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



=>
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & YouTube.

 
• Category: Economics • Tags: H1-B Visas, Immigration, Silicon Valley, Taxes 
🔊 Listen RSS

Not so long ago, mere mention of the deliberate murder of whites in South Africa—country folk and commercial farmers, in particular—was called “racist.” “Raaacist!” the media collective brayed when candidate Trump retweeted a related “white genocide” hashtag.

It’s still “racist” to suggest that the butchering of these whites, almost daily, in ways that beggar belief, is racially motivated. Positively scandalous is it to describe the ultimate goal of a killing spree, now in its third decade, thus: the ethnic cleansing of white, farming South Africa from land the community has cultivated since the 1600s.

Be thankful for small mercies: At least the international media monopoly is finally reporting facts, such as that just the other day Andre and Lydia Saaiman, aged 70, were hacked to death in Port Elizabeth. (Imagine being chopped up until you expire.)

Or, that the elderly Bokkie Potgieter was dealt a similar fate as he tended his small, KwaZulu-Natal holding. Potgeiter was butchered during the October “Black Monday” protest, which was a nation-wide demonstration to end the carnage. Internationally reported as well were the facts of Sue Howarth’s death. The 64-year-old pharmaceutical executive was tortured for hours with … a blowtorch.

This black-on-white murder spree has been ongoing since a dominant-party political dispensation (mobocracy) was “negotiated in my homeland for South Africans. (Learn about “The American Architects of The South-African Catastrophe.“) But while the criminal evidence is at last out in the open, the motive for these hate crimes is only mumbled about for fear of offending the offenders.

In South Africa we find a criminal class, born into freedom after 1994, that burns with white-hot hatred for whites.

Why?

The South African state’s stout indifference to the plight of whites does not exist in a void. Witness the steady, anti-white venom the dominant-party cobra-head, the ANC, spits out. “The de facto situation is that whites are under criminal siege explicitly because of their race,” writes a South African historian, cited in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011).

“The black criminal collective consciousness understands whites are now historical fair game.”

The physical, existential vulnerability of white South Africans flows from a confluence of historical antecedents that have placed them in a uniquely precarious position. “The white minority surrendered political dominance in return for non-racial constitutional safeguards.” By forswearing control over the state apparatus, whites ceded mastery over their destiny, vesting their existential survival in a political dispensation: a liberal democracy.

In a needlessly optimistic assumption, whites imagined blacks too would be bound by the same political abstractions, and would relinquish race in favor of a constitutional design as an organizing principle in the society they now controlled.

Having “surrendered without defeat,” for a tepid peace, Europeans are, moreover, particularly and uniquely vulnerable within this political dispensation because of their history on the continent. Remedial historical revisionism notwithstanding, South Africa—with its space program and skyscrapers—was not the product of the people currently dismantling it. Rather, it was the creation of British and Dutch settlers and their descendants.

For what they’ve achieved and acquired—and for the original sins of apartheid in South Africa; slavery in America—whites are the objects of envy and racial enmity.

The observations of liberal, African-American journalist Keith Richburg are particularly pertinent here. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people.

The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”

Are shades of this impulse alive in the savagery inflicted on the European “settlers” of South Africa (and Zimbabwe and the Congo before them)? Who can say for sure? This much I know: Empowering political majorities in Africa has helped, not hindered, the propensity of hostile masses to exact revenge on helpless minorities.

It would be a mistake to believe, as the American ruling Idiocracy preaches, that minorities in the US—soon to form a majority—will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles, in favor of the US’s constitutional design.

Like South Africa, America is a creation of (northwest) European settlers. And it is in Man’s nature to dislike those who are unlike him—all the more so when they, as a group, have accomplished what he has not.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & YouTube.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Africa, Afrikaner, Boers, South Africa 
🔊 Listen RSS

CNN’s Jake Tapper wanted to know if there was anything that could have prevented the murderous rampage, in Manhattan, by a Muslim immigrant, who had been recruited to live in America for no good reason. Once upon a time that was known as a rhetorical question. To ask the question would have been to answer it.

Broadcaster Mark Levin was no less obscurantist. You can’t bring certain individuals like the culprit, Uzbek Sayfullo Saipov, into the US, because … of their governments, Levin raged on Fox News. There’s no way to vet individuals from chaotic countries with ineffective governments.

Sure, you can vet immigrants. Find out which faith they practice.

Mark should have said, “You can’t bring Muslims into the US because of their faith. It predisposes them to violence,” which is pretty much what President Donald J. Trump stated during his 2016 campaign.

The president’s first limited, immigration moratorium has expired. Let us hope that, following the murder-by-Muslim-immigrant of eight pedestrians along Manhattan’s West Side Highway—Saipov ran them over in a rented pickup truck—the president follows through, in the teeth of treasonous opposition, and expands the original “travel ban” beyond the six Muslim-majority nations to which it applied.

For a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian.

Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.

Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.

Vetting will do nothing to stop second-generation Muslim Americans. These are American citizens or legal residents, as Saipov is, who’re more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.

So what if Moderate Muslims assure us Saipov was acting out-of-faith. That’s irrelevant to the irreversible outcomes.

It’s a distraction to claim, as The Moderates do, that the Jihadi is misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as bigfoot or the unicorn. Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the real Islam or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly.

Consider:

Proposition 1: The faith of all Muslims is Islam.

Proposition 2: Islam teaches and sanctions some disturbing things like Jihad against the infidel.

Proposition 3: Some Muslims, practitioners of Islam, will be prone to act on teachings that are indisputably part of Islam.

While most Muslims are not terrorists, an unusually large number is willing to dabble in the lifestyle.

Policy is meant as a declaration of the common good. On average, a bunch of people that commits more faith-based murders than another group (say non-Muslim Chinese) is unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US.

In other words, all Muslims can thrive in America. But not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. Again, this is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam—the real or the imposter variety; it matters not—predisposes to violence. Some Americans will be hurt or die as a result of importing members of this militant faith.

More important, public policy is about aggregates. On the whole, it’s supposed to benefit, and certainly not endanger, the collective. Because of its immense potential to harm, libertarians believe the entity that executes public policy, the government, should do very little. And the duty of an American government is to safeguard its own citizens, not to welcome the world’s.

Rejecting Muslim immigrants won’t kill Americans. Accepting them might.

Not only is American public policy not meant to benefit the world; it’s not a means to a diplomatic end—appeasing the Muslim partners of our crooked lawmakers. Law must minimize aggregate harm. (Sensible, reality bound libertarians will embrace Popperian minimal harm, not Bentham’s maximum happiness, for the most people.)

U.S. public policy must, very plainly, keep Americans safe AND ALIVE without aggressing against foreign nations. It has no obligation whatsoever to make Muslims whole or happy—especially if this could end up costing American lives, stateside.

Since humanity has no inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. not only makes good sense, but doesn’t violate humanity’s natural rights.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & YouTube.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Islam, Muslim Ban, Terrorism 
🔊 Listen RSS

News first broke about America’s Niger misadventure on October 4. “The real news here is that the US has forces in Niger, where they’re conducting covert operations,” this writer tweeted out. “Hashtag America First.”

Official media ignored the ambush of the American Special Forces, until the story gained anti-Trump traction. No word came from John McCain. Three weeks hence, the senator from Arizona is making history. McCain, who has never encountered a war he wasn’t eager to prosecute, is questioning the folly in Niger.

The senator from Arizona can run but can’t hide from the pollution he has left along his political path. Republicans wisely rejected war in Kosovo; McCain jettisoned party loyalty to call for bombs from above and “more boots on the ground.” At the prospects of war with Iran, McCain burst into song, “Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran.” The possibility still makes this war ghoul smile. Before that, McCain promised a 100-year war in Iraq.

Senator McCain’s jingoism has encompassed Syria, Georgia, Mali, Nigeria, and China. Where the US could not effect regime change, as it did fecklessly in Afghanistan and Libya—McCain would typically call to side with an imagined local “friend of America” against an imagined “foe of America.” McCain has many imaginary friends.

Where his target country was beyond US bullying (Russia), the idea of the resumption of a cold war was an option McCain liked. He is currently fulminating over a slight delay in sanctions against Russia. When all efforts to tame the world militarily fail, McCain is partial to the idea of UN troops acting as his surrogates, say in Sudan.

No war makes Johnny a sad boy. But now he’s considering a subpoena over Niger.

Global Centralizer

Playing out in Niger are the permanently entrenched, unchanging, American foreign-policy interests. Keen observers will detect a familiar pattern. Once again, the American bias everywhere is toward a powerful, overweening central state. This conceit has put our forces on a collision course with the tribal interests America toils to tame.

Indeed, US foreign policy often flouts local authority. It certainly disavows separatists and generally discourages any meaningful devolution of power. Born of a loose confederation of independent states, America now stands for the strong centralized state. Our interchangeable leaders strive to see the same in the tribal lands of the Middle East and Africa.

Meddling in Yemen’s Civil War

In Yemen, America is working to impose a central authority on “bickering sheikdoms.” In the South alone, Yemen has 14 such principalities. Southern secessionists are at war with the north, have been for at least 139 years. There, “even the bottled water,” notes the Economist, “is called ‘South.’” There’s no such thing as a united Yemen. Never was.

Into this fray, the US has waded. So stupid and dangerous is our foreign-policy colossus that it imagines America is fighting al-Qaida by backing the Saudi-led coalition to vanquish northern Houthi rebels. The northern Houthi rebels, however, clearly wear many hats. More so than the invading coalition, the rebels are of the community and often for the community.

As America’s Emirati partners in Yemen are realizing, “Motivating recruits to push north is an uphill task even with the payment of bonuses. Those who were happy to fight for their own homes seem unenthused about fighting for somebody else’s.”

Would that the Empire’s military would confine itself to that constitutional mandate: fight for home and hearth and no more. Alas, our soldiers have been propagandized to conflate fighting for American freedom with fights in Niger, Burkina Faso (yeah, I know) and Mali.

Ultimately, all the spots America chooses to mess with are too complex for the prosaic American mind to grasp, for we are schooled to see societies unlike our own through a Disneyfied, angels-and-demons prism.

More so than the Middle East, Africa is riven by tribal interests and dynamics. These, McCain or CENTCOM (the United States Central Command) have no hope of understanding, because they’re wedded to the idea that their own home (America) is nothing more than an idea, and never a community of flesh-and-blood people with a shared, treasured patrimony.

And Now, Niger

To their credit, Africans’ fealty is not to deracinated political propositions—democracy, human rights, gay marriage, and communal bathrooms—but to each other. They will kill for clan and kin. (And they kill each other, too.)

Niger is no different. You’re told that the Americans and the French are empowering the local forces of Niger against the mythical ISIS. Poppycock. This is never the case. In Africa, as in Afghanistan or Iraq, the conflicts are regional, tribal, old, if not ancient.

Tongo-Tongo, the Niger village that ambushed our unsuspecting Green Berets, had not been “infiltrated” by hostile forces; that’s the take of Niger’s central government, itself a very recent development. If past is prologue, it’s fair to assume that the Niger government is vested in developing as a French and American client state with all the attendant perks.

Villagers have likely learned not to wait for any trickle-down from the state. The Tongo-Tongo villagers enticed our forces to mill about, giving their homie militant benefactors just enough time to set up an ambush in a kill zone.

Imagine! Locals don’t particularly relish a visit from the American and French patrolmen and their Nigerien puppets.

Again, Niger is heavily dependent on bribes from the West (foreign aid, we call it). We reward Niamey (the capital) to play war games with us. This is another case of an Islamic, if multi-ethnic, tribal land, whose people don’t want Americans there. (And even if the people of the region wanted us there, America has no business being there. Deplorables voted against the concept of making Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali great again.)

So, if John McCain’s hatred of President Trump has driven America’s most ardent warmonger to question the American intervention in Niger—that’s a good thing.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook & YouTube.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, John McCain 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer .

 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Indian tribesman’s claim to his ancient stomping grounds can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. That’s the stuff of the positive law. And this was the point I took away from a conversation, circa 2000, with Mr. Property Rights himself, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Dr. Hoppe argued unassailably—does he argue any other way?—that if Amerindians had repeatedly traversed, for their livelihood, the same hunting, fishing and foraging grounds, they would have, in effect, homesteaded these, making them their own.

Another apodictic profundity deduced from that conversation: The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing.

In an article marking Columbus Day—the day Conservatism Inc. beats up on what remains of America’s First People—Ryan McMaken debunked Ayn Rand’s specious claim that aboriginal Americans “did not have the concept of property or property rights.” This was Rand’s ruse for justifying Europeans’ disregard for the homesteading rights of the First Nations. “[T]he Indian tribes had no right to the land they lived on because” they were primitive and nomadic.

Hoppean Homesteading

Cultural supremacy is no argument for the dispossession of a Lesser Other. To libertarians, Lockean—or, rather Hoppean—homesteading is sacrosanct. He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner. “As the old legal adage goes, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ as it is the best evidence of legitimate title. The burden of proof rests squarely with the person attempting to relieve another of present property titles.” (Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 276.)

However, even if we allow that “the tribes and individual Indians had no concept of property,” which McMaken nicely refutes—it doesn’t follow that dispossessing them of their land would have been justified. From the fact that a man or a community of men lacks the intellectual wherewithal or cultural and philosophical framework to conceive of these rights—it doesn’t follow that he has no such rights, or that he has forfeited them. Not if one adheres to the ancient doctrine of natural rights. If American Indians had no attachment to the land, they would not have died defending their territories.

Neither does the fact the First Nations formed communal living arrangements invalidate land ownership claims, as McMaken elucidates. Think of the Kibbutz. Kibbutzim in Israel instantiate the principles of voluntary socialism. As such, they are perfectly fine living arrangements, where leadership is empowered as custodian of the resource and from which members can freely secede. You can’t rob the commune of its assets just because members elect to live communally.

Conservatism’s Perennial Piñata

Columbus Day has become an occasion for neoconservatives, conservatives and their followers to vent their spleen against American Indians. And woe betide the deviationist who pens anything remotely fair or sympathetic about, say the genocide of the Indians, the trail of tears, or the relegation of Indians to reservations. Berated he will be for daring to lament the wrongs visited on the original inhabitants of this continent on the grounds, mostly, that they were savages.

Come Columbus Day, the same hackneyed observations are disgorged—as though these repetitions cut through the Left’s rhetoric of moral superiority; as if these shopworn shibboleths challenge a cultural script that upholds the myth of the purity of primitive life, juxtaposed to the savagery of Western Culture. They don’t.

I mean, who doesn’t know that natives were hardly nature’s custodians? This fallacy was popularized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s panegyric on the Noble Savage. Pre-Columbian America was no pristine natural kingdom. Native tribes likely engaged in bi-annual forest burning to flush out the species the Indians most wanted to hunt. There was the stampeding, during a hunt, of herds of animals over a cliff. Used repeatedly, some buffalo jumps hold the remains of hundreds of thousands of animals, with patterns of local extinction being well-documented. Where agriculture was practiced in the central and southern parts of America, evidence from sediment points to soil erosion, which was, too, likely ongoing before the arrival of Europeans.

It’s old hat that the Americas are scattered with archeological evidence of routine massacres, cannibalism, dismemberment, slavery, abuse of women and human sacrifice among native tribes. In no way can these facts mitigate or excuse the cruel treatment natives have endured. For is such exculpation not the crux of the neoconservative creed, against which President Trump ran? “The world is up to no good. As a superior ‘nation,’ let American power remake it in its image.” By hook or by crook, if necessary.

Neoconservative deity Dinesh D’Souza likes to claim Native-Americans were decimated not by genocide or ethnocide, “but by diseases brought from Europe by the white man.” Not quite. In his magisterial History of the American People, historian Paul Johnson, a leading protagonist for America, details the rather energetic “destruction of the Indians” by Andrew Jackson.

Particularly poignant are Red Eagle’s words to Jackson, on April 14, 1814, after the president-to-be had rampaged through villages, burning them and destroying crops in a ruthless campaign against the Indians east of the Mississippi:

“I am in your power. My people are gone. I can do no more but weep over the misfortunes of my nation.” Jackson had just “imposed a Carthaginian peace on 35 frightened Indian chiefs,” forcing them to part with the lion’s share of their ancestral lands.

Equally moving is the account of another philoamerican, philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville. The Frenchman describes a crowd of displaced Choctaw warriors—having been subjected to ethnic cleansing (in today’s parlance):

“There was an air of ruin and destruction, something which gave the impression of a final farewell, with no going back; one couldn’t witness it without a heavy heart. … it is an odd coincidence that we should have arrived in Memphis to witness the expulsion, or perhaps the dissolution, of one of the last vestiges of one of the oldest American nations.”

As they heap contempt upon native American societies—conservatives, with admirable exceptions, are at the beck and call of African-Americans. Most conservatives agree about the legitimacy of African-Americans’ eternal grievances (“the fault of Democrats,” they intone). The same establishment offers incontinent exhilaration about the greatness of African-American heroes (MLK über alles). And the only piss-poor argument mustered in these quarters for raising, rather than removing, statues for the South’s heroes is, “We need to preserve our history, horribly flawed with respect to African-Americans, mea culpa.” Or, “Who’s next? Jefferson?”

Conservatives are constitutionally (as in physically) incapable of arguing the merits of the great Robert E. Lee, something Lord Acton managed on solid philosophical grounds.

Here’s a theory as to why Conservatism Inc. uses American Indians as its perennial piñata, while generally acceding to the aggressive demands for permanent victim status levied by African-Americans.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

A man, Sonny Melton, 29, died, shielding his wife from the bullets.

Another commandeered a truck to drive victims of the Oct. 1 massacre in Las Vegas to the hospital.

At first, Vanessa, a concertgoer, fled the Vegas venue, which was being sprayed with bullets from high-velocity rifles. Then, she turned and ran back. She credits her professional sense of duty as a nurse. We all know it was Vanessa’s heart that enabled her to push past the fear and place herself in the crosshairs.

From her hospital bed, Addison Short profusely thanked a stranger who had helped her escape the confines of the country music concert in the Vegas Village. She was hobbled by a gunshot to the leg. The first words Addison uttered to the ego in the anchor’s chair quizzing her were words of gratitude for her rescuer. Short also gave thanks for having a minor injury.

“April” is a girl who stopped her car to pick-up a bloodied young Canadian couple. The young man had been shot in the head. He’s fine. Heartbroken as he and his girlfriend are, they’re still a vision of wholesomeness; Canadian clones of the Americans attending the Route 91 Harvest festival.

Heather Gooze, 43, cradled young Jordan McIldoon, 23, in her arms until he went limp. She, a bartender who attended the concert; he a Canadian mechanic from Maple Ridge, British Columbia. He loved the Vancouver Canucks and his girlfriend, who was at the three-day country music happening, as well.

As she spoke to CNN’s John Berman and Poppy Harlow, Heather’s moral resplendence only accentuated the depravity of the two notorious, fake-news pornographers.

“No, ma’am, I didn’t run.” A cowboy hat clutched to his chest, Brian Mckinnon recounted how his best friend petered out in his arms. Only after his friend had passed did Brian flee. But then he stopped in his tracks, went back, put his pal’s signature hat back on and waited beside him.

They may never know his name, but a man they’d never met shielded two young women from bullets. He was shot as he hovered over them, protectively, his blood oozing on to their shirts. Anthony Rabone, an off-duty firefighter and paramedic, secured his girlfriend, stabilized his brother who had sustained a chest wound, and then charged back into the concert killing field.

Vanessa, aforementioned, captured the Vegas valor on display that day: There were so many citizens, she said—ordinary people, doctors, cops, paramedics, off-duty nurses—everyone was just communicating and working together. It was completely horrible, but also utterly amazing.

Even the medics interviewed could not help but effuse about the unusually fabulous folks they were treating.

Men moved into leadership roles quickly, using barricade gates, maintenance ladders and banners to carry the injured out. Many of these men do the dirty jobs that Mike Row dignified in his eponymous TV series, “Dirty Jobs.” They’re firemen, commercial fishermen (like the late Adrian Murfitt), heavy-duty mechanics (rest in peace Jordan McIldoon), and pipe-fitters, like 29-year-old Austin Davis, RIP, from Riverside County, California. Davis had gone to the festival with family friends.

Yes, who goes to a concert with “family friends”—grown-up sons with middle-aged moms, entire nuclear families together, young and old; teens who don’t twerk their tushes (like Iggy Azlea’s primate-in-estrus act), but belt out “God Bless America.” These fans are families, literally. These are the people who pitched in during the massacre of 58 concertgoers (489 people were injured).

Those cow-kickin’ country music lovers in cowboy hats and Tony Lama boots are the finest folks on earth.

Let’s not beat about the bush. Middle America, patriotic America, oddly monochromatic America is the America we saw in Vegas in all its splendor. The same America is berated daily, and dangerously, by the envenomed coastal elites—in print, in cyberspace, and on the idiot’s lantern.

It so happened that on Oct. 1, the elites’ favorite intellectual pygmy, Ta Nehisi Coates, was doing the rounds on MSNBC, promoting his singularly asinine monomania: To be white is to be racist by default and guilty of crimes against blacks and browns.

In Ta Nullity’s telling, White America was responsible for the election of a white supremacist. President Trump’s voters—indubitably well-represented among the 22,000 people at the three-day country music fest—were racists by virtue of being white. Around the same time, NFL players crescendoed the hate by joining Mr. Coates’ progressive, predatory coalition. The NFL signaled their contempt for ordinary Americans by dissing their fans in a very public way.

The anti-white din from these elites is a daily affair.

The same magnificent men whose mettle we saw in Vegas dominated the rescue imagery in Texas. That Texas had such a good outcome following Hurricane Harvey is to this cohort’s credit. A useless government agency called FEMA or the Trump administration: These are not responsible for rescuing Texas; it was ordinary Americans like the ones we’ve been celebrating and eulogizing in Las Vegas.

The much-maligned pale, patriarchal people were all over the Lone Star state like white on rice. Watch the images. Pretend all you like. Thank our brave men and “women rescuers” (wink) of these multicultural United States (wink-wink) all you like. But the preponderance of pictures belies such platitudes.

Hand-on-heart I can say that the larger-than-life personalities who died in Las Vegas are the best of America, the very heart of America. They are what makes America great.

When the people who make America great become a despised minority in the country they’ve made great—America will become … Puerto Rico.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
🔊 Listen RSS
Photo Credit: AP/Matt York/The Nation
Photo Credit: AP/Matt York/The Nation

“Taking a knee” stands for the specter of beefy, pampered athletes—they’re not sportsmen—wealthy beyond belief, striking a political pose on the football field, during the playing of the national anthem.

First to kneel when he was meant to stand was Colin Kaepernick. The reason the San Francisco 49er knelt, in 2016: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Like Kaepernick, current kneelers are not Copernicus. It’s hard to fathom what they actually want. A non-player activist has since narrowed the kneeling to “ending the killing of black men and black women by the police.”

To question the debasing of the English language, in this context, is probably considered racist, but I’ll take one for Team English. At first, I knew not what on earth “take a knee” meant. Commentators and anchors discussed this god-awful expression without explaining it. And my connection to American football is as weak as the connection Americans have to one another.

I grew up on a sports diet of basketball and real football—the kind Pelé played without a dog muzzle and with dazzling footwork. South African rugby, too, was faster and more fun than American football. Nevertheless, I root for my home team, the Seattle Seahawks.

Why so? We all inhabit this busy mart called America, but are united by nothing meaningful at all. The football fetish in America has intensified in the context of a country whose inhabitants agree on little else than the importance of The Game. Consequently, come playoff time, we come together fleetingly and superficially, to make a religion out of our respective professional football teams.

“Take a knee” must have originated in some linguistic botching, a lazy collapsing of alliteratively related words and phrases. I mean, you can “kneel,” “kneel down,” or “get down on your knees.” You most certainly can “bow down” or “take a bow.” But, “Take a knee”? It sounds like an adaptation from “take a p-e.” Actually, I’m not far off. The Giants’ Odell Beckham Jr. “had been flagged … for unsportsmanlike conduct when he celebrated a touchdown by impersonating a dog urinating.”

English and etiquette aside, the act is melodramatic. You get down on your knees to pray, to beg for forgiveness or beg for your life. What these N.F.L showmen are doing is strike a pose—choreographed for prime-time television. When the players kneel, link arms, sulk in their locker-rooms, during the playing of the national anthem, they’re acting not as sportsmen but as showmen.

A sportsman used to embody a certain set of shared values. He set an example in his steeliness, resiliency, strength and singular focus. The spoilt men of the N.F.L. stand unafraid in the presence of … what? American moms, dads and their kids?

What we have here are men who belong to a fraternity famous not for good works, but for scandals, excesses and brutality. Ray Rice knocked his wife unconscious on camera, Michael Vick ran an unspeakably cruel dog-fighting ring. Adrian Peterson whipped his son (who probably needed it). Aaron Hernandez and Jovan Belcher committed the ultimate sin. On and on.

The most righteous players of the showy pro football lineup are not those parading their pigment burden to the nation; they’re sportsmen like Aaron Rodgers, Eli and Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady, who give oodles to charity without a song and dance.

To be fair, Colin Kaepernick has recently donated $1 million. It’s safe to assume, however, that not a penny did Kaepernick donate to white families whose sons were killed by cop. For example: Erik B. Scott, a decorated ex-Army officer, West Point grad and Duke University MBA, who was shot to death by Las Vegas cops. Erik’s father, Bill, is an ex-USAF officer and former aerospace journalist, who consults on the topic of police brutality. But while Bill, a rightist, seeks justice for all, the National Football League racists care only for their own tribe. Likewise, the Left awakens to “the epidemic of police brutality in every state of the union” only when black lives are concerned.

The tribalism of “kneelism” sums up the state of the progressive project. Like the Antifa Idiocracy, N.F.Lers are generally not the smartest. Bereft of the faculty of logic or reason, these excitable, histrionic hulks can’t debate or argue effectively. Lacking words or wisdom, the kneelers resort to inappropriate displays and gestures aimed at the self, at self-aggrandizement.

Kneeling is the ultimate selfie, beamed to the country and blasted by the president himself.

In more ways than one, “taking the knee” is like taking a p-e. It’s a waste. It speaks to the inward-looking, ego-driven, vain posturing of the Left and its perpetually seething, predatory racial coalition. They’re bent on extracting something from innocent, ordinary Americans who owe them nothing.

Pontificating about patriotism is probably misplaced. The opening ritual at the taxpayer-subsidized pro football games is no more than a test of manners and etiquette. The Black Lives Matter players are expected to make nice during the national anthem, nothing more: “Stand up straight and don’t pull faces.” You needn’t believe in the song; you just have to be polite about it. Even if he opposes the monarchy, the British republican still musters a bow or a curtsy for the queen. He has the good breeding to respect protocol and the feelings of others.

Partaking in civilization entails knowing there is a time for everything. There is a time for activism and a time to do what you’re paid to do.

Mostly, pro football players are just fools and possibly knaves. Underpinning their cretinous case against “America” is a confusion of category. Kneelers are protesting “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

A country—America in this case—can’t oppress people; only specific individual Americans can. Erik Scott’s story is the story of the best of America gunned down and rubbished by the worst. Did his father, Bill Scott, blame all his countrymen? No. Braveheart Bill pursued the culprit and the cops who covered for him.

You can’t blame a collective for harm done to you, unless each individual within that collective has harmed you. Seattle Seahawks: There was no need to insult the fans in Nashville—where my former team played the Tennessee Titans—unless each one of them had damaged you in some palpable, provable way.

The Seahawks dissed the fans to show they “oppose those that [sic] would deny our most basic freedoms.” But which fan in that Nashville stadium denied any one of the Seahawk players his “most basic freedoms”? Number and name them or shut up and play.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland Yard? MI5? All are MIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life With Islam

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

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

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

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

Life With Less Islam

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

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

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

Let’s unpack this:

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

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

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

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

 
🔊 Listen RSS
Florida Looting. Credit: RedNationWeekly.
Florida Looting. Credit: RedNationWeekly.

Tucker Carlson and his guest Dan Bongino raised what you might call a look-away issue: Looting.

As the two looked on at footage of looters in post-Irma Florida, TV talker and guest volunteered that “this” was “not about race.” “This,” presumably, being a reference to the looting.

Here was one of those, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” moments.

Messrs. Carlson and Bongino were watching an embarrassingly uniform group of outlaws in action. Mr. Carlson even went on to quip that the looting landscape comprised not mothers in search of diapers and infant formula, but people dressed to the nines in gold chains.

If the “gold-chains” allusion is not a proxy for race in our navel-gazing nation, what is?

What, then, is one to take away from these obfuscations coming as they do from our side? That looting can “strike” anyone? That anybody can “catch” looting from Florida’s contaminated flood waters? (Incidentally, wastewater infrastructure is buckling under, due in large part to unmanageable population growth. Immigration is stinking up Florida. Literally.)

Please don’t tell your viewers that flaws of character marring individuals in certain groups in significant numbers are a systemic, societal, structural problem. That argument is taken. It’s the case made by Cultural Marxism and its watered-down political offshoots of multiculturalism and political correctness.

In a manner of speaking, when conservatives hearken back to the “Democrats’” Welfare State to explain away the color of crime; they, too, are making the Cultural Marxist argument.

Recall how blacks rampaged through Milwaukee, hollering their white-hot hatred for whites? “He white. Beat his shit,” yelled one hoodlum in footage featured on “Hannity.” But crime, race and the reality of such racial hatred was quickly averted in the ensuing discussion. Instead, Mr. Hannity and Sheriff David Clarke blamed … Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Or, something like that.

To go by the doctrine of Cultural Marxism, looting in Florida and elsewhere is black because blacks are locked-out of American institutions. Never mind that the black agenda (perspective and attendant claims) is echoed throughout the culture (in music, art and film), transmitted by the education system (at primary, secondary and tertiary levels); is repeated by most media, most think tanks, by the publishing industry and by public administration. Why, Sen. Tim Scott, a black Republican, has just read President Trump the riot act over the president’s comments following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Metaphorically speaking, free African-American politicians and activists are boiling the bones of their enslaved ancestors to make soup. The suffering of slaves is being exploited posthumously to shape discourse in politically advantageous ways.

As ostensible outsiders, blacks (gays, feminists and the antifa Idiocracy, too) are compelled, in Cultural Marxism, to continue upending what remains of America’s staid, stifling institutions.

For a central tenet of this institutionally victorious form of Marxism is that middle-class values—the kind that built America—are evil and fascistic. (Also fascistic are monogamy, the nuclear family, heterosexuality, whiteness, conservatism, Christian conservatism, the quaint idea of good and bad, God and the Ten Commandments. Like Regan MacNeil, played by Linda Blair in The Exorcist, any symbol of goodness will send a Cultural Marxist into paroxysms typical of the possessed.) Thus, does Cultural Marxism march on, an ill-founded, purely political construct that appeals not to empirical evidence and reason, but to the roiling, base emotions of rage and resentment.

In its triumphant march through this country’s institutions, Cultural Marxism’s representatives have sought to eviscerate bourgeoisie morality. One such middle-class idea upon which an entire justice system once rested was that the individual bore responsible for his crimes—not a political structure, conjured by well-fed communists in academia, in a thinly veiled push to supplant traditional morality.

On the BBC News, age-old truths have long since been replaced with the abstractions mentioned. BBC anchors exculpated the looting in Florida, and elsewhere in British territories, with reference to desperation, disparity and … slavery. To the BBC’s editorializing “news” anchors, blacks don’t commit crimes, but are driven to commit crime by an inherently unjust white society, in which power relationships are rigid (so ossified as to elevate a black man, Obama, to the presidency).

Overall, conservatives are to be commended for upholding the principle of individual responsibility irrespective of skin color. But in the same way that it’s obvious the left-liberal BBC News has become a creature of Cultural Marxism, it should be plain to see that where conservatives reduce the reality of crime to a political theory—too much welfare, too little capitalism, not enough Trumpism—they’re flirting with Cultural Marxism lite.

Conservatives will have taken a giant leap for civilization (and against the Southern Poverty Shakedown Center) were they to candidly confront the indisputable realities of race and crime in America.

Writes polymath Ron Unz: “[T]he statistical relationship between race and crime so substantially exceeds the poverty/crime relationship [poverty being one of those societal structural impediments, I presume] that much of the latter may simply be a statistical artifact due to most urban blacks being poor.” To discount the immutable reality of race and crime in urban America is to discount “the real-world impact of these grim statistics.”

Never-ever are righteous individuals within a community to be fingered for what the wicked among them do. Still, seekers of truth should be able to talk about trends within communities without fearing a loss of reputation and marginalization. The kind of trends social science measures. Or, once measured.

As I put it in Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa:

 
No Items Found
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 “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation