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

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
2016 Election Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Apartheid Barack Obama Black Crime Blacks Britain Charlie Hebdo CIA Civil War Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Deep State Democratic Party Donald Trump Economics FBI Feminism Foreign Policy Free Trade Guns H1-B Visas Hillary Clinton History Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration ISIS Islam Israel Israel/Palestine Ivanka John McCain Mass Shootings Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Republican Party Republicans Robert Mueller Russia Silicon Valley South Africa Supreme Court Terrorism 2020 Election Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Antifa Antiracism Arts/Letters Benghazi Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Catholic Church Censorship Children Christmas Civil Liberties Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Corruption Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Dinesh D'Souza Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Fake News Ferguson Shooting Football France Gay Marriage George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Grammys Gun Control Harvey Weinstein Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Ilana Mercer Independence Day Inequality Iraq Iraq War Islamic Jihad James Comey Jared Kushner Jews John Calhoun Justice Kamala Harris Kirstjen Nielsen Las Vegas Massacre Latin America LGBT Liberalism Libertarianism Libya Lindsey Graham Looting Marco Rubio Massacre In Nice McCain/POW Megyn Kelly Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Native Americans Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Propaganda Public Schools Race/Crime Rachel Dolezal Racism Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Robert Mugabe Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Slavery Syria Taxes The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Americans White Death Working Class Yankees Zimbabwe
Nothing found
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Nkechi Diallo was recently charged with welfare fraud in Spokane, Washington State. Back in 2015, Diallo was better known as Rachel Dolezal. She has since rechristened herself.

Rachel Dolezal, if you’re from Deep Space, is the lily-white woman who, in 2015, dared to “identify” as a black woman.

The “Racism Industrial Complex” is populated with frauds, shysters, imposters, phonies and morons; black, white and 50 shades of gray.

Ms. Dolezal had been posing as all of these, teaching mambo-jumbo studies at the bush college of Eastern Washington University.

Our American Idiocracy confers the respect and the authority of a pedagogue on many like her, allowing them to spread the disease to college kids and beyond. So, why not Rachel?

Why, the Age of the Idiot sees killers exculpated, just because they kill. As the faulty reasoning goes, if an individual has murdered, raped, robbed or defrauded—then he or she must have been abused, neglected, racially oppressed (if black or brown); not wealthy enough, mentally ill, lacking in self-esteem.

Anything but plain bad, slothful, sociopathic or parasitical. The more aberrant the crime; the more thrill-seeking, vulgar, immoral or wicked the conduct—the more elaborate, fanciful and scientifically baseless the excuse-making.

This is if B then A, backward, erroneous reasoning. Around it an industry has arisen. It’s called psychiatry. The psychiatric endeavor—voodoo, really—is premised on the medicalization of misconduct.

These days, it is de rigueur to consider everyone who acts immorally to be medically impaired.

But not Rachel Dolezal. Alas, the country is still barking mad at her, forever poised to heap scorn on her box-braided head.

The reason Ms. Diallo, aka Dolezal, has been denied the benefits of this excuse-making industry is that she has encroached on black supremacy’s turf.

To be black in America is more than a pigment; it’s an identity, a politics, an entitlement, a one-upmanship. This protected turf acts as a medieval guild or a modern trade union. In cahoots with the state, the “Racism-Industrial Complex” protects its members from competition by limiting entry into the professionally aggrieved class.

Poor Nkechi, aka Rachel. She painted her face orange, gave herself a Sideshow Bob hairdo, and adopted the ideology of the eternally oppressed.

Big deal.

Most of America’s race-grievance agitators are phonies who’ve never been oppressed. Unlike many of them, Dolezal—by the admission of the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Washington-State chapter—had actually done “quality work” to “elevate the issues of civil rights.”

“I just want to feel beautiful, and this is how I feel beautiful,” said this mixed-up woman rather plaintively.

Yes, Dolezal is the white face of parental and societal racial displacement. Why am I the only one to find her pitiful, even deserving of pity?

You see, America is not racist. In America, black is beautiful. To be black is to be more righteous, nobler; carry the heaviest historic baggage—heavier than the Holocaust and the Trail of Tears—and be encouraged to perpetually and publicly pick at those imagined, oozing injuries.

To be black is to have an unwritten, implicit social contract with wider, whiter society.

To be black it to be born with a lifetime of IOYs (I Own You); it is to be owed apologies, obsequiousness, education, and automatic exculpation for any wrongdoing. Reparations, too, if the Democrats have their way.

Why can’t Rachel have some of that? Was not Ms. Dolezal displaced for real in her parents’ affections?

Rachel’s story should begin with parents Larry and Ruthanne Dolezal, who adopted four children, “three of whom were African-American while the other was from Haiti.”

Does this fashionable adoption not send a message to a vulnerable white girl that she and her biological brother are too pale for their pious parents?

Spokesperson for the quasi-black Brady Bunch is brother Ezra Dolezal. Ezra grew up in the diversity worshiping, evangelical, Dolezal household. He now lectures his estranged sister about her shenanigans in blackface. The Chutzpah!

Without a doubt, the once anemic-looking, fair-skinned Rachel was raised with a real sense that she was not black enough for her parents. Why do I say “real”? Because, like Angelina Jolie, Larry and Ruthanne Dolezal kept acquiring kids more “colorful” than their own.

Kids are needy creatures. Parenting is a complex endeavor. However great their reservoirs of love, sense of fair play and goodwill—two parents do not have enough of the good stuff to spread among six kids. Mark my words: Brangelina’s beautiful, biological offspring will also one day display the scars of childhood, anti-white abuse.

Lest I be called on the carpet (or the mosaic floor, rather) for deploying the faulty reasoning I previously denounced, let me clarify: I am not here psychologizing Dolezal’s perplexing behavior. No need.

By reality’s standards—not those unscientifically set by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–∞/eternity)—Rachel (and lots of whites like her) was racially displaced.

Ms. Dolezal has thus recreated the primal scene of her childhood by becoming in adulthood—experientially, at least—blacker than her adopted brothers and sisters.

She deserves a break.

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

🔊 Listen RSS

It’s obvious who the odd one out is in this embarrassing clip of Ivanka at the G20 Summit.

Allow me to set the scene:

Two mature women are in the thick of a policy discussion. The two heavy hitters are British Prime Minister Theresa May and International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde.

Their buttoned-up, officious attire fits the occasion. It’s how Theresa May and Christine Lagarde, both born in 1956, have always dressed. The pearls, the tweed and gingham suits: These are as old-school and as dear as Margaret Thatcher’s made-in-Britain, “ten-a-penny” “humble handbag.”

Whether you like their politics or you don’t—and I don’t—Theresa May and Christine Lagarde are sharpshooting, politically hefty women.

May graduated from Oxford, which has a “jealously-guarded admissions process.” In other words, May was not admitted to that elite school for being a woman, and she did not make her way in the word of politics because she was the daughter of a celebrity.

While the French, foolishly, have begun to dabble in American-style affirmative action, France’s constitution disallows such discrimination. Its people won’t tolerate quotas and set-asides for dummies with a perceived genital or pigmental burden.

“Any kind of discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity [and, presumably, gender] in French higher education would be contrary to all French tradition.” The French speak as one on this typically American preoccupation.

Rest assured. Unlike American lightweights Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the sibilant Kirsten Gillibrand, and first daughter Ivanka Trump—Christine Lagarde, a former anti-trust and labor lawyer who now heads the IMF, has risen to her position because she’s able; she’s an impressive woman.

Again, I have no Fabian fondness for the economic planning and centralization that defines the European supra-state. But you don’t have to like the office (I dislike it) and the office-holder’s role in it (ditto) to appreciate her cerebral ability and drive: Lagarde holds 4 masters degrees. (Yet, these still failed to give her admission to France’s elite university!)

So, who elbows her way into the orbit of these high IQ, distinguished ladies? Why, Ivanka does! The grey-haired, unadorned women form part of circle deep in discussion, when a big-bosomed, lanky woman, in a floral frock butts in, silicone appendages first.

Ivanka has elbowed her way into the May-Lagarde tight circle of interlocutors. She is dressed like an overgrown Lolita. During the G20 Summit she could be seen constantly smoothing her rigid hair down vainly. Now, she is gesticulating affectatiously, as do all America’s tele-twits.

“Yeah,” nods Ivanka, as she bobs her coiffed head, taking care not to shake out the style.

Prime Minister May is saying something to the effect that, “As soon as you talk about the economic aspect of [something], people listen.”

Motioning wildly and grinning asininely, Ivanka offers her made-in-America catchphrases of female empowerment. Something or other is “male-dominated,” lisps the first daughter, in a little bedroom whisper. She then grins. There was no bum note here, she seems to be telling herself. “I did ‘good,’ and I sounded sexy at the same time.”

A lady to the end, IMF leader Lagarde could have briskly disposed of this halfwit. Instead, Lagarde just looks fit to be tied.

Even Margaret Thatcher, a master of the manly art of the parliamentary joust, would have been left speechless at this American girl’s audacious idiocy. Having no empathy for woman-centric whining, The Iron Lady would have hand-bagged Ivanka with that famous little bag of hers.

Ivanka at her serious best is Barbie doll hair, an overbite, Botox and mind-numbing banalities. The two brilliant women she’s preening before are not in the habit of disgorging American-style jargon like “male-dominated,” “intersectionality,” “transsexuality.” Neither do May and Lagarde rabbit on about “women in politics,” “women in business,” women in sport,” “women in this or that.”

May converses in the Queen’s English, fluent and pointed, stripped of the fluffy, social-justice lingo that litters the American vernacular.

Look, other than commandeering the Trump presidency, Ivanka’s greatest achievement is the branding of the anemic, androgynous production that is Jared Kushner. Kushner is like a wax doll out of London’s Madame Tussauds wax museum. Sexually “intersectional,” he’s politically perfect: neither man nor woman.

Take it from this Jewish woman: The first husband in-waiting, the squirrely Mr. Kushner, is not the powerful, scheming Jew his anti-Semitic detractors make him out to be, and his wife needs you to believe he is.

In years to come, books will be written about the branding of Jared by the insipid, glitzy, enormously ambitious, first daughter: Ivanka.

Author Michael Wolff’s take on the Kushners no longer struggles to convince. Accordingly, both Jared and Ivanka have a “self-created fantasy life” of their own.

Ivanka used to speak in a valley girl accent, which “would later transform in the years ahead into something like a Disney princess voice.” Hence the dulcet tones that accompanied her word salad at the G20 Summit, where you’d expect to see the likes of Mike Pompeo in her place.

“[S]ister Ivanka, certainly no native genius, was the designated family smart person.” Wolff captures the essence of Ivanka brilliantly, as an epitome of the effort “among a new generation of [enormously] wealthy women to recast life as a socialite, turning a certain mode of whimsy and noblesse oblige into a new status as a power woman.”

It’s all phony. Ivanka is an authentically savvy businesswoman in the same way that Jared is an able policy wonk.

The more plausible picture is that Kushner serves as a perfect foil for his wife’s Clintonian ambition. Writes Wolff:

“Ivanka, along with her husband Jared Kushner, ‘had made an earnest deal with themselves: if sometime in the future the time came, she’d be the one to run for president (or the first one of them to take the shot). The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton, it would be Ivanka Trump.”

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Ivanka 
🔊 Listen RSS

TWICE HAVE the censors at Twitter kicked me off their anything-but-neutral platform.

When these arbiters of right and wrong periodically block my Twitter account, visitors to the site will be greeted with a stark warning:

“Caution. This account is temporary restricted.” The snowflakes will be forewarned of “some unusual activity on the account. Do you still want to view it?” Naturally, the worded choice offered—to view or not to view—ultimately doesn’t exist. I am told that when you click to avail yourself of the “choice,” my account is nowhere to be seen. Once blocked, you’re invisible.

The visual that assaults the eye is this one:

The screen shot was taken by a friend. For, when sent to the Twitter doghouse, one is typically barred from accessing Twitter at all, except for fleetingly seeing the notice, “Your account has been blocked.”

Thereafter, the only thing visible to this untouchable will be a shakedown notice from Twitter’s shameless shysters.

It’ll be written in millennial syntax, and will read as follows: “Enter a phone number that you would like to associate with your Twitter account.”

The ransom demand looks like this:

When they block you, our Twitter overlords seize the opportunity to extract your most personal information.

Picture Mr. Burns of “The Simpsons” fame, when a plot or a scheme comes together. Mr. Burns minus the charm.


“We will make the political pariah cough up her most private information, or else she’ll remain in exile.”

Only, in the case of Twitter, the enforces are singularly charmless young millennials. The uniformity of the opinion they enforce is scarier than its uninformed nature. Misguided, mediocre and frightfully monolithic minds are monopolizing one of the Internet’s most powerful, intellectual means of production: Twitter.

Twitter technocrats reckon you’re desperate to partake in their consensus-driven enterprise and will thus eagerly part with your most private information. “Confirm your phone number,” comes the next instruction.

The dissident right has its speech rights curtailed on what are ostensibly neutral, government-protected, social-media platforms. Luckily, the free-market still provides us with … burn phones.

It all sounds so cloak-and-dagger, but nobody in their right mind would part with sensitive information on Twitter or on Facebook. Having always been literally off-the-grid when it comes to my mobile phone (a thing I only acquired in 2017); a burn phone provided me “with partial privacy. Even the NSA can’t track them with accuracy. The secret lies within how prepaid carriers, also known as MVNOs, identify their users – they don’t.”

Other than “sensitive content-blocked,” I am also “shadow-banned and follower-throttled.” The first means that my #hashtags go nowhere on Twitter other than to my immediate, Twitter followers, mostly.

As to followers, as someone who’s been “sensitive content-blocked,” my Twitter followers never increase, but only dwindle by the day. As another victim observed—she tracks the refugee scam and dissects the miseries of diversity—“Twitter has been taking away followers again for weeks now. I will get a spurt of hundreds of new followers and then they take them away. They don’t have to shadow-ban you; they can just make sure that your follower number stays stagnant until you ask yourself, ‘Why do I bother?’”

Ditto. The dynamics on my account are identical.

Gab serves as a convenient control group. On Gab, where there is no blocking, shadow-banning and follower-throttling—my number of followers only ever increases. Isn’t that curious? Admittedly, Gab comprises a less conventional cohort than the Twitter ditto-heads.

“Wear their contempt as a badge of honor,” exhorted a loyal reader. “At least you know you’re doing something right.” I’ve never doubted it. Still, while not hugely dispiriting, being powerless and right is not much of a consolation.

Establishment conservatives will get together on Fox News to grate on about how “libtards” are making them sad by calling them Nazis. Conservatism Inc., however, is seldom blocked or deplatformed. And they certainly don’t stand up for those on the dissident right who are.

As for President Donald J. Trump: Anchor Tucker Carlson suggested that POTUS has done precious little to stop the intimidation, firing, hounding, de-platforming, doxing, and marginalizing of those who do not revel in the warm smell of the herd.

Tucker did, nevertheless, try to steer Trump, urging that he “would be remembered as a ‘genuinely great’ president if he fought for free speech.”

Fat chance.

In taming and claiming the political landscape, social-media tyrants fancy themselves exemplars of enlightenment. But those who hoist their pixelated pitchforks to purge ideological disagreement, Soviet-style; they are the enemies of civilization.

In case I am ever permanently removed from the grubby cyber-reality that is Twitter, you can find me on Gab.


AND, many thanks in advance to those who’ve “Liked” and “Shared” my Facebook Author Page, in support of work that is now in its 20th year.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Political Correctness, Twitter 
🔊 Listen RSS

If President Trump doesn’t waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.

Despite protests from Democrats, stateside—Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.

At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats—and some Republicans.

Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side—any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore to represent.

In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even considered a vote to block the tariffs.

Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs .

More than that. The president didn’t just tweet out “strong words” and taunts.

Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to “retrieve from his arsenal a time bomb of ruinous proportions.”

Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.

Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.

Beginning on June 10, “a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October.”

Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March

It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.

Trump’s trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they’re not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.

How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.

Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand’s observations. What goes for “free trade,” rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic juggernauts—national and international—central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.

The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.

But what of the “billions of dollars in imports from Mexico” that are at stake, as one media shill shrieked.

Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it’s a trade pygmy—a fact known all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.

The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president is this. Via the Economist:

“Only about 15 percent of the United States’ exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico’s exports head the other way. ‘There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,’ says Andrés Rozental, a Mexican former diplomat and minister.”

Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept “safe third-country status.” Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel any and all “asylum seekers” if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.

Thinking people should realize that Trump’s victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.

The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed immigration laws.

Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz argues convincingly, this is “a separation of powers problem.” Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law—there will be no fix.

For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts’ violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal scheme, within which the role—nay, the obligation—of the commander in chief—is to defend the country.

Although they’re temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Reconstructed,” executive orders are Trump’s political power tool—justice’s Jaws of Life, if you will—to be used by the Executive to pry the people free from judicial oppression.

Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.

All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers every day, “No. You can’t go there.”

That’s all.

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

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Free Trade, Immigration, Mexico 
🔊 Listen RSS

Donald R. Morris’s epic tome, The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation, is the all-time PIG (Politically Incorrect Guide) to Zulu history.

In it, Morris notes correctly that the Bantu, like the Boers, were not indigenous to South Africa. They “dribbled south” from some “reservoir in the limitless north,” and, like the European settlers, used their military might to displace Hottentots, Bushmen (his archaic terminology), and one another through internecine warfare.

Indeed, there was bitter blood on Bantu lands well before the white settlers arrived in South Africa.

Westerners have committed the little San people of Southern Africa, the “Bushmen,” to folkloric memory for their unequalled tracking skills and for the delicate drawings with which they dotted the “rock outcroppings.”

The San were hunters, but they were also among the hunted. Mercilessly so. Alongside the Boers, Hottentots and blacks “hunted down Bushmen for sport well into the 19th Century.”

In “the book to end all books on the tragic confrontation between the assegai and the Gatling gun,” Morris places Cape Town’s founder and Dutch East India Company official J. A. Van Riebeeck, on landing at the Cape in 1652, 500 miles to the south and 1,000 miles to the west of the nearest Bantu. Joined by other Protestants from Europe, Dutch farmers, as we know, homesteaded the Cape Colony.

No doubt, the question of land ownership deeply concerned the 19th century trek Boers, as they prepared to decamp from the British-ruled Cape Colony and venture north. Accordingly, they sent out exploration parties tasked with negotiating the purchase of land from the black chieftains, who very often acted magnanimously, allowing Europeans to settle certain areas. Against trek Boers, it must be said that they were as rough as the natives and negotiated with as much finesse.

Still, the narrative about the pastoral, indigenous, semi-nomadic natives, dispossessed in the 17th century of their lands by another such people, only of a different color—this is as simplistic as it is sentimental.

When Boer and Bantu finally clashed on South Africa’s Great Fish River it was a clash of civilizations. “The Bantu viewed the land as entailed property that belonged to the clan. A chieftain might dispose of the right to live on the land, but he could not dispose of the land itself.” The European mind in general could not grasp the concept of collective ownership and “regarded a land transaction as a permanent exchange of real property.”

As Morris observes in his matter-of-fact way, “The Bantu view insured European encroachment and the European view insured future strife.”

South Africa has since reverted to “The Bantu view.” It is thus perhaps inevitable that 21st-century land claims or “restitution” in South Africa are not dominated by individual freehold owners reclaiming expropriated land, based on title deeds kept on record.

Rather, a group of blacks scheming on a particular property will band together as a “tribe,” and pool the taxpayer grants, which its members have received gratis, for the purpose of purchasing occupied land.

No sooner does this newly constituted “tribe” (or band of bandits, really) launch a claim with the South African Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, than related squatters—sometimes in the thousands—move to colonize the land. They defile its grounds and groundwater by using these as one vast latrine, and terrorize, even kill, its occupants and their animals in the hope of “nudging” them off the land.

The latest victim of this guerrilla warfare is a wine farmer, Stefan Smit of blessed memory, gunned down on his Stellenbosch estate, in the Western Cape.

Back in the day, Shaka Zulu himself considered the European clansmen to be the proper proprietors of the Cape frontier, with whom he would need to liaise diplomatically if he wished to subjugate his black brethren, the Xhosa-Nguni peoples, on the southern reaches of his empire, abutting the Cape.

And boy, did Shaka subjugate his brethren!

The white civilization which formed south of the Orange River did not encounter the black civilization in the interior for some time. But during that time, the black coastal clans warred against one another, continually raiding other kraals, driving off the cattle and exterminating the victims. Before the consolidation of the Zulu empire, eight hundred or so distinct Nguni Bantu clans vied for a spot under the sun in the Natal region between the mountains and the coast.

Where are these lineages today?

Particularly brutal was the period spanning the early 1820s known as the Mfecane, “the Crushing.” Up to two million natives died “in a decade that depopulated what is today the Orange Free State.” This death-toll was partly, but not entirely, the fault of Shaka, who destroyed the clan structure in Natal—the Zulu paramount chief was a monster of psychopathic proportions who once sated his scientific curiosity by dissecting seven hundred pregnant women.

The tribal warfare caused mass migration, whereby “not a single clan remained in a belt a hundred miles wide south of the Tugela River; in an area that teemed with bustling clans only thousands of deserted kraals remained, most of them in ashes.”

There hid a few thousand terrified inhabitants in the bush or forest in pitiful bands, and “cannibalism flourished,” as it did whenever the kraal economy was demolished in ongoing warfare. Yes, “cannibalism, which was fully repugnant to Bantu civilization as it is our own, became common, and reached the point where entire clans depended on it and nothing else to feed themselves.”

Mobs on the move marked their “aimless tracks” with (DNA-rich) human bones. Was there never a duty to divine these bones for purposes other than soothsaying—say, to do the devoured justice?

These days, white South Africans are told to accept their obligation to give up ancestral lands they are alleged to have stolen. Should not the relatives of cannibals who gobbled up their black brethren be held to the same standards?

The Bushmen—First Nations of Southern Africa—have been barred by the Botswana Bantu from claiming their ancestral lands in the Central Kalahari. Where’s the international uproar? And should we not be discussing intra-racial reparations? That would be my own Swiftian proposal.

Citations are in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons From America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” by ilana mercer.

• Category: History • Tags: South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

JARED KUSHNER couldn’t stare down an uncompromising foe if his wife, Ivanka Trump, held his soft, lily-white hand throughout the ordeal.

Yet ridiculously, a May 22, McClatchy article claimed Mr. Kushner was fixing to “stare down uncompromising foes in fights over immigration and Middle East peace.”

Let us begin with our debutant’s Middle East peace plan, the thing his father-in-law calls “the deal of the century.”

The notion of Jared solving the Israeli-Palestinian vexation is laughable, perhaps the dumbest thing ever. You just know this is a vain Ivanka move to brand the region and add it to her CV. (Ivanka, to those who don’t know, is intent on riding to the presidency herself on her father’s coattails.)

The Arabs slated to partake in the Kushner summit, Bahraini, Saudi and Emirati participants, are likely laughing the hardest.

For one, the Arabs know that Ivanka is calling the shots—and that the president’s fashion-focused daughter is behind the branding of the sexually androgynous, intellectually inchoate production that is Jared Kushner. If you think that’s something Arabs respect, you don’t know Shiite from Shinola.

Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who’s running the West Wing and who to flatter. Some in the region have even given Donald Trump a dubious honorific, Abu Ivanka al-Amriki. Being known as “father of Ivanka the American” is, of course, no honor in the muscular, manly Middle East.

The timing of the Kushner peace plan is especially asinine. For all the upheaval in the region, the Palestinian Problem has nevertheless dropped off the geopolitical radar as an urgent matter to resolve.

For better or for worse, the two sides are locked in a deadly, tightly choreographed dance. The Palestinians rise in frustration and fury; the Israelis respond with overwhelming force. The world then offers-up perfunctory sympathy for the Palestinians. Everybody moves on.

It’s just the way it is. The world has become desensitized to the plight of the Palestinians.

Take the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly. Its editors cogitated but briefly over the Israeli army’s last use of excessive force against the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), concluding nonchalantly that, “Every state has a right to defend its borders.” “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”

In other words, “Grow up, Palestinians. The stone-throwing was cute when your struggle was in its infancy.”

Understandably, the Palestinians will have no truck with the Trump administration.

Then there’s Bibi Netanyahu’s ingenious, Israel First tactics. You have to be a special kind of dumb—Jared and Ivanka dumb—to imagine you can present Bibi with a plan to fix his part of the world. The Israeli prime minister will make the right noises and will … have Jared for breakfast.

Netanyahu has been busy befriending “once hostile neighbors and has gained the respect of world leaders.” Like himself, his new friends (the murderous Saudi regime is among them) don’t seem to care much that Israel’s “supposedly temporary occupation [of 4.5 million Palestinians] has become permanent conquest.”

Don’t blame me for dishing Middle Eastern realpolitik. These are just the facts and the deductions therefrom.

By the Economist’s telling, Mr. Netanyahu’s strategy toward the Palestinians is a finely honed “anti-solutionism.” Netanyahu “has sought to convince Israelis that the conflict can be managed, if the right people are put in charge of managing it, and thus need not be solved.”

From experience, Netanyahu knows that an “anti-solutionism” puts his army and him in control, to better deliver on the security needs of the Israelis. This makes Bibi even more of a mystery to the self-aggrandizing Kushners. After all, they are not acting in America’s self-interest. A provincial leader who does just that is anathema to the mindset dominant in America.

Like him or not, the conservative, patriotic Bibi will not allow Jared Kushner to steer Israel in a radical direction. Instead, Bibi will likely let The American rattle on about radical change (which he, Jared, will not have to live through), and will quietly ignore him in favor of maintaining the safer status quo.

You see, the Israeli prime minister is a grizzled old warrior—and a true populist, the kind that builds walls to protect his people and passes laws to safeguard their ancient patrimony.

Netanyahu and his new Sunni partners will make polite noises and then shrug off this Middle-East plan with a hearty laugh and some good arak, behind Jared’s slender, sylphlike back.

As the Economist noted derisively—its writers, too, are radicals in the mold of Jared and Ivanka—Netanyahu is no radical. He is a reactionary nationalist. Temperamentally conservative,” and “wary of change,” as all true conservatives ought to be, Netanyahu “governs as if Israel needs no change.” The Israeli prime minister has even passed nation-state legislation consecrating Israel as the home of the Jewish people.

But by golly, Bibi will give the first-couple-in-waiting good hospitality—leading Ivanka and her poodle to “think” they succeeded in plastering their brand on the region. Then he’ll send Ivanka’s emissary packing, to be celebrated by his clueless American fans.

And the region will return to its old ways.

Bibi, moreover, reads his voters well. The appetite for the charade that are the Israeli-Palestinians peace talks has diminished. “The percentage of Israelis favoring talks with the Palestinians has dropped from over 70 percent to closer to 50 percent over the past decade. Among Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters it is 30 percent.”

In case you’re unfamiliar with Bibi’s base—supporters of Likud since the party’s inception—they are, “Voters from conservative religious and working-class backgrounds, Russian-speaking immigrants and Mizrahi Jews (who are descended from immigrants from the Arab world).” The political equivalent of Trump’s deplorables.

To sum, “should it ever to arrive,” Mr. and Mrs. Kushner’s peace plan “will be dead on arrival.”

Americans like Jared and Ivanka don’t know the past and show little respect for it. Netanyahu, however, understands history and what it portends for the future. “Because the Palestinian issue cannot be solved,” Bibi’s statecraft entails preparing his people for a reality they understand all too well:

“We will forever live by the sword.” Bibi’s words in 2015.

Let us wrap-up on a more mirthful note.

🔊 Listen RSS

“The U.S. government discriminates ‘against genius’ and ‘brilliance’ with its immigration system,” asserted President Trump, as he rolled out Jared Kushner’s immigration plan.

The president has insisted that “companies are moving offices to other countries because our immigration rules prevent them from retaining highly skilled and even … totally brilliant people.”

While it’s true that U.S. immigration policy selects for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking—it’s incorrect to say that it doesn’t “create a clear path for top talent.”

Kibitzing about a shortage of talent-based immigration visas is just Mr. Kushner channeling the business and tech lobby’s interests.

No doubt, Big Business wants the “good” old days back. They currently operate in a labor market. They don’t like that, because, in a labor market, firms compete for workers and wages are bid up. Companies don’t like a labor market. They prefer that workers compete for jobs and wages not rise.

Multinationals, moreover, are stateless corporations. They are “global beasts with vast balance-sheets” and no particular affinity for American labor. But it’s not only about the Benjamins (to borrow from a U.S. congresswoman who, too, dislikes Americans).

The “men” who run multinationals are true believers. They are social justice warriors first; businessmen second. Tech traitors like the FAANG—Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google—are certainly radical leftists, who believe in replacing American labor as a creed and as a principle to live by.

Back to the talent-shortage myth. The 2017 IEEE-USA Employment Survey, which appears to be the latest from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, has some “bad news.” “The nearly two-thirds of U.S. IEEE members who reported being unemployed at some point during 2016, had not been re-employed by mid-April of 2017.” Hopefully, the updated report will be more upbeat.

Still, there is unemployment in the ranks of American electrical engineers. Yet for years, consumers of the H-1B visa (multinationals) have insisted they were bringing in the best and the brightest because America had too few, if any at all. Not true. The H-1B visa brings in ordinary workers to displace ordinary Americans, the kind the IEEE tracks.

Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is a huge high-tech hoax, not a special visa for highly skilled individuals? It 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 H-1B 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 H-1B visa category.

While visa advocates—economist Stephen Moore, Trump’s adviser, is one—perpetuate the tall tale that the H-1B visa provides a steady supply of talent; visa opponents, for their part, like to cry croc about exploitation and slave-labor. I guess they think that misplaced compassion adds force to their arguments.

H-1B visa holders are not paid inferior wages. From the fact that an oversupply of high-tech workers has lowered wages for all techies, it does not follow that these (average) men and women are being exploited. Rather, it is the glut of average worker bees—their abundance—that has depressed wages for all. Which is just the way billionaire businessmen like it.

More significantly, and as this column has attempted to inform, since 2008, there is a visa category reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. It doesn’t displace ordinary Americans.

It’s the O-1 visa. There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed.

“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.”

So, you see, America could recruit as many as it wished from the world’s pool of “totally brilliant people.” Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

But this is not what business wants. When Big Businesses bend Trump’s ear about “top talent,” they mean, largely, the H-1B system. Touted as a means of trawling for the best and the brightest, the H-1B system is anything but.

In 2018, ten years after my O-1 visa revelation,* immigration lawyers who make their living by outsourcing American lives, are finally admitting as much: The H-1B visa was always meant to displace Americans. Via Forbes magazine:

“The drumbeat of an H-1B being intended to only bring the best and the brightest has been incessant the last three years or so. The problem is, of course, that was not the purpose of the H-1B and we already have a temporary visa for that – the O-1.”

* The principal sponsor in the Mercer family is a recipient of the 0-1 visa. The visa 0-1 visa replaces no American. It’s a unique-abilities/achievements visa.

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

🔊 Listen RSS

“More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February” this year, reported the New York Times.

March saw 100,000 merry migrants waltz into the U.S., undisturbed

Caravans are getting larger, not smaller. “Newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day,” said the same source.

Border agents are said to be bracing “to meet the medical needs” of the newcomers.” Silly me. I thought their duty was to meet the security needs of the American people.

Monthly apprehensions average 32,012.

“Apprehension”: Now that’s Orwellian speak for you. A more accurate description is: briefly stopped for a cursory wellness check before being sent on their way to the interior.

All you need to know is that children are the charm, a magic amulet. If you don’t quite get it, here’s a reenactment of “apprehension”:

Customs and Border Protection agent to migrant: “Got kids?”

New arrival at the U.S. southern border: “You bet.” (Turns to a large, brooding male.) “Pepito, say hello to the nice policeman.”

American agent: “Pepito is a little hairy for a kid and he’s covered in ink.”

Future American citizen from Salvador (with the aid of a translator paid for by the U.S.): “Pepito is just mature for his age. It’s the chemicals. They’re killing us. Asylum. Hurry. We’re dying.”

Agent sworn to protect Americans: “You’re good to go. (Stamps a bit of paper and waves the new Americans by.) “Don’t forget to return for your asylum court hearing, amigos.”

Instead of this “apprehension” farce, Kris Kobach, the former Kansas Secretary of State, has highlighted the many tactical strategies that could—still can—be operationalized at the border to halt the treasonous Catch-and-Release policy ongoing.

Kobach faults former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen for looking to Congress for a legislative remedy.

This seems a little harsh. The two chambers were dominated by Republicans for two years. It was hardly unreasonable for Nielsen to have expected from these legislators an immigration bill for the ages. Instead, she got a tax cut.

Confession: I have a soft spot for the ice princess, whom Trump summarily dumped. And not only because Nielsen talked tough and smart, and has a calm demeanor and looks to match. Nielsen had been brought into the Trump Administration by retired United States Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, formerly White House chief of staff. Like Steve Bannon, Kelly was expunged from the White House by Javanka, the first couple in-waiting. This is a badge of honor. It’s certainly a sign of conservatism.

And while Kelly is currently accused of migrating to the liberal side of immigration, his actions on the job told a different story. Along with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Nielsen, who eloquently defended the separation of families and the zero-tolerance policy, Kelly too talked-up family separation policy as “a tough deterrent.” And boy was it tough!

Nielsen would certainly not have been vaporized (likely at the behest of Ivanka and her houseboy) had she been liberal or soft on immigration.

In fact, Nielsen embodied chin-jutting grit: In her defense of the zero-tolerance-for-invasion policy, she was unflappable, rejecting criticism of the policy as “inappropriate and unacceptable.” Her agency, Nielsen told the news agencies, “was merely enforcing existing laws.”

Under Nielsen’s aegis, the agency spoke with clarity and conviction about having “separated nearly 2,000 children from adults over the course of six weeks at the U.S. southern border,” all as a deterrent.

Then people like John McCain, the late senator from Arizona, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, among many others, began their energetic virtue-signaling. “The children, the children,” they wailed. “How could you?” (What they were really saying was, “Look at me. Look how much I care and how better I am than you.”)

Secretary Nielsen’s wholehearted commitment to the zero-tolerance policy and the ensuing family separations certainly earned her the ire of Democrats and their media tools, who still describe Nielsen derisively as the woman who implemented a policy that “called for all suspected border crossers—including parents and asylum seekers—to be prosecuted for illegal entry [the audacity!]. As a result, thousands of children were separated from their parents, with children classified as ‘unaccompanied.”

Duly, Secretary Nielsen never ceased pressing a derelict Congress to craft legislation that would have let her finish the job. Namely, instead of splitting families, Nielsen’s wanted to detain and deport families, kids and caboodle.

The truth is that Nielsen tried to stop the invasion with the legal tools at her disposal; by separating “families.” Then, Ivanka cried (likely because daddy’s deeds damaged her street cred at Davos). And President Trump put his family before American families.

The president caved, not Kirstjen. He was the one who signed an executive order to end his own commendable family-separation policy. The president then grew angry with Secretary Nielsen because she was unable to reverse his own decision to gut an effective policy.

On her departure, Kirstjen Nielsen was being blamed for legislative inaction in the first two years of the presidency, when the Republicans who controlled both houses and The Executive opted for a plutocratic tax cut in place of borders.

On the “bright” side: The U.S. was successful in detaining a Russian waif, Maria Butina, in solitary for months, then sentencing her to yet more jail time and deportation. With Ahab-like zeal did the law go after Butina, a flirty friend of the NRA. Yet it allows hundreds of thousands of the great unwashed to cross the southern border and stay in the U.S. for good.

Since the fiscal year began in October, and up until March this year, “237,327 migrants had been apprehended along the southwest border. A 97 percent increase from the previous year,” reports (or underreports) the New York Times.

By Breitbart’s telling, “Since December 21, 2018, Trump’s DHS has released more than 125,000 border crossers and illegal aliens into the country. … One and a half million illegal aliens are projected to enter the country this year.”

And they are not leaving. Maria Butina will never be back. But central America is here to stay.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration, Kirstjen Nielsen 
🔊 Listen RSS

BERNIE SANDERS, the senator from Vermont, said he thinks “everyone should have the right to vote—even the Boston Marathon bomber … even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Bernie is right about a “slippery slope.” But the befuddled Bernie is worried about the wrong slope.

Denying the vote to some and conferring it on others is not a “slippery slope.” It’s exercising good judgment.

Insisting that the vote in America belongs to everyone, irrespective: now that’s a slippery slope, down which the slide is well underway.

As it stands, there are almost no moral or ethical obligations attached to citizenship in our near-unfettered Democracy.

Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.

Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates for the vote—and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American citizens.

The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a despot.

But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers, including America’s constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society would thus degenerate.

What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country—unconditional voting—is but an extension of “mass franchise,” which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.

Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk’s magnificent exegesis, “The Conservative Mind,” thought that “the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their particular corporations.”

By “corporations,” Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary, community-killing multinationals.

“Corporations,” in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in “the spirit of cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions, and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state.”

To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these “little platoons” (Edmund Burke’s iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for political participation.

“If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right,” cautioned Canning, “citizens become mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy,” which, in reality is “the enthronement of demagoguery and mediocrity.” (“The Conservative Mind,” p. 131.)

That’s us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no longer valued.

This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.

The author of “Democracy and Liberty” (1896) predicted that “the continual degradation of the suffrage” through “mass franchise” would end in “a new despotism.”

And so it has.

Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by Lecky, attacked “institution after institution,” harbored “systematic hostility” toward “owners of landed property” and private property and insisted that “representative institutions” and the franchise be extended to all irrespective of “circumstance and character.”

Then as now, the socialist radical’s “last idea in constitutional policy” is to destroy some institutions or to injure some class.” (Ibid, p. 335.)

And so it is with the radical Mr. Sanders, who holds—quite correctly, if we consider democracy’s historic trajectory as presaged by the likes of Lecky and Canning—that a democracy must be perpetually “expanded,” and that “every single person does have the right to vote,” irrespective of “circumstance and character.”

The vote, of course, is an earned political privilege, not a God-given natural right, as Bernie the atheist describes it.

The granting of political rights should always be circumscribed and circumspect; it ought to be predicated on the fulfillment of certain responsibilities and the embodiment of basic virtues. “Thou shalt not murder,” for example.

Indeed, the case of the Boston Bomber is a no-brainer.

Tsarnaev came from a family of Chechen grifters. He got the gift of American political and welfare rights, no strings attached, no questions asked. That’s how we roll. That’s how little these rights have come to mean.

Yet Dzhokhar Tsarnaev didn’t merely pick a quarrel with one or two fellow Americans or with their government; he hated us all. If he could, Tsarnaev would have killed many more of his countrymen, on April 15, 2013.

But for a radical leveler like Mr. Sanders, virtue has no place in a social democracy. Sanders’ project, after all, is “legislating away the property of one class and transferring it to another.”

Since Bernie Sanders was so perfectly serious in protesting the removal of the Boston bomber’s political privileges—he should not be taken seriously.

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 back on Twitter, after being suspended, and is also on Facebook, Gab & YouTube

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Bernie Sanders, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

One among many, former CIA head honcho John Brennan had famously asserted that President Trump was “treasonous” and “in the pocket of Putin.”

It was “beyond a shadow of a doubt [that Trump] sought to…collude with the Russian government…to undermine and influence our elections,” seconded wonder boy Beto O’Rourke.

And that’s just a humdrum smattering of the folly force-fed to Americans for the two years of the Mueller Inquisition, from “respectable” TV megaphones, including legions of Never Trump Republicans.

The same characters, in their many interchangeable iterations, will remind you that the omniscient Mueller had equivocated over the matter of obstruction of justice. Over this, the second part of his eponymous report, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump.

The first part of Robert Mueller’s report “cleared Donald Trump of having conspired with Russia.”

Let us unpack the obstruction-of-justice aspect of the ongoing farce: In the course of defending his reputation against silly, but gravely serious, smears—that he was a “Russian asset,” in the words of former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe—the president forcefully and publicly berated the Mueller proceedings and his turncoat attorney, Michael Cohen (who, though a hostile witness, testified that there was no collusion).

To Mueller, that paragon of virtue, the dilemma revolved around whether to indict Trump for the fighting words he spoke in defense of his now-proven innocence. Free speech, some might call it. (Remember that quaint thing?)

For in the legal penumbra in which the U.S. Office of Special Counsel operates, aggressively professing your innocence can amount to obstructing “justice.”

Fight an unjust conviction with everything you’ve got—and you risk being convicted of a crime.

This is the Kafkaesque, circular reasoning that animates the workings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC): It can criminalize conduct—worse, it can criminalize speech—that is perfectly licit in natural law, such as verbally defending oneself against spurious accusations.

Or, as Attorney-General William Barr put it, “Mr. Trump could not have obstructed justice because HE DID NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA.”

As a scrupulously honest broadcaster, Tucker Carlson recently confessed to “looking back in shame” for having originally supported Kenneth Starr’s independent counsel investigation of President Clinton. (Good libertarians have always opposed the very existence of the OSC. This writer certainly has.)

Another honest man, Democrat Mark Penn, former chief strategist to Hillary Clinton and a frequent guest of the Tucker Carlson show, had “spent a year working with President Clinton” to fend off Special Counsel Ken Starr’s extrajudicial onslaught. Penn had recently remarked candidly that the Starr investigation “was child’s play” compared to the infractions of the Mueller investigation.

Yet, few have been willing to concede that the Mueller inquisition was the Kenneth Starr Chamber by any other name.

The origin of the Star[r] Chamber sobriquet is in 15th-century England.

Meant to remedy injustice in the times of Henry VIII, the “Court of Star Chamber,” as it was known, was soon co-opted and corrupted, becoming “a symbol of oppression” during the times of Charles I.

For reasons obvious, the “Starr Chamber” designation stuck to the outfit run by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, in1998.

Likewise, there was, seemingly, no limit to the broad remit of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Other than some accused Russians, nobody stateside dared challenge—from the vantage point of first principles—this draconian medieval inquisition.

The Fake News herd failed to report this, but the accused Russian spooks had actually called uber-bureaucrat Mueller’s bluff. Lo and behold, some of them had surprised the special counsel by showing up in court and demanding due process of law, American style.

The Russian company indicted by Mueller (“along with 13 individuals”) for election meddling asked the judge “to throw out the charges – claiming that Mueller’s office fabricated a crime.” At the time, Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Washington federal judge, seemed inclined to agree.

At the height of the “collusion delusion,” Evgeny Prigozhin, a Russian businessman, remarked wistfully:

“Americans are very emotional people; they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them … If they want to see the devil [in me], let them.”

Who can deny that, periodically, we Americans are convulsed by mass hysteria? “Hysterical contagion,” as explained by sociologists, is the spread of symptoms of illness among a group, absent any physiological disease. It’s a coping-mechanism-a way to cope with a situation that cannot be handled with the usual psychological coping mechanisms.

The frenzied behavior known as mass hysteria or hysterical contagion is well documented. The Trump-Russia collusion-and-obstruction-of-justice probe qualifies, with an exception: This particular form of mass madness involves not a physical malady, but a meme, a story-line.

What gripped and inflamed irrational, febrile minds—still does—was the emotional pitch with which the Russia collusion groupthink was delivered, day in and day out.

Rumors for which no evidence could possibly be adduced were recounted incessantly as facts. Positive, productive conduct—say diplomacy with Russia—was targeted as criminality, by agents of a Federal Government that has enough laws on the books to indict each one of us, if it so desired.

The Russian businessman just mentioned was being charitable. If past is prologue; the frenzy of inflamed imaginations could very well spill over into all-out war.

If this is to be averted, Deep State operatives must be punished for pulling a Jussie Smollett on the country. For inciting the “Russia monomania” in the teeth of no evidence or evidence to the contrary, the inciters must pay.

The sharks involved in the “collusion delusion” must not be allowed to slip through the netting.

As to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Whether headed by Kenneth Starr or Robert Mueller, the OSC with its police powers and “storm-trooper tactics” is not an office one associates with a free society. It ought to be abolished!

READ PART 1: “Mueller & Mohamad Atta: Fake Intel Runs Through Prague.”

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 & Follow her on

Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?