Category Archives: Liberty

Will White House & FBI Continue To Invite Muslim Groups to Shape American Counterterrorism Training?


By ilana mercer

Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, seems a perfectly nice man. But nothing he has said during confirmation hearings on July 12 distinguishes him as someone who would reform Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamophilic FBI.

President Trump ran on a quixotic set of ideas about aggressively stopping Islamic terror. Like a fly-in-amber, the standard operating procedures (SOP) governing the Obama Federal Bureau of Investigation guarantee to preserve the same systemic, intractable failures that unleashed mass murderer Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik, to maim and murder dozens of Americans.

From Wray’s comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee, we know how he’ll bravely break with President Trump, but that he’s partial to his predecessor, James Comey. To wit, Wray said he sided with Comey in rejecting a domestic surveillance program in 2004, “… not because he knew the substance of the dispute,” but because of his affection for Comey.

Given his unalloyed loyalty, Wray’ll be unlikely to remove from FBI training manuals the fiction about Jihad being a peaceful pillar of the Islamic faith.

To get a sense of how the outfit being glorified by the Senate panel operates, consider this: You hire a private firm to protect you, only to discover that, as part of your protection plan, your protectors undergo sensitivity training to desensitize them to potential perpetrators and evil-doers, thus giving the latter easy access to you and yours. This “strategy” would endanger your life. The company executing this harebrained scheme, moreover, would be in violation of its contractual obligation to keep you safe. If you came to harm, you’d sue.

But first, fire the fools before they get you killed.

Thanks to the president, we can only hope that firing the director of the FBI will become a new norm. For among his many other “virtues,” former FBI Director Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US. We know this because Comey said it on “60 Minutes”!

In 2014, he was asked about the status of the fighters America, unwittingly, exports to ISIS Land. This sanctimonious civil servant, traitor to the people who pay for his keep, promised to “track [the fighters] very carefully,” after he let them in.

At the time, anchor Megyn Kelly had aptly used the word treason, although she applied it exclusively to ISIS-Americans, when they, at least, were being true to their vampiric god. To whom was Comey being true? Certainly not to the law. In Judge Andrew Napolitano’s telling, the federal government’s top law enforcement agent didn’t know the law [or, was willfully ignoring it]:

“[Comey] forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization. So, if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”

That’s our crazy Comey. And the new guy, Christopher Wray, loves him just the way he is.

Another swamp creature for whom Wray has “enormous respect” is former FBI Director Robert Mueller. “[T]he consummate straight shooter,” gushed Wray.

Both the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute would agree. Thanks to Mueller, Comey’s predecessor, these and other special interests were involved in shaping FBI counterterrorism training.

Before Russia (B.R.), when the-now monomaniacal media touched occasionally on an issue of abiding interest to Americans (“murder-by-Muslim-immigrant“), they used milquetoast words. Again, the T-word (being floated for Donald Trump Jr.) would more appropriately describe how White House and FBI leadership invited Muslim advocacy groups to shape American counterterrorism training.

In Feb., 2012, WIRED magazine published an article titled “FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia,” and hashtagged Islamophobia. The magazine took some credit for urging the FBI to scrub counterterrorism training manuals of what sentient human beings would view as undeniable and dangerous trends and proclivities in Islam and its practitioners. Bragged the author: “The White House ordered a government-wide review of counterterrorism training late last year [2011]. A Pentagon document responding to the order cited [WIRED magazine’s series] as an impetus for the effort.”

To better know thy enemy, your FBI had purged the scholarship of the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes from the FBI training library at Quantico.

How did this book-burning go down? Enter Director Mueller. In 2012, wrote WIRED, Mueller, who was succeeded by Comey, undertook to excise the FBI’s counterterrorism training program of “anti-Islam materials.” Essentially, Mueller saw to it that Islam was porcelainized.

Soon, the agency was redacting or expunging documents perceived to “stereotype” Arabs or Muslims, to sport “factual errors” (such as that Islam is not peace, presumably), be in “poor taste” (perhaps a less than polite reference to The Prophet), or “lacking in precision.” (Because the “truth” is that no “authentic” Muslim theologian would ever suggest that decapitation of a non-believer could be considered a mitzvah in Islam.)

Guidelines were published to help our comical FBI “protectors” defend against “anti-Islam documents.” You can feel safe. New FBI recruits are brainwashed to believe Americans who fly Gen. R. E. Lee’s Battle Flag are as likely to erupt as Muslims.

It’s easy to see how this frightful situation saw Mohammed A. Malik, friend to Orlando mass murderer Mateen, dutifully report Mateen to the FBI, only to be dismissed. (Just another self-hating Muslim. Hug?) Faithful to Mueller’s mandate, Director Comey personally vouched for the botched investigation that facilitated slaughter in Orlando.

Both men, role models to the new guy, were clearly Eric Holder loyalists. The attorney general had declared that the FBI harbored “systemic” anti-Islam bias and needed a fix.

One such “fix” entailed ridding the FBI of heroic men like Philip Haney.

Forcibly retired from the Department of Homeland Security, the soft-spoken, demure Haney has since divulged that the Obama Administration “nixed the probe into the Southern California jihadists” (Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik and their network), eliminating a program he, Haney, had developed. The Haney database would’ve helped connect certain networks—Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement—to domestic terrorism rising. Haney’s files were destroyed and he subjected to an internal investigation for doing his patriotic duty to protect Americans.

Political correctness run amok is how pundits on Fox News had euphemized the FBI’s SOP under BHO. Treason seems more like it.

This is the Mueller and Comey FBI. How does President Trump imagine Christopher Wray, who looks up to the two and swam in the same polluted waters, will fix it?

*****

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

Advertisements

Letter from England 1: Setting the Scene


Sean Gabb

I have been asked to write a weekly column on British politics. Since I am writing for a largely American readership, and since Americans mostly know little of what happens outside their own country, and since American politics are presently in themselves of consuming interest, I think it would be best if I were to begin with a brief overview not only of what is happening here, but also of what has been happening. Read more

Advice on Learning Latin


by Sean Gabb

Aside from my various books – more of which will come out this month and next – I get most of my living nowadays from teaching Greek and Latin. I do this as a private tutor, and sometimes as an informal member of staff at various places of education. Because demand for my services in any one place is limited, there is no point in my becoming a formal member of staff. Instead, I go out to see students in their homes or in classrooms, or in university libraries, or I hold court in the kitchen of my own house. I do the teaching and then get on with other business. Read more

2024: A Prophetic Text by Robert Durward


Robert Durward

Introduction511otwgzO2L

To join me on this journey, imagine if you will that this book was written and published in 2024. It owes much to futuristic fiction, both utopian and dystopian, but it is not a novel. There are no imagined characters, no dialogue, no focussing on the affairs of any one person or group of persons. Nor is it a formal history, stuffed with references and footnotes. There is no focus on the details of policy, no costing of alternatives, no effort to deal with objections. Rather, we look back together at crises of the past and use their lessons to transit to a new order for the future.

I hope you will gain much from this book. I do not expect you to agree with all that you find. Perhaps you do not share my view of the world. Perhaps, even if you agree that my view of what will happen, you will find what I regard as a future world on the edge of utopia as a world on the edge of nightmare. More likely, you will simply disagree with my opinion of where things are heading and how they can be overcome. If this is the case, you will find me in partial agreement with you. Read more

America’s Anglo-Saxon Declaration Of Independence


By ilana mercer

For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—doesn’t feature in the celebration. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.” (They were!)

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders (Rep. Ron Paul excepted) “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Indeed, especially adamant was Jefferson about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'”

For this reason, the philosophy of government articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

By “all men are created equal,” moreover, Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” was certainly not implying that all men were similarly endowed. Or, that they were naturally entitled to healthcare, education, a decent wage, amnesty, or entry into the country he and the Constitution makers bequeathed.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

But Jefferson’s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

Notwithstanding the claims of the “multicultural noise machine,” the Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon.

Our Founding Fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he so cherished, imagine how he’d view America’s contemporary cultural and political conquistadors—be they from Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond—whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!  

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus, they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

Like it or not, Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration, was sired and inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

 

*****

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

Beware The Atavistic Dynamics Undergirding Two American Wars


By ilana mercer

Periodically, America experiences episodes of mass, hysterical contagion.

What is “hysterical contagion”? A sociologist explains it as the spread of symptoms of an illness among a group, absent any physiological disease. It provides a way of coping with a situation that cannot be handled with the usual coping mechanism.

For example, in 1983, girls in the West Bank fell ill, one after the other. Soon, all the schools and finally the entire community was engulfed, affected with the same symptoms. Arab doctors implicated the Israelis. The Israeli Occupation had poisoned the girls by gas to reduce their fertility. After a thorough medical workup, however, the girls were pronounced physically healthy.

The frenzied behavior known as mass hysteria or hysterical contagion is well documented. The Trump-Russia “collusion,” “obstruction of justice” probe qualifies, with an exception: This particular form of mass madness involves a meme, a story-line, rather than the physical symptoms observed in the West Bank.

Rumor recounted as fact for which no evidence can possibly be adduced: Indeed, the Establishment and opposition elites have poisoned the country’s collective consciousness. However, it’s the emotional pitch with which the Trump-Russia collusion group-think is delivered, day in and day out, that has gripped and inflamed irrational, febrile minds.

What sociology terms “a collective preoccupation” is fueled by organizational- and communication networks. Friendship networks (the liberal kind) and work organizations (government departments infested with like-minded individuals) serve as nodes in a system that transmits faulty signals across the synapses of this collective, damaged brain.

The storyline du jour is manufactured by America’s gilded elites. During the era of Bush II, DC operative Karl Rove put it plainly: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

When you’re the most powerful entity in the world, as the US government certainly is—the only government to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations (“good” bombs, because dropped by the US)—you get to manufacture your own parallel universe with its unique rules of evidence and standards of proof. What’s more, as the mightiest rule-maker, you can coerce other earthlings into “sharing” your alternate reality. Or else.

The manufacturing of Fake News by the Deep State, circa 2017, is of a piece with the anatomy of the ramp-up to war in Iraq, in 2003. (Chronicled in achingly painful detail in Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture.) Except that back then, Republicans, joined by diabolical Democrats like Hillary Clinton, were the ones dreaming up Homer Simpson’s Third Dimension.

Conscripted into America’s reality, Iraqis paid the price of this terrible American concoction. Hundreds of thousands of them were displaced and killed due to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Because of Fake News generated so effectively by the likes of Judith Chalabi Miller, the Gray Lady’s prized reporter at the time, American soldiers paid dearly, as well. Miller shilled for that war over the pages of the New York Times like there was no tomorrow. She’s now a Fox News “specialist.”

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

Now, it’s all-out war on Trump. Then it was war on Iraq.

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

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

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

To comprehend the hysterical mass contagion that is the war on Trump it’s essential to trace the contours of that other war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and the way it was peddled to the American public.

The war on Trump could end badly. By “badly,” I don’t mean the violent silencing of conservatives and their speakers, the firebombing of Republican Party headquarters (October, 2016). Or, the attempted murder of Republicans representatives (June, 2017).

These are barbaric. But if past is prologue; the frenzy of inflamed imaginations could spill over into all-out war—against Russia, Iran or North Korea.

You’ve been warned.

*****

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

Sean Gabb: Notice of Abdication


Notice of Abdication
by Sean Gabb

(19th June 2017)

I have always known I would one day write a posting like this one. But, as with death, stepping down from the Libertarian Alliance was something I chose to contemplate from a distance. Here it now is. By the time you read these words, I shall no longer be Director of the Libertarian Alliance. My role as absolute master of the organisation will have been taken by Keir Martland.

Since I do not wish to write at length, my reasons for stepping down can be summarised under two headings: Read more

« Older Entries