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

 Remember My Information



=>
 Ilana Mercer BlogviewTeasers

Periodically, America experiences episodes of mass, hysterical contagion.

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

For example, in 1983, girls in the West Bank fell ill, one after the other. Soon, all the schools and finally the entire community was engulfed, affected with the same symptoms. Arab doctors implicated the Israelis. But of course. The Israeli Occupation had poisoned the girls by gas to reduce their fertility. When real doctors arrived on the scene to examine the neurotics; the girls were pronounced physically healthy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’ve been warned.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Fake News 

He pleaded the case of a loyal soldier, rather than forsake retired US Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn to the mercies of FBI director James Comey. And he asked for loyalty from the congenitally disloyal. You’ll agree: President Donald Trump is being indicted on technicalities and on personal style.

Distill the president’s unremarkable actions, subject to a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, and it becomes clear that The establishment—for sensible people outside the beltway have dissociated from the Russia-collusion phantasmagoria—is indicting him on the plain, impolitic speech that catapulted Donald Trump from candidate to president.

Trump is “aggressive and oblivious to the rules of engagement,” fumed CNN’s sibilant Chris Cillizza, formerly of the Washington Post. Correct. But was the language of combat you deployed, Mr. Cillizza, a Freudian slip?

The president’s linguistic infelicities—a word salad, at times—have given the press popinjays and their Washington overlords the foothold needed to go after the president. That, and the “bad” habits of a businessman he has retained. Trump transacts with everyone, Russians too. Besides, we voted for deals, not wars.

In any event, this is the sum and substance of President Trump’s offenses. That, and beating Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Proponents of free-markets understand how business operates. Statists don’t. To the statist, the Fake News fabricator and the stark raving mad Washington Post (WaPo), “Trump sitting next to Russian Ambassador Yuri Dubinin, at a luncheon hosted by Leonard Lauder, the oldest son of Estée Lauder,” in 1986, is incriminating evidence … of something.

The tidbit made it on to a sinister WaPo list, “Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests.” To the same statists, Trump “meeting with Russian businessmen, including a real estate developer,” in 2013, “while in Moscow for his Miss Universe competition,” is yet more circumstantial evidence of … something.

Citizen Trump was bringing a fun event to Russia! To members of the American media-military-congressional-industrial complex, being amicable with foreign interests is a foreign concept. At the same time, he did some business there. Inconceivable! Had Mr. Trump smuggled a dirty bomb into Russia, under the “clever” guise of pursuing commerce, his militant enemies stateside might forgive him today. The tools threatening President Trump with impeachment have one bag of tricks stuffed with power tools: They audit, indict, arrest, bomb, change regimes. They don’t make profitable business deals; they tax them. They don’t make peace, they wage war.

Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the reporters—they’ve lost their minuscule minds—frame the act of putting in a kind word for “a good guy,” as Trump did in February 2017, for Gen. Michael Flynn, as an obstruction of justice. Trump had forgotten he was talking to a cunning, career bureaucrat and government attorney. Naively, he asked “Showboat” Comey to take it easy on Flynn. “He’s a good guy,” said the president. “I hope you can let this go.” Trump’s language is that of a regular guy. He sees a decent man who’s served his country with distinction being hounded. He puts in a good word for him.

Flynn is not a Federal zombie in the mold of the terrorist-fighting Jack Bauer, protagonist in the defunct cult TV series “24.” Did the general not say bad things about Islam (whose intimate association with blood-letting has been expunged from FBI training manuals)? Indeed he did.

A theme in “24” was Bauer’s eternal willingness to be chewed and spat out by the successive governments he serves. As Bauer’s Chinese jailers hand him over to his American handlers, the latter chain him like a dog to a fence. Bauer is accustomed to being manacled by his owners. The Top Dogs just don’t trust their lapdog, despite his blind devotion. In fact, Bauer was forever being chained by his “colleagues” and “escorted” to the Los Angeles Counter Terrorist Unit’s “holding cells.” These hermetic chambers were used mostly to confine and torture America’s enemies, which included some of CTU’s finest. Or, agents who’ve been tortured by the enemy and must now be counter-tortured by CTU. Assets have to be utilized to the full.

Flynn broke free. So what? Let him be.

Donald Trump is unschooled in the rules of state. The president is too set in his ways and independent-minded to imbibe the layers of debased semiotics with which government lawyers routinely rape reality. Requesting mercy for Flynn was legally foolish, but it was the humane thing to do. It can’t be considered illicit in natural law.

Of course a president is allowed to assemble around him an administration willing to carry out his plans. Thus, inquiring whether as fickle a man as Comey would support, not sabotage, the president’s administration is a perfectly rational way of determining whether Comey should remain in place as FBI director or be replaced.

Outside politics, fending for Flynn would be normal. Within the dead zone of politics and state-made law, a president who speaks kindly about a marked man becomes one himself.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, James Comey, Russia 

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

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

Much like our parasitical one-celled protozoa, the Deep State has an overriding purpose and a fixed repertoire of reflexes. “Some amoebas protect their bodies by covering themselves with sand grains.” The Deep State organism protects itself by throwing dust in our eyes.

Hence the Russia probe. The production that is the Russia probe is courtesy of agents of the Deep State—the “managerial society” and its ruling elite, as political philosopher James Burnham (1905-1987) called it.

Like nothing else, the Trump populist revolution has exposed the sub rosa presence in American lives of a “transpartisan elite with its own interests.” “Such an analysis of the political and economic elite—its composition, its genesis, its beliefs, its myths, and its failures—is the common strand running through the [prescient] writings of James Burnham,” observes Julius Krein of American Affairs.

“Increasingly power is shifted away from individuals elected to represent the political community toward unelected officials qualified to hold the positions responsible for administering the government … Like all managers, they derive their power from the administrative expertise and credentials that qualify them for office rather than from democratic legitimacy. They are accountable, that is, not to the political community but to the other managers that define their qualifications.”

“Deep State” is no conspiracy theory. There’s nothing mythical about the Republican and Democratic career government workers, embedded like parasites in the bowels of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community, the military, and a like-minded media, who’ve risen on their hind legs to protect their turf and protest an agenda that leaves them out in the cold.

The anatomy and workings of the Deep State are, in my opinion, reflexive, rather than a matter of collusion and conspiracy. Simple psychology—human nature at its worst—sees government jobs and programs, war and welfare alike, protected in perpetuity and at all costs by the administrators of government jobs and programs.

Hidden or in plain sight, The State is geared toward increasing or maintaining its sphere of influence, never reducing it. Voters are paid lip service, provided their wishes coincide with the aims of this unelected, entrenched apparatus.

But when the popular will defies Deep State, that monster breathes fire.

The “technocratic elite” has a corporate extension. Engorged government bureaucracies are complemented by colossal corporate entities, whose virtue-signaling managers have occupied “the commanding heights of the economy, politics, and culture.” As Burnham warned they would.

The corporate element of this government-within-government superstructure (yes, the conservative Burnham had a Trotskyite beginning) has special access by virtue of its obscene wealth. Think the liver-spotted George Soros, who moves to overthrow governments in “lesser” countries. Think Apple’s Tim Cook, Microsoft’s Brad Smith, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Uber’s Travis Kalanick, or Google’s Sundar Pichai. They all sprang into action against Trump’s secession from the Paris Climate Accord.

Candidate Trump got considerable support for his promise to secede from or renegotiate this or the other agreement between the U.S. government and various supranational systems. Successive U.S. governments have ceded the rights and sovereignty of Americans to these supra-state systems.

Deplorables voted for more, not less, sovereignty. But bien-pensant Elon Musk of the Tesla and SpaceX fame is having none of this sovereignty stuff.

Musk, worth $15.2 billion, is muscling the Trump administration to further tax Americans so as to fund the Europeans and their polluting cosignatories to the climate accord.

Mr. Musk trashes the environment with his “Commie Cars,” electrical cars which discharge into the environment lead, cadmium and nickel—the byproducts of batteries—and whose impact on the environment has been shown to be worse than that of the gasoline-powered car.

Trashing the popular will is all in a day’s work for the corporate arm of the Deep State.

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

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

“ISIS” did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.

The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a performance of pop tart Ariana Grande.

ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.

The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the idiotic belief that, underneath the nosebags (the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle), they were just like us.

Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.

This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in White Hall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably Anglo-American, maybe even a tad monocultural.

While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us.

Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don’t describe exactly who’s killing us; we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.

You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush’s dumb dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.

Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.

Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.

Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are State central planners: Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.

If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.

**

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration, Muslims, Terrorism 

Mayor Mike Signer—who had declared his intention to make Charlottesville, Virginia, the “capital of the resistance” to President Trump and a sanctuary city “to protect immigrants and refugees”—is refusing to protect a symbol saluting one of America’s greatest men.

Yes, Robert E. Lee was a great American.

If Signer knew the first thing about human valor, he’d know that there was no man more valorous and courageous than Robert E. Lee, whose “two uncles signed the Declaration of Independence and [whose] father was a notable cavalry officer in the War for Independence.”

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia—known as “Lee’s Army”—is not to be conflated with the “Stars and Bars,” which “became the official national flag of the Confederacy.” According to Sons of the South, the “first official use of the ‘Stars and Bars’ was at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1861.” But because it resembled the “Stars and Stripes” flown by the Union, the “Stars and Bars” proved a liability during the Battle of Bull Run.

The confusion caused by the similarity in the flags was of great concern to Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard. He suggested that the Confederate national flag be changed to something completely different, to avoid confusion in battle in the future. This idea was rejected by the Confederate government. Beauregard then suggested that there should be two flags. One, the national flag, and the second one a battle flag, with the battle flag being completely different from the United States flag.

Originally, the flag whose history is trampled these days was a red square, not a rectangle. Atop it was the blue Southern Cross. In the cross were—still are—13 stars representing the 13 states in the Confederacy.

Wars are generally a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight. Yankees are fond of citing Confederacy officials in support of slavery and a war for slavery. Most Southerners, however, were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a “War for Southern Independence.” They rejected central coercion, the kind we readily submit to these days. Southerners believed a union that was entered voluntarily could be exited in the same way. As even establishment historian Paul Johnson concedes, “The South was protesting not only against the North’s interference in its ‘peculiar institution,’ but against the growth of government generally.”

Lincoln grew government, markedly, in size and in predatory boldness.

“Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil,” wrote the South’s greatest hero, Gen. Lee. He did not go to war for that repugnant institution. To this American, local was truly beautiful. “In 1861 he was offered command of all the armies of the United States, the height of a soldier’s ambition,” chronicles Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina. “But the path of honor commanded him to choose to defend his own people from invasion rather than do the bidding of the politicians who controlled the federal machinery in Washington.”

Lord Acton, the British historian of liberty, wrote to Lee in praise. The general, surmised Lord Acton, was fighting to preserve “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will”: states’ rights and secession.

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

“… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Another extraordinary Southerner was James Johnston Pettigrew. He gave his life for Southern independence, not for slavery. Quoting Pettigrew, Professor Wilson likens the forbearance of his own Confederate forebears to “the small Greek city-states who stood against the mighty Persian Empire in the 5th century B.C.”

“The U.S. government had quadruple the South’s resources.” Yet “it took 22 million Northerners four years of the bloodiest warfare in American history to conquer five million Southerners,” who “mobilized 90 percent of their men and lost nearly a fourth.”

Shades of Leonidas’ 300 Spartans, at Thermopylae.

When they hoist the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, it is these soldiers Southerners honor, not slavery.

Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children, black and white.

With their battle flag, Southerners commemorate these innocents. With its statue, Charlottesville salutes Gen. Lee, who, in a letter to his sister, expressed unhectoring clarity as to where his loyalties lay:

“With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.”

Lee, you see, was first and foremost a Virginian, the state that gave America its greatest presidents and the Constitution itself.

Born in New York (confirmation of which Sergey Brin’s Google search is reluctant to cough up), steeped in Berkeley and Princeton—Mayor Mike Signer is nothing but a carpetbagger.

* * *

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 

As a newly elected president, Donald Trump was quick to take one of Washington’s institutional pillars down a peg. By snubbing the 2017 annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD), the president deflated what should have been more appropriately called the Sycophants’ Supper. Would that it was the last such supper. For now, the POTUS’s slap to this gathering of sycophants this past weekend will have to do.

Like nothing else, the annual Correspondents’ Dinner is a mark of a corrupt politics. It’s a sickening specter, where some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—convene to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us in Rome’s provinces.

Those gathered at the Annual Correspondents’ Dinner, or its Christmas party, are not the country’s natural aristocracy, but its authentic Idiocracy. No matter how poor their predictive powers, no matter how many times they get it wrong—in war and in peace—the presstitutes always find time for this orgy of self-praise

And they’re all on the same circuit, beavering at sculpting celebrity personas. Anchors at major networks hangout on late-night shows, where presidents and first ladies hobnob, too. Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show” may be a vaudeville of giggles, goofiness, and mind-numbing banter. But providing bread and circuses for Booboisie comes with a “responsibility” the dancing, prancing, androgynous Mr. Fallon takes seriously. To his tomfoolery, Fallon once added a spot of promotion for ObamaCare (March, 2014), to honor Michelle Obama’s visit to the set. Fallon’s lead was a signal to Sister Act. FLOTUS launched into her own agitprop for her husband’s healthcare juggernaut on that show.

Meanwhile, “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central is a professional Shangri-La for the cast of characters at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. This year, the downright mirthless “Daily Show” donated one Hasan Minhaj as its circus clown to amuse the sycophants. I hope he came for free, for Hasan is worthless as a funny man. Not a funny bone in his body.

Hasan’s idea of verbal swordplay: calling The Donald “liar in chief.” The quip has 9,650,000 results on Google, most of them unrelated to hackneyed Hasan. “Liar in chief” goes back to 2011 and before, and has been applied to every president and candidate since 2011.

Hasan’s “originality” came together in lines as, “I would like to say it’s an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact.” He also invented a new form of satire: the sermon on The Hill. Interspersed with kvetching—“No one wanted to do this so, of course, it landed in the hands of an immigrant, [t]hat’s how it always goes down”was a string of clichés on the press’ duty to do a better job. For “our democracy,” you know.

The press is meant to be roasted at the WHCD. Were I a Muslim ostensibly roasting the press, like Hasan, I’d lampoon how present company covers my peaceful religion. But to do that, Hasan would have to be clever, creative, and willing to say what everyone is thinking but is too afraid to say. He’s none of those.

Someone who’s all of those things is Anthony Jeselnik. Here’s a demonstration, for future mediocrities to emcee an event like the annual Correspondents’ Dinner. It’s courtesy of the gifted (and gorgeous) Mr. Jeselnik, whose rape and Holocaust jokes are obviously more irreverent than his digs at Islam. (Smart. The offended cohort won’t KILL YOU.) To the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council:

  • “Muslims are not known for it, but they do have a sense of humor. For example, your greeting, “Peace be unto you,” is that supposed to be sarcastic?”
  • “Devout Muslims keep their women covered, don’t allow them to drive, leave the house alone, or go to school. So would you say that a lot of Islamic practices are just common sense?”
  • “Why do Muslims seem so angry all the time? Is it because you guys don’t have Christmas?”

The event and the invited say a great deal about the state of satire in the US, killed off by the twin tyrannies of political correctness and affirmative action.

In America, funny has always been, still is, the forte of black men, white men, and a smattering of white women, who’re funny until they contract left-liberalism. (As opposed to my own classical liberalism.)

Roseanne Barr[f], Sarah Silverman, Kathy Griffin, Chelsea Handler: They weren’t all lousy comedians, but they devolved when they took to preaching progressivism. To wit, the performance, in 2015, of Cecily Strong. Example of Cecily’s weak whining:

  • [I am] “shocked that someone named (Senator) Tom Cotton is a senator, and not a character from an old racist cartoon.”
  • “I’m not going to try and tell you comedians how to do politics. That would be like you guys telling me what to do with my body.”

Black women are way funnier than white, liberal women. But sisters are too angry, scary-angry, to be funny. Heartfelt rage is not funny. For instance, in 2009, Wanda Sykes—talent undeniable—started her WHCD debut with great material. She soon descended into fury and vulgarity. To be smart, satire must be irreverent, brutally offensive and always personally deprecating and detached.

As to Brothers at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner: He’s no Jeselnik, but judging from the sourpuss faces in the crowd, Larry Wilmore acquitted himself well in 2016. My favorite lines:

  • “It’s nice to match the names (in this room) to the faces in the Panama Papers.”
  • “Obama can’t be killing print journalism tonight, that industry has been dead for a while.”
  • “Beyoncé is not anti-cop, at the most, she’s anti-pants.”

More than about the state of a vital art form does the event and the invited speak to the press corps’ ethics and code of conduct. The un-watchful dogs of the media have no business frolicking with the president and his minions. This co-optation is the hallmark of a corrupt, celebrity press. (And, when did Hollywood become a fixture in our New-World tradition? In case the country has forgotten, actors are a troupe that makes a living pretending to be something they’re not. Professional poseurs, if you like. Granted, they’re not parasites, like the politicians with whom they cavort. But Tinseltown is a left-liberal ideological collective. They march in thematic unison. That their cultural products have become artistically worthless could well be because activism has replaced acting, and sermons have supplanted stories and good scripts. Hollywood is a pretty, pea-brained community. Why are their ranks at the WHCD at all? And why do we forget that these are, in the words of Borat, “trash people”?)

Kudos to the likes of former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, who’ve excoriated the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, or who’ve refused to attend, irrespective of the political affiliation of the man ensconced in the White House.

Finally, for days following these glitzy events, the Gilded Ones will share their night of glory with the lowly viewer. We watch them like poor servants, noses pressed against the master’s mansion windows, as they genuflect to themselves. How many times were we “taken behind the scenes” with megalo-Megyn (Kelly), to gaze at the gowns she wore to one of these circle jerks?

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump 

Farming in South Africa is the most dangerous occupation in the world. Farmers there suffer more murders per-capita than any other community on earth outside a war zone. Since the dawn of democracy in the country, farming South Africa has been slaughtered by black South Africans in ways that would do Shaka Zulu[*] proud.

The Transvaal Agricultural Union’s numbers (purported to be the most reliable) are bolstered by Genocide Watch. (I wrote about this here.) By this assessment, South African farmers were being exterminated at the annual rate of 313 per 100,000 inhabitants, 3,000 since the election of the sainted Nelson Mandela (1994), two a week, seven in March of 2010, “four times as high as is for the rest of the [South African] population,” in the words of Genocide Watch’s Dr. Gregory H. Stanton.

The number of farmers martyred on land many their families had farmed since the 1600s has since been revised downward by the African National Congress (ANC) government, its police and lickspittle social scientists. This is good if true; bad if doctored for the purpose of diminishing the facts.

The Democratic Alliance used to dispute any crime statistics issued by the South African Police Service (SAPS). The tiny, tokenistic, opposition to the “all-powerful black majority party” puts the ostensible drop in crime down to the fact that 51 percent of victims no longer bother to report crime, given that corruption is rife, arrests rare, and prosecutions and convictions still rarer. Findings suggest that the SAPS’s optimistic, homicide statistics are not to be believed. According to the Economist (citations in Into the Cannibal’s Pot), the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation has confirmed the existence of a “pervasive pattern of (police) manipulation of statistic.”

Every year, millions in taxpayers’ money are forked out to private security firms to protect … the new South Africa’s police stations. “South Africa’s protectors can’t protect themselves,” they can’t protect the country, and they probably can’t count. The orgy of crime in South Africa reflects the capabilities of this reconstructed police force.

Back when it tracked South Africa’s murder rate, Interpol came up with roughly double the numbers released by the SA police. While slightly more optimistic, the South African Medical Research Council (MRC) tended to corroborate the trend uncovered by Interpol.

Another denier is the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR). In 2004, the Economist had already counted 1,500 rural whites dead “in land-related violence.” By 2010, the SAIRR was finally willing to concede that “not all murders in the country are a function of simple criminal banditry.” Last I checked (2011), they still put the figure “conservatively” at only 1,000, even as most news outlets were reporting around 3,000 farmers murdered. The 3,000 figure was said to consist of “some 1,000 white farmers, along with 2,000 of their family members.”

Perhaps the SAIRR had forgotten to factor in the families.

They’re only filling their crime quota, contend some South African advocates for criminals (who get their ideas from America). The claim is that blacks are merely committing crimes in proportion to their numbers in the population. In 2004, at 76.6 percent of the population, blacks committed 76.4 percent of “intimate femicides” (defined as “the killing of a female person by an intimate partner”). And they committed 68.3 percent of “non-intimate femicides”: “the killing of a woman by someone other than an intimate partner.” (That snippet came courtesy of a not-yet-binned Medical Research Council report.)

Although they’re dying like flies, the words of Steve Hofmeyr—famed Afrikaner activist and musician—tardy whites are proving woefully inadequate to the task of filling their pro-rata crime quotas: At less than nine percent of the population, the corresponding numbers for white South Africans are 3.9 and 2.6 percent respectively. Whites underperform again with respect to incarceration rates. According to the South African Department of Correctional Services, 113,773 criminals had been sentenced as of June 2008, of whom only 2,190 were white. Whites make up only 1.9 percent of the number of sentenced criminals. Weighing in with 90,013 sentenced individuals—approximately 79.1 percent of the total number of criminals sentenced—blacks more than fill their per-population crime allotment.

The minority that dare not speak its name is on the wane. Of the approximately 48 million South Africans, whites number only 4.3 million; blacks more than 38 million. By the estimate of the SAIRR, the white population had shrunk from 5,215,000 in 1995 to 4,374,000 in 2005. Almost a fifth. “Since 1996,” reports the New York Times, “the black population has risen to a projected 38.5 million from 31.8 million.” (Submerged in this sentence is the fact that the same population has been increasing since Europeans settled South Africa.)

While the number of whites is shrinking as a percentage of the total population, their proportion among the scalded, shot, sliced and garroted is growing.

Constituting less than nine percent of the population, whites nevertheless made up 10 percent of the 33,513 “non-natural deaths,” recorded in 2007 by the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, a project of the MRC and my alma mater, the University of South Africa. At around 80 percent of the population, black “Africans constituted 76 percent of all cases.” The SAIRR would have evinced a modicum of intellectual integrity had it argued that wealth was a confounding variable in crime: Because Indian and white South Africans tend to be wealthier than blacks, the theory would run, they’re likelier than blacks to be targeted.

While Indian South Africans, unlike whites, are not being murdered in ways that beggar belief; there are still “marked differences in feelings of safety between the race groups. Indians followed by white South Africans were least likely to feel safe.” A study conducted by the market research company Markinor for the Institute for Security Studies reveals, “Only 32 percent of all blacks questioned knew someone who was a victim of crime,” compared to 66 percent of Indian adults and 56 percent of white adults.

Conversely, 32 percent of black South Africans were likely to know someone who made a living from crime, while less than 17 percent of Indians and just seven percent of whites said the same. As of June 2008, the South African Department of Correctional Services reported that 90,013 blacks had been sentenced. Conviction rates stand at a dismal eight percent! The black criminal class is thus 1.13 million strong, at least one million of whom are still at large.

 
• Tags: Afrikaner, South Africa 

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

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

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

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

Here’s how:

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

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

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

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez faire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet more crap.

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

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

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

It’s the O-1 visa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Ivanka 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Islam, Terrorism 
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.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.