt like so many rabbits, to be seen again only at the voting booth, the welfare office, the DMV and at DACA demonstrations. They’re the malcontents holding up signs that read “America is racist.”

What all the veiled allusions to “catch-and-release loopholes in American immigration law” imply is this: Ostensibly, there’s no way to turn interlopers away once they plonk themselves on the US border, demand a translator and spin some yarn.

So far, President Trump has “signed a proclamation ordering the deployment of the National Guard to the border with Mexico.” This changes nothing. It remains illegal to defend the border by turning these particular trespassers away.

Other than stare these brazen people down, what will the National Guard do? Change diapers, as they did during the 2014 rush on the border?

Flash back more recently to January of 2016, when candidate Trump began alluding to “President Obama’s irresponsible use of executive orders” having paved the way for him, Trump, to also use them freely if he won the presidential race.

“Amen,” I said at that time—provided Trump uses executive power to repeal lots of laws, not make them.

After all, we live under an administrative “Secret State.” Very many, maybe most, of the laws under which Americans labor need repealing. The only laws that should be naturally inviolable are those upholding life, liberty and property, for those are natural rights.

Candidate Trump had gone on to promisingly proclaim that, “The one thing good about executive orders [is that] the new president, if he comes in – boom, first day, first hour, first minute, you can rescind that.”

All of which speaks to a broader truth: There is nothing sacrosanct about every law imposed by an overweening national government and its unelected agencies. “At the federal level alone,” the number of laws totaled 160,000 pages,” in 2012. By broadcaster John Stossel’s estimation, “Government adds 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year.” (How long is the Constitution?) According to the Heritage Foundation, “Congress continues to criminalize at an average rate of one new crime for every week of every year.”

America has become a nation of thousands-upon-thousands of arbitrary laws; whose effect is to criminalize naturally licit conduct. Rather than uphold individual rights, most positive law (namely statutory, man-made law) regulates or criminalizes the business of life.

Laws passed in violation of the natural rights of the people, and by altogether skirting the will of the people’s representatives, need to be nullified. Like the laws making it illegal to repel unwanted invaders, who intend to wage welfare on their hosts, and sometimes worse.

Executive orders, President Trump has issued galore. But relatively few pertain to stopping the invasion ongoing. Needed are executive orders that sunder laws dictating that invaders-cum-“refugees” are to be processed rather than expelled.

Let the president suspend the scam that is the United States Refugee Act. Subject to review, yada-yada-yada. Let the president untether the US government from the Trojan Horse and shake-down scheme that is the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Again, subject to blah-blah-blah.

In working on behalf of refugees worldwide, private American charities dwarf the US government. Private non-profits do what they do unobtrusively, ethically, with minimum overheads and personnel. They don’t rely on confiscatory taxes! Most importantly, charities disburse aid and empower refugees without entering into agreements and entanglements with supranational bureaucracies, a thing that serves to indenture and endanger Americans, stateside.

In this post-constitutional era, nullification of unjust laws through executive orders is what’s necessary. It’s inevitable that correctives to the corrosive, self-sustaining, intractable actions of the state take the shape of action and reaction, force and counterforce in the service of liberty.

In this unfortunate but inescapable scheme of things, nullification is justice’s Jaws of Life, properly considered a political power tool to pry the people free of bad laws.

***

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

‘S-ithole Countries’: What Makes A County? The Place Or The People?


By ilana mercer

President Trump’s questioning of immigration into the United States from what he crudely called “s-ithole” countries masks a more vexing question:

What makes a country, the place or the people? Does “the country” create the man or does the man make the country?

To listen to the deformed logic of the president’s detractors, it’s the former: the “country” makes the person. No sooner does an African or Haitian immigrant wash up on American shores—thanks to random quotas and set-asides, lotteries and other government grants of privilege and protection—than the process of cultural and philosophical osmosis begins. American probity and productivity soon become his own.

As an African libertarian—an ex-South African, to be precise—I took the liberty of addressing the matter in the book “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” in which a Cameroonian scholar, Daniel Etounga-Manguelle, among others, is extensively cited.

Read more

Mass Murder with your Cornflakes


By Andy Duncan

Above is a photograph I took in Beirut, in 2012.

At the time, I remember thinking how terrible it must be to live with these ugly things on a constant daily basis, to perhaps feel a higher level of personal safety. And yet now, with mass murder facilitated upon us by stolen vehicles a constant global news item, less than five years later, all of us now appear to be living in Beirut.

Just as with the causes of the First World War, there are many forces at work here which drove us to this dreadful situation, developed over many decades. However, to my mind, the largest personal contributor to this disastrous situation has been Tony Blair, with his deliberate lies to drag the UK (and thus the rest of the western world) into invading Iraq.

Tony Blair’s lying actions set off a domino chain of events that eventually led to this morning’s appalling mass murder spree in Melbourne, in Australia. And who knows how many more such murderous attacks are to come?

Read more

Busted: Scripture-Twisting Reverend Pushing Borderless West


By Ilana mercer

When preaching immigration leniency and lawlessness in America, immigration bleeding hearts should lay off the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 19:34, in particular.

The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One Rev. Ryan M. Eller, on Tucker Carlson’s show, gave a dissembling and misleading reading of the tract, in mitigation of the immigration status of Kate Steinle’s killer.

The reverend glibly translated the word “sojourn” to mean citizens living among you, the latter having created, presumably, an immutable reality on the ground.

In appropriating the Hebrew text to his humanistic ends, Rev. Eller left-out that Leviticus 19:34 is a reference to strangers who are temporarily in your country.

A “sojourn” is a “temporary stay; a brief period of residence.” The Hebrew word “ger” means alien, stranger, not citizen.

The Hebrew Testament is not the New Testament. It’s not the text you want to use in spreading the Christian, “We Are The World” dogma. For it revolves around distinguishing the Jews and their homeland from the nations of the world.

What is commonly called the Old Testament, I read in the Hebrew, free of the bowdlerization that often accompanies the Christianized translations. As I read it, our Bible was not meant to meld the Jewish People with the world.

The opposite is true.

While it evinces ground-breaking exploration of natural, universal justice—and a lot of not-so-merciful meting out of “justice”—the Hebrew Bible is something of a parochial document.

Undergirding what Christians call the Old Testament is a message of particularism, not universalism. The ancient Hebrews would have been appalled by many a modern, left-liberal Jew who has betrayed the nationalistic message underlying the 24 best-written books ever.

Mercy and justice are all Leviticus 19:34 exhorts. The tract reminds the Hebrews only that they suffered in Egypt as slaves to the Egyptians. Consequently, the people of Israel are to be kind to the strangers living temporarily among them.

Were the biblical author to have added a parenthetic statement, it would’ve been: “Fear not, the stranger will soon be on his way, or chased away.”

The Christian Saint Joan of Arc was certainly steeped in a sturdy nativism.

“Jeanne, does God love the English,” Joan of Arc‘s pro-English inquisitor demanded to know. Said Saint Jeanne d’Arc about the invaders of her homeland, France:

“Yes, God loves the English … but in their own land.”

Can you think of a hero in the distant past who galvanized his countrymen around the idea that their country was no more than an economy? Alas, there are oodles of them around, today.

Lite libertarians like Ilya Somin and Katherine Mangu-Ward, for example.

On Tucker’s too, Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, had stated  that “free migration throughout the world could potentially double world gross domestic product.”

Relying on the GDP measure to motivate for open borders is typical of the arguments made by lite libertarians.

The GDP measure is itself a state-driven metric. Official GDP numbers are deceptive because they chart—and include—the growth of government debt. In order to come to grips with America’s real economic prognosis, one would need to tease apart the indubitably modest economic growth from the monstrous accretion of public debt.

Defined, tracked and manipulated by the D.C. political machine, GDP is a political construct. It statistically conflates the growth of debt with economic growth.

When it comes to alienating more than captivating potential adherents to libertarianism, Somin has nothing on Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of the lite libertarian publication, “Reason.”

Ms. Mangu-Ward gets my award for the stupidest statement made to Saint Tucker Carlson, this year.

She told Tucker that, “If we had a billion people in America, America would be unstoppable. That would be amazing.”

There’s a method to the open-border religion, preached, invariably, from the alternate universe of the TV studio or creature comforts of a stately home.

According to the Somin and Mangu-Ward “a country is no more than GDP” theory, high population density is just dandy as it increases the division of labor—and with it, specialization.

Witness the densely populated Cairo is all its innovative productiveness! Another splendid model for squalor is Calcutta. So yes, do let’s continue densely packing our country with anyone who washes ashore.

If American history (circa 1894) is anything to go by, the scarcity and high cost of labor helped propel this country into its position as the world’s leading industrial power.

In a word, ignore the Svengali who relies on one statist scam, GDP, to promote another: the centrally planned, divide-and-conquer stratagem of mass immigration.

And beware of fools and knaves who appropriate ancient scripture for their own political ends.

**

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly 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 & YouTube.

Why Tax Breaks Won’t Stop High-Tech, H-1B Human Trafficking


By ilana mercer

“If the tax reform bill goes through, do you plan to increase your company’s capital investment?”

The question was posed to a sizeable group of CEOs at The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council, in the presence of White House economic adviser Gary Cohn.

A pitiful show of hands failed to wipe the smirk off Mr. Cohn’s face. But at least the knaves were candid. Tax cuts for American big businesses are unlikely to move corporations to deploy that capital to raise the wages of the little guy, the worker.

The repatriation deal planned for fat-cat multinationals is particularly sweet. But don’t expect the “one-time tax rate of 12 percent on cash returns and five percent on non-cash for corporate money repatriated from overseas” to spur investment in the U.S.

Ideally, policymakers would prefer, as Business Insider quips, for companies to “reinvest in their core businesses, as this holds the most direct bearing on economic expansion.” All the president’s men certainly preach it.

But President Trump’s plan to grant the multinationals, tech titans included, a tax holiday, is more likely to see capital used to tinker with share prices. Repurchasing shares, a share buyback, will boost stock prices and benefit large shareholders.

Where a multinational also traffics in human labor, globally—as do the likes of Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, etc.—a lower tax rate on their repatriated earnings is unlikely to redound to American computer programmers and engineers.

In the event these tax holidays encourage American high-tech to “reinvest in their core businesses”—it will not be an investment in employing American talent, which will continue to be replaced apace with foreign workers.

For accretion in employment among Americans to occur, the president would have to turn off the H-1B (and other visa) spigots. He has not.

Multinationals consider the world their labor market. High-tech traitors will continue to replace the worker bees of American STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—with reliably mediocre, culturally aggressive, foreign workers.

And not necessarily because foreign workers are cheaper. Importing workers from India calls for enormous in-house bureaucracies to handle immigration applications and renewals, attendant litigation, and family importation and resettlement packages for tribes of new arrivals (also known as chain migrants). This isn’t necessarily cheaper than employing your local lass or lad.

The H-1B visa racket is, however, a taxpayer-subsidized, grant of government privilege. Duly, profits remain private property.  The costs of accommodating an annual human influx are socialized, borne by the bewildered community.

Moreover, with the exception of Indian companies, such as notorious H-1B hogs Infosys and Tata, visa holders in “marquee high-tech firms like Google and Microsoft” are not paid inferior wages. That’s against American labor and anti-discrimination law.

From the fact that an oversupply of high-tech workers has lowered wages for all techies, it does not follow that the (average) men and women imported are being exploited. Rather, it is the glut of average worker bees—their abundance—that has depressed wages for this particular, high-tech cohort.

So, please conservatives, quit crying croc over alleged exploitation, in the high-tech industry, of poor, foreign-born, “indentured slave-labor.” Misplacing compassion does not add force to the argument, for these are the facts:

Again, H-1B visa holders are not paid inferior wages; they’re getting a fabulous deal. Remember: Voluntary exchanges are by definition advantageous to their participants. They involve giving up something one values less (life in Calcutta) for something one values more (life in Seattle), and finding someone else with “opposite valuations”: An Amazon or Microsoft CEO who values people from Calculate more than kids from Kent.

Humor aside, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), the H-1B visa holder forfeits his (unexceptional) labor for a salary many times the salary he’d get in India or China or Pakistan. If he were not incalculably better off than he was in his previous life, he would not have taken a calculated risk … in a plush American office or a well-capitalized US laboratory.

No, it’s the American STEM worker who is stiffed.

Perversely, companies such as Qualcomm, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft pair aggressive demands for more H-1B visas (those shortages, you know) with a ruthless downsizing of domestic workers—this worker deserves your tears, not his imported replacement.

The price of labor in the high-tech labor market is a function of a political, artificially created, ceaseless supply of immigrants. Prattle about the price at which American workers will do certain work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—communities. Render asunder the quaint idea of borders—and the world is your labor market; communities be damned.

Realize that this ceaseless supply of labor is maintained not through peaceful market forces, but through the use of political power, wielded by wealthy men and women with access. At work here is their Brave New Borderless World, not the invisible hand we love.

Look deeper before maligning the Profit Motive, as the Left wants you to do. Power, more than profits, is what animates high-tech. Just imagine the thrill of seeing your idea of virtue turned into policy that affects the greatest economy in the world.

For tech superstars are true believers in the borderless multicultural state. These arrogant CEOs and their minions are social-justice warriors, first; giants of industry, second.

Already billionaires, tech execs derive greater pleasure from signaling their virtue (via immigration) than from turning a profit. They aim for stardom in Davos, Switzerland, not Des Moines, Iowa.

 

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.

Stop Shopping Till You Drop, Or Till A Terrorist Drops You


By ilana mercer

“Another attack in London by a loser terrorist, “tweeted President Trump. “These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard.”

Prime Minister Theresa May and the mad media fumed over the president’s insinuation that the Parsons Green “bucket bomber” was a “Known Wolf,” and not a lone wolf. But Donald Trump was entirely on the mark. May and her men knew Yahyah Farroukh (whose information the British press is protecting).

The “Known Wolf,” left free to hunt for prey, is the rule more than the exception in a country, Britain, that will do nothing to stop the likes of the little snot who struck in a London underground train, on September 14.

The same authorities find the will and the legal wherewithal to jail Englishmen for thought crimes, say, reciting verbatim anti-Islam verse from a book by Churchill.

Where President Trump went wrong was in calling the hissing snake “sick and demented.” The snake, taken in and housed by a tenderhearted, stupid British couple, was just being a snake; doing what his ilk has done since the seventh century.

The “sickest and most demented” of the lot are the British authorities.

Scotland Yard? MI5? All are MIA.

When it comes to protecting the lives of innocents, British security is missing in action, habitually, and some say intentionally.

Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers, starred in a Channel 4 TV documentary, The Jihadis Next Door. Butt was not on the lam during the shooting. He was not being investigated by the security forces, or hunkering in a bunker in Iraq. He was parading around in Barking, east London, broadcasting his intentions to the British people and their protectors. Why, even the Imam at the local mosque had expelled Butt for his murderous lust. But to his British groupies, within and without government, Butt was fit to be filmed living among them, scheming against them.

Twenty-two-year-old Salman Abedi murdered 22 youngsters in the Manchester Arena. He packed his bomb with shrapnel, ball bearings and nails. With such a fiendish device, surgeons must slice open the surviving victims, picking from the flesh and burrowing in the bone for embedded shards. To most decent people, Abedi was detritus. He ought to have been watched, segregated from civilization, deported, and, hopefully, dispatched one day.

But to the security service MI5 Abedi was part of the terrorist “assets” they had cultivated in Manchester “for more than 20 years.” The sanctimonious Ms. May has the audacity to scold President Trump for cryptically hinting at her culpability in enabling terrorism, when May was the home secretary under whose imprimatur Manchester’s resident terrorist cell was developed as an MI5 asset. (“Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?“)

The London tube attack was the fifth attack in Britain this year. Naturally, the state sluggards of British counterterrorism are seething over any leaks of information to their lowly subjects. Leaks reveal their ineptitude, their dereliction of duty and the elaborate protections they put in place for their privileged wards.

If not complicit, as veteran journalist John Pilger has convincingly contended, the British government and counterterrorism outfits are certainly criminally negligent.

LIFE WITH ISLAM

Clips of the carnage that is life with Islam are few and far between following an event like Barcelona, in which a Maghrebi Muhammadan (helped by two or three or more, including a holy man) drove his van into the crowds on Las Ramblas street. (Yes, August 19, 2017 is already a distant memory, just as the politicians want it.)

The grisly footage warning viewers of “graphic content” is quickly sanitized, stylized, set to somber but pleasant music. The camera pans out to focus, not on the prone victims, never to rise again, but on the prettier, vertical survivors.

But before images of the worst of Barcelona (or Brussels or Berlin or Paris or London) under Muslim assault were cleaned up for sensitivity’s sake—it was possible to glimpse the bloodied bodies and belongings strewn on the streets. Among them milled the survivors, some dazed and confused, others crouching near lifeless bodies, beside themselves with grief and disbelief.

Alas, many were visibly bored—as in, “This is the price of ‘freedom.’ Let’s get on with life. I wonder when the shops will reopen.” A reaction politicians are banking on must stop. The prey must become a little dangerous and unpredictable (like Donald Trump).

LIFE WITH LESS ISLAM

To peacefully bring about desired, desperately required, immigration and deportation policies; people must secede from the public square to the extent possible.

Shop online. Make the home your new happening hub. Dine with friends, at home. Break bread with new friends, in homes. Patronize spots less trendy and off the beaten track. Organize neighborhood block parties.

It is the political class that the public must defang, if we wish to safeguard our lives and way of life. You see, politicians win if you don’t withdraw from the public square following a terrorist attack.

Let’s unpack this:

Politicians know their subjects well. All-too well do Whitehall, Washington and the EU-club know the speed at which the human anthill will return to the streets, following a terrorist attack.

Had not their flunkey, Shepard Smith of Fox News, exalted the Belgian human anthill for the speed with which the ants returned to darting back and forth, following a Muhammadan’s attack on Brussels’ Central Station (June 21, 2017)? In Shep’s compliant “thinking,” the terrorists win if we don’t return to our aimless consumption, laughing and making merry as we’re being picked off periodically by the enemy within.

Translated, this means that the terrorists win if we, their potential pool of victims, don’t do as our politicians say.

Like Shepard Smith, Obama kept intoning, “Dare do x, y or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.” Or, “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.” Is this not, at once, reverse psychology and cliché?

How did that astringent mind know what ISIS wanted? It’s more likely that Obama was channeling the political class. Politicians are deploying reverse psychology to get their subjects across the West to comply with their own wishes. To wit, “If you stay away from the very public square we politicians refuse to protect—ISIS wins.”

In practice, you are being ordered to shop until you drop, or are dropped by a Muslim behaving badly. Oops.

But think about it: If ISIS wants you—regular Americans, Europeans, British—to do what in your estimation is best for your longevity; perhaps ISIS is right, in this instance, and the politicians and pundits are wrong? Perhaps ISIS is right and Shepard Smith and Obama are dead wrong? What a concept!

Only when their Keynesian edifice of non-stop consumption suffers and, consequently, their re-election chances are imperiled—will politicians consider carrying out their duty to enact immigration and deportation policies that safeguard precious, innocent lives.

If ISIS approves, too, so be it. ISIS is happy, we’re happy because alive; everybody’s happy, except the politicians. Joy!

 

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.

« Older Entries