The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 Ilana Mercer BlogviewTeasers

Billionaire businessman Marc Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can’t go unchallenged.

Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You’ll see why.

First, let’s correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it’s regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a fascistic government-business cartel in operation.

The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.

Here’s how:

Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.

Domestically, the fascistic partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire?

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America’s problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.

Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.

Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with “86,320 new residents, marking it the region’s biggest population gains this century. Fueled in large part by the technology industry, an average of 236 people is moving to the Seattle area each day,” reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper—in my case, parrot-cage liner—have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to “share” their traffic-jam stories.)

Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg and Marc Cuban are certainly as detached.

Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds—from the comfort of their monster mansions—these social engineers don’t experience the “environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion”; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe, the increase in traffic and traffic accidents, air pollution, the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported I.T. workers and extended families, the delicate bouquet of amped up waste management and associated seepages.

For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our “stupid leaders,” to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)

In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves into residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.

Alas, since the high-tech traitors can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims—they need not bring in the best.

Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to “search the world for the best applicants,” he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yet more crap.

Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? “Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices,” by the Economist’s accounting.

Overall, the work done by the H1-B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. “Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work,” attest the experts who’ve been studying this intake for years. The master’s degree is the exception within the H1-B visa category.

More significant: THERE IS a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn’t displace ordinary Americans in … 2008:

It’s the O-1 visa.

“Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics,” states the Department of Homeland Security, “means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”

Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: H1-B Visas, Immigration, Unemployment 

“Donald Trump must get those kids out of the White House,” a blunt South African observer of our politics barked at me, weeks back. “You’re looking more and more like us.” She was alluding to the nepotism on display in the Trump White House.

Since the president started strafing Syria, it has become evident that Trump’s favorite offspring needs to be booted from the People’s House. The British press, more irreverent than ours, seconded the broad consensus that Ivanka had nagged daddy into doing it. For The Kids: The First Daughter was, purportedly, devastated by the (unauthenticated) images of a suspected gas attack in Syria.

Brother Eric Trump confirmed it: “Sure, Ivanka influenced the Syria strike decision.” White House Spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t deny it.

Eric had headed back to the Trump Organization, as he promised during the campaign. Ivanka just wouldn’t go.

Who could fail to notice that the First Daughter, a cloistered, somewhat provincial American princess, has been elevated inappropriately in the White House, while First Lady Melania, a cosmopolitan steel magnolia, has been marginalized?

That Ivanka, now her father’s West Wing adviser, drove the offensive in Syria is but a logical deduction.

Ivanka promises that she and her poodle, Jared Kushner, are in compliance with the law. Clever lawyers told her so. Legalistic assurances pertaining to the 1967 Anti-Nepotism Statute mean nothing. Law is hardly the ultimate adjudicator of right and wrong. Donald’s daughter has no place in the White House, no matter how cutely she “argues” for her ambitions:

“I want to be a force for good.” (Who defines “good,” Ivanka? Limited and delimited government means that it’s not you.)

“I want to pursue my passions.” (Your passions, Ivanka, are not necessarily the people’s passions—or even within the purview of their government.)

Whether she’s tweeting about the accomplishment that is the war on Syria or about inflicting her kids on China’s first couple; Ivanka’s tweets have the insipid emptiness of a contestant in a beauty pageant.

“Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”
“Proud of Arabella and Joseph for their performance in honor of President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan’s official visit to the US.”

Such provincialism and solipsism were certainly part of the Obamas’ international persona. Barack and Michelle gave the Queen of England an iPod, customized with images and audio from Mr. Obama’s inaugural and DNC addresses.

Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who’s running the White House and who to flatter. For doing their bidding, Syrian rebels—”we don’t know who they are,” cautioned the Old Donald—have even given President Trump an honorific:

Abu Ivanka al-Amriki: father of Ivanka the American.

I don’t think President Donald Trump’s dispiriting deviation of policy on Syria signaled a lack of core beliefs. What the folly of bombing Syria signals, very plainly, is that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets. Republicans and Democrats likely know it, but won’t say it. The former because Ivanka is a woman. Republicans dare not wage war on a woman, much less if she wages war on Syria. The latter because Ivanka is a Democrat by any other name.

In Ivanka you have a point person in an ostensibly populist, rightist administration who has no idea that men, not women, are lagging in the labor force and in institutions of higher and lower learning. Democrats appreciate that.

In Ivanka you have a businesswoman, in an ostensibly business-friendly administration, who has vowed to “close the [mythical] gender pay gap,” on our dime. A business magnate should have grasped the following logic: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs like Ivanka haven’t ditched men en masse to employ women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.” (“The Week of the Whining Womin”)

Democrat-dominated news networks are mum about the Susan Rice spying and unmasking scandal. GOP TV is deaf and dumb about the clash between the America First faction of the administration (Steve Bannon) and the Kushner couple (Ivanka and Jared). The gentle reader should know by now that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the standard operating procedure of the two parties and their media.

On Twitter, former supporters of Donald Trump were quick to turn on Jared Kushner. The hashtag #FireKushner gained momentum.

But I ask you to study Mr. Kushner. The man’s a mouse. Have you ever heard Jared Kushner utter a word in public? Do you even know what he sounds like? The poor man looks low T—like he might one day go the way of Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner. (I love LGBTQ, so long as they come in peace.)

Jared’s not wearing the pants in the Kushner castle. Behind every “good man” is a woman. Pushing, pushing. And that woman is the beguilingly beautiful Ivanka.

President Trump’s not listening to his uncharismatic son-in-law; he’s listening to Ivanka. And Ivanka is promoting Kushner, who is channeling Ivanka.

For Ivanka did Donald Trump ditch the policy he promised the Deplorables on Syria; not for her husband.

On daddy’s coattails has Ivanka Trump inveigled her way into the People’s House, where she’ll ambitiously promote her anemic husband and their joint agenda.

More than anything, Ivanka and Jared crave respectability. Both have been scarred by the scandals of their fathers. Befitting young Democrats in high-society, the Kushners would like to be able to press flesh with local and global elites. There will be none of that—no warm welcomes from the gilded and the glamorous at Davos, with Donald’s unsexy, America First agenda.

 

ILANA MERCER is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). Follow her on Twitter & Facebook. Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Ivanka 

As I write, the Russians are hunting down the perpetrator of an attack on the St. Petersburg subway, in which 11 people were killed and some 45 injured. It took Russian authorities no time at all before an image of a possible culprit was circulated.

Vladimir Putin, it appeared, would not be taking a page out of the West’s Jihadi-protection program manual. The feelings of Muslims—who else?—were not being spared. Russians weren’t cautioned about Islamophobia. Officials didn’t beat on breast about their society’s failure to integrate Muhammadans. Mental illness wasn’t floated to exculpate what was likely Jihad.

It looks like the identity of the killer will be known by the time I complete this column.

The quick unmasking of Khalid Masood’s identity, last month, was likely because he was killed quickly. The British knifeman met his maker in a timely manner because Masood targeted the Palace of Westminster, threatening the British Parliament, where an Authorized Firearms Officer (AFO) was stationed.

In Britain, criminals are armed. Politicians enjoy armed protection. The public is forsaken—for the sake of “our values,” they are told. For the good of their “freedoms,” as defined by their political jailers, the English agree to live with certain realities.

The reality of an English soldier being butchered on a London street, for one.

Drummer Lee Rigby was carved up in Woolwich, just yards from the Royal Artillery Barracks, in May of 2013. Slick with the blood of his victim, Drummer Rigby’s emboldened killer then asked the dhimmi passing by to film his splenetic screed. Muhammad’s messenger wanted to say “it” on YouTube.

Like the lone English AFO, American businessman Mark Vaughan did what he had to in September of 2014, when a woman at a Vaughan Foods factory, in Moore, Oklahoma, was beheaded by one Alton Nolen. A convert to Islam, this hate-filled black man then turned on poor Traci Johnson, and began sawing at her throat. Suddenly the CEO, Mr. Vaughan, appeared. He stopped Nolen in his tracks with … a bullet.

Were it not for armed Officer Alan Horujko, also stateside, another bad Abdul would’ve killed some classmates, in November of last year. Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somali refugee, drove his car into a crowd, at Ohio State University. Artan needed killing. Alan obliged.

Earlier in 2016, a promising refugee—again Somali; how have we failed these tender souls, and who could have seen it coming!—slithered out of hibernation. An American hero was ready for Dahir A. Adan.

Officer Jason Falconer was off duty, but locked and loaded when Adan began slicing and dicing non-Muslims, at a St. Cloud shopping mall, in Minnesota. Yes, the little Nazi was sorting his kind from ours. Officer Falconer pumped Adan with lead. A lot of it. The end.

Acting individually, Americans are still capable of responding to Jihad by “casting terror into the hearts” of Jihadi believers. Collectively and severally, the British and the Europeans are honing their helplessness.

Certainly when it comes to the agencies entrusted with protecting the people on both sides of the pond, failure is the rule. The response mounted by the people’s protectors across the West is lackluster, to put it charitably.

Be it Paris, Nice, Brussels, or Berlin; Orlando, San Bernardino—the men with mass murder on their minds are Muslim, often with criminal records or with a sudden heightened interest in Islam. That risk factor, Islam, is unacknowledged. Its followers are ignored, seldom stopped, and generally dismissed as misguided by the very intelligence agencies now successfully hobbling President Trump.

Posthumously, Jihadi killers are remembered kindly by a conditioned dhimmi community (ours) and by the complicit community (theirs). Nice guys all.

When these characters come to the attention of the authorities, they’re consistently given a pass for their infractions. Invariably are they interviewed and released, unleashed on innocents, because, somehow, they inspired faith in their inquisitors.

The same interrogators are better disposed to prosecuting patriots for impolite speech against Islam. Dutchman Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen come to mind. Persecuting another, President Donald Trump, for being too polite to Russia is another preferred pastime of Deep-State operatives, who’ll invariably call-off surveillance of Islamists, as they funnel fungible funds into, say, surveilling Trump Tower.

Following acts of Jihad, suspects slip through European roadblocks with relative ease. Perverse European legislators have instituted procedures that make apprehending and expelling undesirables near impossible.

The Tunisian migrant, Anis Amri, was finally put out of his misery by an Italian policeman, near Milan. But not before Amri had mowed down 12 men, women, and children at the open-air market in Berlin, Germany, last Christmas. He injured 49.

Amri was a known felon, suspected of “possessing explosives” and defrauding German welfare authorities. He had been caught with a fake ID, had been incarcerated before and was being “monitored,” for what that’s worth. Amri’s missives, intercepted and debated, more than hinted at his future “aspirations.”

Yet no deportation proceedings were initiated, because sly Amri made sure never to carry valid papers. He knew Prussian bureaucrats put politically correct piety and protocol before the lives of innocent Germans. You know how bad things are when the leader of the Muslim World herself, Angela Merkel, calls out bungling officials for posing a “security risk for people in all Germany.”

With equal ease did Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlelon cross the security perimeter set up to protect crowds celebrating Bastille Day, in Nice. Mohamed Blah Blah had no problem plunging his lorry into the crowds, killing 84 and gravely injuring 202.

An Israeli security expert, Aaron Cohen, could not conceal his contempt for the gendarmes entrusted with protecting the crowds on that fateful day, in 2016. From the easily breached perimeters, to the lack of spike strips or tire shredders on the roads, to the pitiful darting done by police in an attempt to flag down the truck, once it commenced its two-mile mayhem: The French police had earned Cohen’s contempt.

Confirmed it was by the UK Mirror that police allowed Mohamed Blah Blah, aforementioned, “to stay on the busy road for almost nine hours before the attack and failed to check his vehicle.” When the (manifestly) swarthy Islamic supremacist told police he was delivering ice cream for the petits, police at the checkpoints had simply waved the enormous truck through.

Libertarian Julian Assange called the FBI and offshoots “America’s political police.” Europeans have their “political police.” The English have MI5; it declared Khalid Masood halal, kosher, good to go.

The “political police” is helping its political masters to achieve a goal. If political actions are indicators, then the aim is to acculturate Americans and Europeans to life with Islam.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Islam, Terrorism 

The attacks keep coming. Murder or maiming by Muslims living among us is an almost daily occurrence in the West. The latest was knifeman Khalid Masood, who plowed a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, London, and then proceeded to slash at them with a 12-inch blade. Immoral media counted five dead, with the killer.

In addition to the four murdered, 50 people were injured.

Promptly did Prime Minister Theresa May get her Churchill on: “[W]e are not afraid and our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism.” How easy it is to wax fat from the safety of a bunker! May was whisked away from the Houses of Parliament by an armed security detail.

In fact, the only reason Masood hadn’t claimed more lives for his vampiric God (a peaceful entity, promised Prime Minister May) was because he committed Jihad at the Parliamentary estate. There, a “close protection officer,” essentially a bodyguard to a politician, drew a gun and dispatched the rampaging Muslim.

So you know: In Cool Britannia, the moniker the Island acquired in the times of trendy Tony Blair, the only way disarmed Britons may shoot a savage is with … a camera. For in the country that gave us the “Rights of Englishmen,” the inspiration for the American founders—including the 1689 English Bill of Rights which entails the right to possess arms—the natural order has been inverted.

In the new old Blighty, only criminals are armed.

In case you don’t know, the category of “criminal” (according to incontrovertibly correct libertarian political theory) entails the outlaw criminal class—it needs no introduction—and the legalized criminal class: the politicians. In Britain, politicians enjoy the protection of armed security, financed by their subjects.

Both the law-abiding people of Britain and their police are allowed none of the security afforded to the criminal classes. (And if you’re in the bad business of spreading democracy, you would no more advocate the spread of British-style freedom than you would the bubonic plague.)

Thus was poor Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48, likely unarmed when he was butchered by Khalid Masood. PC Palmer didn’t have a chance.

The story of Khalid Masood is certainly festooned with the kind of studied failures you find in the tale of American homeboy Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 gay club-goers in Orlando, Florida, wounding 53 others. Mateen might have been a latent homosexual, but he was loud and proud about his orientation as an aspiring Muslim terrorist.

For his part, Masood was a violent criminal with many faces, in-and-out of the Islamized British prison system for inflicting “grievous bodily harm” on his countrymen. At every turn, Masood’s life of crime was met with soft responses. He slashes the face of a café owner in the village of Sussex but receives only two years in jail. A similar, but more severe, offense nets Masood, then Adrien Elms, a brief jail sentence for “the possession of an offensive weapon.”

A penal system that singles out for criminalization and punishment not the deadly assault and the intent behind it, but the possession of a weapon during the commission of said assault, is inviting escalation. (Oh, and once in jail, how about converting this kind of inmate to Christianity? That’s guaranteed to save lives in the future by giving inmates a higher purpose that precludes killing for rewards in the afterlife.)

So it was that Masood journeys from Sussex to Saudi Arabia, like any ordinary English lad would. (Is this now a rite of passage in Britain? BBC News’ correspondent Dominic Casciani seems to think so.) There, he can be found hard at work at the General Authority of Civil Aviation. (Yeah, right!) Then it’s back to East Sussex. With a nicely fattened, fraudulent CV, Masood goes to work for Aaron Chemicals, in Bodiam, a company which, as it appears, hired him despite his criminal record and predisposition to violence.

Speaking of corporate culture, how dangerously politically correct is it? How likely are corporations to put virtue-signaling and politically correct piety ahead of public and worker safety? You be the judge: British security firm G4S employed Omar Mateen, who was out of the closet about his Jihadi sympathies and aspirations. The Swiss security firm Securitas employed Dahir Adan, the Somali, Minnesota mall stabber. Out of all their St. Cloud applicants, Adan seemed like the best bet.

Also on the cards for Masood the buffoon was a stint at a “TEFL college in Luton as ‘senior English teacher.” (With my politics, I doubt I’d get a job teaching English in England, despite my command of the language.)

Back in the day, Masood, it had been observed, expressed his racial animus toward his Sussex victim while carving up the man’s face. Can you imagine an Englishman, an Anglo-American or a European—known to have committed a crime with racial overtones—going on to enjoy a reasonable reputation and as many career opportunities as did the no-good Masood?

A British Muslim leads a life of violent crime, rekindles his Islamic faith in prison, no less, then travels to Saudi Arabia, and is welcomed back not to surveillance but to gainful employment. Masood is subsequently questioned but dismissed by the vaunted spies of MI5 as inconsequential: this pervasive pattern tells you all you need to know about The West.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Britain, Islam, Terrorism 

From their plush apartments, over groaning dinner tables, pseudo-intellectuals have the luxury of depicting squalor and sickness as idyllic, primordially peaceful and harmonious. After all, when the affluent relinquish their earthly possessions to return to the simple life, it is always with aid of sophisticated technology and the option to be air-lifted to a hospital if the need arises. Is there any wonder, then, that “the stereotype of colonial history” has been perpetuated by the relatively well-to-do intellectual elite? Theories of exploitation, Marxism for one, originated with Western intellectuals, not with African peasants. It is this clique alone that could afford to pile myth upon myth about a system that had benefited ordinary people.

What is meant by “benefited”? Naturally, the premise here is that development, so long as it’s not coerced, is desirable and material progress good. British colonists in Africa reduced the state of squalor, disease and death associated with lack of development . To the extent that this is condemned, the Rousseauist myth of the noble, happy savage is condoned. Granted, Africa’s poor did not elect to have these conditions, good and bad, foisted on them. However, once introduced to potable water, sanitation, transportation, and primary healthcare, few Africans wish to do without them. Fewer Africans still would wish to return to Native Customary Law once introduced to the idea that their lives were no longer the property of the Supreme Chief to do with as he pleased.

It “is an absurdity to assert that cannibalism, slavery, magical therapy, and killing the aged should be accorded the same ‘dignity’ or ‘validity’ as old-age security, scientific medicine, and metal artifacts,” noted anthropologist George Peter. While old habits die hard, most “people prefer Western technology and would rather be able to feed their children and elderly than kill them,” he notes in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. And the West largely eliminated “many of the worst endemic and epidemic diseases in West Africa.” Ask Moeletsi Mbeki, the brother of South Africa’s former president Thabo Mbeki. He has admitted that “the average African is poorer [today] than during the age of colonialism.”

Even so—and whether they stay or go—the blame for all the ills of this backward and benighted region falls on Westerners. One dreadfully off-course notion has it that the colonial powers plundered Africa and failed to plow back profits into the place. This manifest absurdity is belied by the major agricultural, mineral, commercial and industrial installations throughout the continent. The infrastructure in Africa was built by the colonial powers. Far from draining wealth from less developed countries,” as P. T. Bauer richly documented, in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, “British industry helped to create it there.”

Another widely canvassed, equally implausible, accusation is that the West, which was streaks ahead of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia well before colonization, got rich on the backs of poor nations. How then do we explain the fact that the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Australia, have achieved some of the world’s highest living standards? After all, none of these nations had any colonies (except Australia, which after World War I acquired sovereignty over the former German territory consisting of what is now Papua New Guinea). They were rich without any meaningful ties to the undeveloped world. The wealthiest and most advanced countries were themselves colonies once: North America and Australia. As Bauer conclusively proved, the West’s human resources, and not any exploitation of the backward world, account for its innovation and achievements.

Much less is it legitimate to claim that contact with entrepreneurial Europeans and Asians has enervated Africa. Regions that have had the greatest commercial contact with the West are far and away more developed than regions that had little such contact. Compare the people of West Africa, parts of East and Southern Africa, and the inhabitants of Africa’s ports, with desert and rainforest dwellers like the Bushmen and pigmies. Or, with never-colonized Liberia, Afghanistan, Tibet and Nepal.

We can’t lay the blame for Africa’s tragedy on the much-deplored exploitation of natural resources either. Most natural resources are useless lumps of nothing. Without the ingenuity of men—iron, aluminum, coal and oil would lie purposeless and pristine in the wildernesses, and the matter and energy abundant on earth would come to naught. Such a state of affairs describes pre-colonial Africa, to which the colonial powers introduced the wheel and wheeled transport.

“Much of British colonial Africa was transformed during the colonial period,” writes Bauer, also in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion:

“In the Gold coast there were about 3000 children at school in the early 1900s, whereas in the mid-1950s there were over half a million. In the early 1890s there were in the Gold Coast no railways or roads, but only a few jungle paths. Transport of goods was by human porterage or canoe.”

Before colonialism, sub-Saharan Africa was a subsistence economy; because of colonialism it became a monetized economy. Before colonialism, there were only bush back roads through which men trekked with goods on their backs. During colonialism roads were built. In pre-colonial times the absence of public security made investment in Africa too risky. Post-colonialism, investment flowed. With the colonial administrations came scientific agriculture, introduced by the colonists and by “foreign private organizations and persons under the comparative security of colonial rule, and usually in the face of formidable obstacles.”

“‘In British West Africa public security and health improved out of all recognition … peaceful travel became possible; slavery and slave trading and famine were practically eliminated, and the incidence of the worst diseases reduced.’ Mortality fell, population increased, communications and ‘peaceful contact within Africa and with the outside world’ increased in British colonies.”

As uneven and problematic as progress often was, “everywhere in Black Africa modern economic life began with the colonial period.” “Economic modernity could not have been effected without a mediated imperial structure,” maintains economist Niall Ferguson. In Africa, colonial governments encountered “conditions unfavorable to material progress,” to wit, civil and tribal war and slavery. By establishing the rule of law, protecting private property and enforcing contractual relations, building infrastructure, and organizing “basic health services,” and introducing modern financial and legal institutions—the colonial powers enhanced, rather than hindered, progress. Although—or perhaps because—all these advancements interfered with traditional customs, they also advanced the continent materially.

Clearly, political independence doesn’t go hand-in-glove with material progress. But grievance-based explanations have a way of evolving. Before independence, Africa’s backwardness was attributed to colonialism. After independence, neocolonialism replaced colonialism as the excuse du jour for the failure of African leaders to ameliorate their people’s plight. Neocolonialism encompasses any unhappy condition that can no longer be attributed to colonialism. Pizza Hut opening an outlet in Lima can easily be framed as the modern equivalent of Pizarro descending on the Incas, to paraphrase journalist Henri Astier.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Africa, Colonialism, Economic Development 

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.

More instructive than what Rep. King said or meant to say are the lessons about what we’re not supposed to say.

We dare not suggest that a civilization created by a particular people with a particular religious and racial profile, may well perish once those people are replaced or have engineered their own replacement.

America’s historical majority may not entertain or express a natural affinity for its own. A connection to kith, kin and culture, when expressed by whites, is considered inauthentic, xenophobic, and certainly racist.

In other words, there’s a class of people for whom no identity is permitted. They’re the people of Europe and the Anglo-sphere: the English, the Americans, the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. The unspoken rule is that only non-Occidentals be allowed to express “civilizational consciousness,” Samuel P. Huntington’s synonym for “our stock, our country, our culture, our civilization.”

Conversely, blacks, browns and all the other, more exotic, more sympathetic peoples of the world are encouraged to strut their civilizational consciousness.

Africa, the Middle East, Near East, Far East: The people of these regions want to come and lay claim to countries built by the supremely kind, sanctimonious, gullible do-gooders of the West. Yet despite The West’s generosity to The Rest, whites are the only people to be shamed, ostracized, threatened and maligned if they dare hearken back to their forefathers, or cling to the beliefs, faith and folklore of their founding fathers.

Another thing: All peoples aside whites are allowed to claim and keep their corner under the sun. Dare to suggest that China, India, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Japan, or South-Korea open the floodgates to aliens who’ll disrupt the ancient rhythm of these societies—and you’ll get an earful. Yet this is what Anglo-Americans and Europeans are cheerily called on to do by a left-liberal, progressive ruling class.

To her governing elites, America is not a nation but a notion, as Patrick J. Buchanan put it. To someone like House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is admired by Democratic and Republican progressives alike, America is a community of disparate people coalescing around an abstract, highly manipulable, state-sanctioned ideology.

Speaker Ryan was quick to signal his displeasure with Congressman King by signaling his own “virtue.” Ryan sermonized that he disagreed with King, because “America’s long history of inclusiveness was one of its great strengths.”

A non sequitur, Sir. You can include The Other, without obliterating The Self.

Progressives like Ryan regularly disregard the fellow-feeling stirred among their countrymen by sentiments such as those expressed by Rep. Steve King. It’s this contempt that catapulted Donald Trump into the presidency.

Yet to Russell Kirk, the father of American conservatism, and an old-school conservative—as well as, arguably, to the founders of the nation themselves—society was a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn. A society cohered through what Aristotle called friendship and what Christians call love of neighbor, facilitated by a shared language, literature, history, habits and heroes. These factors, taken together, constitute the glue that binds the nation. Once this glue is gone, the nation is gone.

By contrast, the idea of the American “creedal nation,” which is supposed to unite us all in “a common commitment to a set of ideas and ideals,” is abstract and inorganic. This creed comes from above, not from below. It’s a state religion reflexively developed to bring about compliance.

Westerners have the best countries in the world. The Rest of the world wants to come to The West. But Westerners themselves are too submissive and browbeaten to appreciate that their lovely countries are the way they are due to Western civilization’s human seed capital. At their inception, the core, founding populations in these countries possessed the innate abilities and philosophical sensibilities to flourish mightily. Now they’re being taught—on pain of punishment—that populations are interchangeable.

That’s likely what Rep. King was cautioning America about on Jan Mickelson’s Iowa radio station. It was certainly what this writer was warning about, on the same radio station, to the same broadcaster, in 2011, while discussing “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Then as now, Mr. Mickelson and his guest were working to expose “the misdirected pursuit of a multicultural soup,” as he put it.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Political Correctness 

President Trump has credibly accused Obama of wire-tapping the Trump Tower phones during the 2016 campaign.

Whether the tapping of Trump Tower phones can be traced to Obama; whether it’s true or false—consider the counter-accusations floated by President Donald Trump about Barack Obama as part of a strategy.

The president is in survival mode. He’s backed into a corner and is fighting back with brio, counter-punching at the Machine intent on unseating him. The Donald is destabilizing the destabilizers.

The opinion makers were incensed. “He had no evidence when he smeared his predecessor. Just contemplate the recklessness—the sheer indifference to truth,” yelped the New York Times. “The administration can’t substantiate the wire-tapping claim,” screeched the MSNBC collective. On CNN it’s been incontinent outrage, every hour of each day, since president Trump shot across the bow at Obama.

Marching in lockstep, media have ruled that Trump’s wire-tapping taunt is unworthy of investigation. At the same time, the RussiaGate conspiracy with which media are hobbling the Trump presidency, and for which no credible proof exists—that’s beyond reproach as a news story.

Fake News’ fantastical idée fixe is that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to rob their “beloved” Hillary Clinton of her presidential birthright. To them, that’s what you’d call a perfectly legitimate and logical line of inquiry!

A Corrupt Newborn? Come Again?

Pursuing an investigation of the Trump Administration on the grounds that it’s deeply corrupt is like accusing a newborn baby of stealing a sibling’s toys. Trump’s policy making “past” is a few weeks old; Trump’s political record a few months old. Donald Trump is a political newborn.

In the language of law, President Trump has no political criminal record. (Come to think of it, El Chapo has a cleaner criminal record than the last two American presidents. El-C had menaced and murdered fewer people than 43 or 44.)

If anything, the counterclaim against Obama is much more intuitive. Obama has a long, checkered political past, having passed the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation retroactively legalized the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, first revealed by The New York Times in 2005, and indemnified the telecommunications companies for their cooperation in these acts.” (The assessment excerpted is courtesy of Bill Moyers, considered an august force on the Left.)

If a veteran political operative like Obama is considered beyond reproach, incapable of abusing power—all the more so is it irrational, irresponsible and in Third-World style to hound an administration not yet fully assembled or ensconced, for a political past it lacks.

Sane people must walk away from Fake News’ Russia Ruse.

Like nobody before, President Trump has threatened the existence of the unelected, extra-constitutional Deep State—the intelligence community included. This fire-breathing monster has taken its first victim (Gen. Michael Flynn). And it plans to take Trump down.

WikiLeaks vs. the Deep State

The greatest libertarian alive, a martyr for truth like no other, is Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Whether fighting visible government or the Deep State; Bush or Obama, Mr. Assange is a hero.

Right now, Our Hero is in the process of blowing the lid off the CIA. Assange’s latest data dump has exposed the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency for the habitual hacker it is. Revealed, too, is the CIA’s modus operandi: For their own cyber-infractions, the agency is, allegedly, in the habit of forensically framing other actors (like Russia?).

“I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, were being monitored,” ventured Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency. Binney, who resigned in protest from the NSA in 2001, told Fox Business that “everyone’s conversations are being monitored and stored.”

During the Bush era, the mantra of DC operatives like Karl Rove was, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Not much has changed.

They Create Your Reality

A reality not of the making of America’s entrenched punditocracy, its self-anointed intelligentsia, slick Big Media, slimy politicians, Democrat and Republican, spooks and bureaucrats—will be rejected as rogue. Or, dubbed as conspiracy.

But the Deep State is not a conspiracy; it’s a term. The term has long since been deployed on the Left and by libertarians alike to denote the state within a state, operating, for the most, extra-constitutionally.

The term was explained nicely by an expert solicited by the Public Broadcasting Service’s Bill Moyers. “The Anatomy of the Deep State” inveighed against the Bush-era Deep State apparatus. These observations obtain across party-lines:

“All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.”

Washington Post writers Dana Priest and William K. Arkin ought to be the first to acknowledge that the use of the concept is perfectly proper. In their special series, “Top Secret America,” the two chronicled “the scope of the privatized Deep State and the degree to which it had metastasized after the September 11 attacks.”

The “deconstruction of the administrative state,” attested Stephen Bannon, assistant to the president and White House chief strategist, is President Trump’s goal. Bannon said so at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC (CPUKE, before Trump).

Similarly, my June 2016 book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” made the case for “The Donald’s Creative Destruction.” I argued that what you’re witnessing in media and among national and transnational elites is one colossal, ongoing, political grand mal, in response to Trump.

Trump is rocking their world. And not in a good way. The sprawling political apparatus that makes up the D.C. Deep State is now writhing like a fire-breathing mythical monster in the throes of death. Or, so we hope.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Deep State, Donald Trump 

There were a few tense hours before President Trump’s First Address to Congress. All news outlets were claiming the president would call for an immigration bill in which both sides would be asked to compromise.

Was this Fake News? Or, was the president sending up a trial balloon to test the reaction? Was Donald Trump, who has both Houses, planning to give away the store (and a shot at a second term)? I hope I speak for Deplorables when I say this: The only time you want the president to reach across the aisle on matters immigration is to grab a Democrat or an errant Republican by the throat.

Like many legal immigrants, I’m an immigration restrictionist. As soon as open-border enthusiasts discover this; they tell me to go back whence I came (Canada and before that South-Africa), the idea being that I’m not suited to join “the nation of immigrants.” Agreed. I’ll save them the effort. Americans have little use for a scribe with a love of the English idiom and an oddball, annoying attachment to the American ideas of limited government and self-governance. You wouldn’t want to import too many such subversives, who’ll agitate for the values that made us great and will MAGA.

The only TV personality to have vigorously stood up for the high-value immigrant minority is Tucker Carlson. In 2013, before it was safe for mainstream to speak of any immigration vetting whatsoever—and as his neoconservative Fox News co-panelists (Charles Krauthammer, Bret Bair) noodled on about their Latino philosophical soul-mates—Mr. Carlson blurted this out:

“What is missing in this conversation is the fact that not all immigrants are the same. Immigrants from certain countries go on welfare overwhelmingly. Many Latin American countries send us immigrants who go on welfare. The question is, does the United States need massive new numbers of the low-skilled immigrants in a post-industrial economy? Is that good for the United States? Is it not mindless to say all immigrants are good? They are not. Some are, some aren’t. … the Republican Party ought to be courageous enough to draw the distinction between people who add to the sum total of the American economy, who buy into the culture, who improve the country, and those who don’t. And there is a difference. Sorry.”

Thank you, Tucker Carlson, for being, I believe, the first famous pundit to doff the proverbial hat to those high-value immigrants who not only talk the American creed, but live it; the kind who subsidize the largess Republican turncoats seem so eager to dispense.

Thankfully, the patriotic president said nothing, in his Address, about a “compromise” immigration bill. Rather, Trump rededicated himself to The Wall and to a merit-based point system à la Canada. (Been there, done that. Canada is tougher and smarter than America.)

Judging by the mirth among good people and the misery among the bad, the president has already made progress. It’s just over a month into his presidency and the deportations of illegal immigrants are proceeding swimmingly. The morale among Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has never been higher. Their jobs are becoming “fun, again,” lamented a New York Times reporter, whose job has become a living hell. Joy!

Some anonymous informants for the newspaper-of-record within ICE say they miss the days of doing diaper duty. In 2012, following Barack Obama’s reelection, the men of ICE were forced to babysit Central American minors who rushed the South-Western border, “for the DREAM Act.” (All you need to know about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act is that it culminates in Green Cards and citizenship for millions of Democrats.) ICE was charged with minding the minors before escorting them in style to their destinations in the interior.

Most agents are, however, over the moon about enforcement. ICE agents “are predominantly male, and have often served in the military, with a police department or both.” While working without women could predispose them to happiness, the agents are likely just overjoyed because President Trump has let them do their job!

By upholding the moral order, President Trump is also restoring the natural order, inverted by his predecessors. The feminist order of Obama had humiliated thousands of American men-of-action by turning them into wet-nurses. Obama messed with their biology. Men who think of themselves as protectors resent looking like child minders.

Dead ringer “W,” currently being rehabilitated by certain conservatives, was more “manly” in the way he emasculated these men. In 2005, George Bush indicted and viciously prosecuted two border-patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Their crime: Shooting a drug dealer in the derriere, in the process of defending their countrymen.

So, look forward to epic images of heavy equipment barreling toward the Southern border. The sight of a gold-plated structure going up, as sections of the borderland along Mexico start to resemble Liberace’s backyard: This is sure to warm the cockles of your heart, and make America’s monomaniacal media go berserk. (Let Milo design The Wall. If conservatives can rehabilitate the unrepentant Bush; they can forgive Milo for saying stupid stuff.)

Of course, ordinary concrete would do just fine.

 

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration, Immigration 

As a Jew on the libertarian Right, I am sickened by the compulsion of some American Jews to force President Donald Trump to convulse over Jewish angst. The Anti-Defamation League and other largely self-anointed representatives of Jewish interests are kvetching, accusing the president of not making it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate violence against Jews.

#AnswerTheQuestion is the dramatic, petulant hashtag these nudniks have tweeted out. Apparently, President Trump must spell out, tweet out and beat on breast, at every opportunity, his abhorrence for the specter of Jewish community centers, cemeteries, businesses and places of worship being vandalized.

The chief hate group of America, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has been gunning for President Trump back when he was still candidate Donald Trump. Their work and that of the head honcho at Hate Inc., has been to tar this president with the white supremacist Mark of Cain, simply because he loves Middle America, doesn’t hate the founding American nation, hasn’t yet dubbed Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite, called for the excising of American history from an already compromised curricula, or distanced himself from patriots such as Steve Bannon.

They now contend that “a racist, misogynist and xenophobe president” has inadvertently created the conditions for the current threats against Jews and the vandalism of Jewish property.

All these groups, certainly the Jewish ones, are silent about the existential elephant in the room that truly imperils Jewish survival (other than the community’s left-liberalism). These leaders refuse to grapple with the exponential growth through immigration of anti-Semitic groups. You’d think this would alarm them, as self-styled Jewish leaders.

It’s not right-wing populism that endangers Jewish survival in Europe and Canada; it’s the influx of Muslims. There’s nothing new in the Jewish leadership’s habit of kibitzing about the dangers to Jewish continuity from marauding Mormons (their sin is to convert dead Jews). Or, from Mel Gibson, whose movie “The Passion of the Christ” was supposed to unleash pogroms in Pittsburgh, as they falsely prophesied.

The same sorts say nothing publicly about the waves of Muslims washing up on Europe’s shores. One wonders if they know this intake doesn’t represent a new Islamic Golden Age. These Muslims bring with them the Islam that The Prophet practiced. This Islam does not tolerate Jews.

Muslims now greatly outnumber Jews in these formerly safe spaces for Judaism. What remains of a European Jewry devastated by the Holocaust comes under daily assaults and threats, mostly from the 20-million strong Muslim community. The violent assaults on Jews and their property in Europe and Canada are almost exclusively the handiwork of an ancient hatred, nurtured within Islamic countries, arrivals from which President Trump is trying to curb.

American Jewry is next. Second only to Latinos, the relatively new, roughly 40-year-old Muslim community is the most anti-Semitic community in the U.S. Explained Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies, in “High Noon to Midnight: Does Current Immigration Policy Doom American Jewry”:

“It is virtually impossible to be reared in classical Islam and not be educated to hate Jews—based on a literalist reading of the Koran, where many of the Suras concerning Jews are monstrously hateful, murderous, terrifying, as well as the literature of the Sunnah. These texts also regard Jews as a spiritually fraudulent entity—all the prophets and great figures of the Hebrew Bible, according to Islamic teaching, were Muslims, not Jews [historical identity theft, I call it]… With the exception of a tiny group of courageous American Muslims … who have spoken out and condemned … anti-Semitism, the ‘Muslim Street’ in the U.S. has yet to show its disapproval of this philosophical and political agenda.”

Jewish organizations are not unaware of this menace, although they’re tracking it in the utmost silence. They’re in the habit of silently tracking real threats, such as the hate coming from Islam and Latin America, while publicly, and with impunity, they heap insults on a president who belongs to one of the most politically submissive, bullied groups: white men.

To help those they claim to represent, Jewish leaders should join America’s equally endangered cultural majority, the Trump Nation, in the fight to forestall the lemming’s lunacy that is our current immigration policy.

The proper metaphor for the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is that of proud parent and progeny. Led by these characters—the Ann Frank Center, the obnoxious Anti-Defamation League—Jews have managed to cast themselves as just another faction in the noisy, multicultural mob that is America.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Islam, Jews, Political Correctness 

“More than 100 companies, including most of high-tech’s biggest names,” have threatened to “move jobs outside the United States,” unless they get their way.

What do they want? They want President Trump to give up on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” the POTUS’s Executive Order, currently being refined to withstand legal challenges from these and related special interests.

Where will America’s “tech titans” go? Presumably to the banned countries, without whose high-tech talent our companies cannot do business. Or, so their antics imply. Washington State, which led the charge against President Trump’s “travel ban” on Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya and Iran, is home to some of these powerful, high-tech traitors.

Why the strong language?

I’ve yet to hear of a single coveted Syrian, Yemeni, Somali, Sudanese, Iraqi and Libyan needed right away in Redmond for his exceptional, technical know-how. (I know of one highly productive, much older Afghani. He acquired his degree under … Russian occupation and has been in the US for decades.)

The only case tech traitors can reasonably make for Muslim high-tech talent, invisible to the naked eye, are the Iranians. They’re well-represented in our state’s tech sector as top talent. In adding Iran to the travel ban, President Trump is clearly appeasing the neoconservative snakes slithering around his administration. They’re fixing for a fight with Iran, stupidly collapsing the distinction between the Iranian State (sponsor of terrorism), and the Iranian people (who’re not the reason the Eiffel Tower is being walled-off by bullet-proof glass).

Were our tech execs remotely honest, they’d make the case for their Iranian talent. No more. Don’t pretend you’ll relocate in order to employ Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, Sudanese, Iraqis and Libyans to fabricate your (stunning) Surface Pro 4 Tablets. For their importation, American taxpayers will be the ones footing the bill in blood and treasure. Allow the president to protect America from what is generally an unproductive, atavistic, immigrant cohort.

Oh, and if I hear more indignant hyperbole about Steve Jobs’ illustrious Syrian lineage, I’ll hit the roof. Apple’s founder was not raised by his Syrian biological father, who deserted him. (Like members of the men-only refugee club, whose members left their women, children and elderly behind to … the sentence is yours to complete.) Jobs never cared for the Syrian sperm donor. The name Jobs is that of his adopted Armenian father, whom he credits with inspiring him. A “genius with his hands,” said Jobs about his Christian dad. (Armenians are Christians who’ve come close to extinction-by-Muslim. Remind me why we need more Muslims in America.)

Doubly victimized in all this are the taxpayers. We’re on the hook for litigation to advance the aims of social justice warriors; radical leftists, who take sadistic pleasure in displacing and diminishing American men.

Understand: For the tech tycoons it’s not about cheap labor, although importing a glut of mostly second-rate computer programmers and IT workers from India and Pakistan (birthplace of Tashfeen Malik, perpetrator of the San Bernardino massacre) does suppress wages, overall.

Conservatives are wrong. The myth that these strategically imported workers are paid less than an American worker with comparable skills, with whom they work side-by-side, is as bogus as the fairytale about the female-male wage gap. (It vanishes when variables such as education, experience and time in the workplace are held constant.)

Wage differentials obtain in the practices of the primary H-1B Visa hogs—Infosys, the Tata Group and eight or so other sister Indian firms. Different pay scales for imported workers aren’t a feature of the egalitarian American company. In places like Microsoft and Amazon, everyone is equal (white men excepted). Salaries, raises and bonuses are applied to all evenly, commensurate with an employee’s performance, and depending on his job level or the grade occupied on the company’s technical career track.

Again: Imported workers aren’t paid less than American workers.

Make no mistake, H-1B Visa sponsors, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg included, pay a fortune to process this generally mediocre class of immigrant. Enormous is the price of the in-house bureaucracy required to keep filing the paper work associated with the assorted classes of workers imported. Every year, until the coveted Green Card is granted, Human Resources departments will be jumping through countless legalistic hoops to help their Chosen Ones remain in the United States.

Labor imported by the H-1B Visa hogs is not cheap.

Touted as a means of trawling for the best and the brightest, the H-1B Visa system is anything but. “Ordinary talent doing ordinary work” is Professor Norman S. Matloff’s overall assessment of the standard H-1B crop. Matloff is a computer scientist at the University of California. By his telling, the 65,000 yearly recipients of H-1B visas are mostly “average workers. The vast majority of H-1Bs, including those hired from U.S. universities” [for which Washington State University sought taxpayer-sponsored representation before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] are ordinary people doing ordinary work, not the best and the brightest. On the contrary, the average quality of the H-1Bs is lower than that of the Americans.”

The clincher: The majority of H-1Bs are not doing work for which qualified Americans are unavailable.

Would that our tech executives were just businessmen vested in the wealth of their shareholders. That would be a blessing and a good thing. The truth is that tech traitors are true believers, radical leftists; social justice warriors, vested in the engineering of tribalism (“multiculturalism”) and racial favoritism (“affirmative action”) in the workplace.

Workplace tribalism doesn’t contribute to creativity, productivity or the happiness of the Forgotten Man; it’s what his overlords want for him (I’ll tell you why, next time). It’s the corporate culture.

When it grows up, organizations like Microsoft want to be the government.

***

ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. (Archive) Ilana is the author of TheTrump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) and Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). She’s a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Follow ilana on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer , Gab: https://gab.ai/ILANAMERCER Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/
Subscribe to ilana’s YouTube channel

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, Silicon Valley 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

ILANA Mercer is the author of "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed," (June, 2016) and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.


PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.