Category Archives: Scumbags

Activism in Daily Life: Casting Votes that Count


Activism in Daily Life:
Casting Votes that Count
by Sean Gabb

25th August 2018

One of my books
Learn More

The more raddled and droopy my face grows, the more inclined I am to agree with a proposition put to me by various friends since before I needed to shave. This is that political activism is a waste of time. Oh, writing about politics – analysis, denunciation, a general flying of the ideological flag – that is probably time well-spent. I have always enjoyed it, and may have done no harm to the causes thereby supported. The waste of time is electoral politics and involvement in campaign groups. The first means joining political parties over which we have no control, and that are led by people whose behaviour – and increasingly whose speech – reveals them as our sworn enemies. The second means giving money to people who, with a few percentage wobbles either side, operate on the “Eighty-Twenty Principle.” 80p of every pound you hand over will be spent on whores and cocaine. Whatever remains that is not merely wasted will be spent on getting someone cheap to do the promised work. Read more

Advertisements

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

 

BBC News Not As Hysterical About Harvey Sweinstein


By ilana mercer

I’d like to better understand the American conservative media’s orgy over Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced and disgraceful Hollywood film producer and studio executive who used his power over decades to have his way with starlets.

To listen to conservative talkers, the women affronted or assaulted by Weinstein were all Shakespearean talent in the making—female clones of Richard Burton (he had no match among women)—who made the pilgrimage to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hollywood Hills, for the purpose of realizing their talent, never knowing it was a meat market. Watching the women who make up the dual-perspective panels “discussing” the Weinstein saga, it’s hard to tell conservative from liberal.

“Conservative” women now complain as bitterly as their liberal counterparts about “objectification.”

However, the female form has always been revered; been the object of sexual longing, clothed and nude. The reason the female figure is so crudely objectified nowadays has a great deal to do with … women themselves. By virtue of their conduct, women no longer inspire reverence as the fairer sex, and as epitomes of loveliness. For they are crasser, vainer, more eager to expose all voluntarily than any male. Except for Anthony Weiner, the name of an engorged organism indigenous to D.C., who was in the habit of exposing himself as often as the Kardashians do.

The latter clan is a bevy of catty exhibitionists, controlled by a mercenary, ball-busting matriarch called Kris Kardashian. Kris is madam to America’s First Family of Celebrity Pornographers. (To launch a career with a highly stylized, self-directed sex tape is no longer even condemned.) Lots of little girls, with parental approval, look up to the Kardashians.

From Kim, distaff America learns to couch a preoccupation with pornographic selfies in the therapeutic idiom. Kardashian flaunts her ass elephantiasis with pure self-love. Yet millions of her admirers depict her obscene posturing online as an attempt to come to terms with her body. “Be a little easier on myself,” counsels Kim as she directs her camera to the nether reaches of her carefully posed, deformed derriere. While acting dirty and self-adoring, Kardashian delivers as close to a social jeremiad on self-esteem as her kind can muster. Genius!

Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine she’ll be—and the more she’ll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy dunce-caps on the same occasion.

By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don’t. On social media, women outstrip men in the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches, and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, “I Own It.”

The phrase a “bum’s rush” means “throw the bum out!” When it comes to Allison Williams, daughter of NBC icon Brian Williams, a bum’s rush takes on new meaning. Thanks in no small measure to her famous father, the young woman has become a sitcom star. And Ms. Williams has worked extra-hard to hone all aspects of an actress’ instrument (the body). Alison has carried forth enthusiastically about a groundbreaking scene dedicated to exploring “ass motorboating” or “booty-eating,” on HBO’s “Girls.”

The lewder, more pornographic, and less talented at their craft popular icons become—the louder the Left lauds their artistically dodgy output. (The “Right” just keeps moving Left.) “Singer” Miley Cyrus was mocked before she began twerking tush, thrusting pelvis and twirling tongue. Only then had she arrived as an artist, in the eyes of “critics” on the Left. The power of the average pop artist and her products, Miley’s included, lies in the pornography that is her “art,” in her hackneyed political posturing, and in the fantastic technology that is Auto-Tune (without which all the sound you’d hear these “singers” emit would be a bedroom whisper).

Liberal women, the majority, go about seriously and studiously cultivating their degeneracy. If “Raising Skirts to Celebrate the Diversity of Vaginas” sounds foul, wait for the accompanying images. These show feral creatures (women, presumably), skirts hoisted, gobs agape, some squatting like farmhands in an outhouse, all yelling about their orifices.

Do you know of a comparable man’s movement? If anything, men are punished when they react normally to women behaving badly.

Female soldiers got naked and uploaded explicit images of themselves to an online portal. The normals—male soldiers—shared the images and were promptly punished for so doing. And the conservative side of that ubiquitous, dueling-perspectives political panel approved of the punishment meted to the men.

So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that “protesters” routinely disrobe or perform lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church.

If men flashed for freedom; they’d be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex Offender Registry.

Talk about the empress being in the buff, I almost forgot to attach an image of this celebrity, bare-bottomed on the red-carpet. Rose McGowan is hardly unique. Many a star will arrive at these events barely clothed. (Here are 38 more near-naked Red-Carpet appearances.)

Expect a feminist lecture about a woman’s right to pretend her bare bottom is haute couture, rather than ho couture, and expecting the Harveys of the world to behave like choir boys around her. Fine.

Being British, BBC News anchors are not nearly as dour about the Harvey hysteria as the American anchors. A female presenter began a Sweinstein segment by saying men claim the coverage of the scandal is excessive; women say the opposite. “That’s why we’re covering it,” quipped her witty male sidekick. She roared with laughter. That’s my girl!

Look, Harvey is a lowlife. But Hollywood hos are not as the sanctimonious Sean Hannity portrays them: “naive, innocent young things,” dreams shattered.

***

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.

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.

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.

Elon Musk, Et Al.: The Corporate Arm Of The Deep-State


By ilana mercer

If you want to picture the relationship between the 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump and the Deep State seeking to unseat him; DON’T picture a Venn diagram. There is no overlap between the two solitudes.

Rather, picture a giant amorphous amoeba, geared toward survival. This single-celled organism will galvanize all systems within to preserve its threatened integrity. Read more

What Rep. Steve King’s ‘Racist’ Statements Teach


By ilana mercer

Rep. Steve King walked back his remarks with ease. King had told Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” The Republican congressman quickly reframed the comments. It was not race he was alluding to, but “our stock, our country, our culture, our civilization.” Those sound like proxies for race.

Nice try, congressman. Read more

« Older Entries