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
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:

 

“Anybody who would trash Lee and laud Lincoln is either stupid as a post or just plain evil,” said a sage reader. This applies in spades to anyone who would laud the Radical Republicans of 1865, as one TV GOP blonde has recently, and asininely, done.

The Radical Republicans, if you can believe it, considered Abraham Lincoln a moderate (a bad thing, in their book). Lincoln successor Andrew Johnson these fanatics branded a reactionary (punishable by obstruction and impeachment).

Praised these days by the blonde-ambition faction of the Republican Party, the Radicals were stars of America’s own Reign of Terror over the South, at the end of the War Between the States.

If the French Reign of Terror was led by the terrifying Robespierre and his Jacobins; its American equivalent was infused with the spirit of lunatics like John Brown. (His abolitionist activists snatched five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, in 1856, and split the captives’ skulls with broadswords, in an act of biblical retribution gone mad.)

Thaddeus Stevens was another of their “inspirational” madmen, lauded in the annals of the Party of Reconstruction. In his biography of Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth Century Egalitarian, historian Hans Trefousse even makes a brief reference to the Jacobin Club, a term reserved for the most extreme Republicans in Congress (p. 168). Other club members: Henry Winter Davis, Benjamin Butler, Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade, Zachariah Chandler.

Although Republicans shared “the drive toward revolution and national unification” (the words of historian Clyde Wilson, in The Yankee Problem, 2016), the Radicals distinguished themselves in their support for sadistic military occupation of the vanquished Rebel States, following the War Between the States.

While assorted GOP teletarts may find the rhetoric of Radical Republicans sexy; overall, these characters are villains of history, for helping to sunder the federal scheme bequeathed by the Founding Fathers. In their fanatical fealty to an almighty central government, Radical Republicans were as alien to the Jeffersonian tradition of self-government as it gets.

Today’s Republicans should know that the Radical Republicans were hardly heartbroken about the assassination of Lincoln, on April 14, 1865.

A mere month earlier (March 4, 1865)—and much to the chagrin of the Radicals—Lincoln had noodled, in his billowing prose, about the need to “bind up the nation’s wounds and proceed with “malice toward none … and charity for all.”

Radical Republicans were having none of that charity stuff. They promptly placed their evil aspirations in Andrew Johnson. A President Johnson, they had hoped, would be a suitable sockpuppet in socking it to the South some more.

Alas, Johnson, a poor, white tailor from North Carolina, turned out, in today’s political nomenclature, to be something of a populist. In going against the Radical Republicans, the 17th president of the United States was the Trump of his time, up against the Rubio-McCain-Graham Radical Republicans. (Marco Rubio, incidentally, has gone as far as to rationalize the Antifa ruffians’ violence, tweeting: “When [an] entire movement [is] built on anger and hatred towards people different than [sic] you, it justifies and ultimately leads to violence against them.”)

When Johnson failed to deliver the radical changes Radical Republicans demanded, our 1865 Antifans accused him of being “tainted by Lincolnism.”

Let’s unpack this:

To rational and righteous individuals, Lincoln did a radical thing in prosecuting a fratricidal war in 1861. Did not the ignoble institution of slavery dissolve relatively uneventfully in most slave societies, around that time? Indeed, it did. Alone in all nations did the U.S. and Haiti share the dubious distinction of shedding blood, where other options presented themselves.

But to Radical Republicans, the late Lincoln had not been radical enough and Johnson had disappointed.

While number 17 was a Southern Unionist, President Johnson was, nevertheless, still a Democrat. Then as now, the Republicans were the party of the crony capitalist centralized State. Unlike the current Dems, 1861 Democrats were the party of states’ rights.

And it was proving a little harder to take the old republic of radical decentralization out of President Johnson.

Consequently, Johnson allowed “each of the Rebel States to determine its suffrage.” Remember, only the rights to life, liberty and property are inviolable natural rights. Not so the right to vote. The franchise is a grant of government privilege, never a natural right.

And it was to field hands that the Radicals gave the vote and, subsequently, governorship of the South. “Nearly four million slaves had been freed overnight. Very few of these were equipped to meet the rudimentary responsibilities of citizenship.” (A Complete History of the United States, by Clement Wood, p. 342.) Confessed one freedman: “I can’t read, I can’t write. We go by the [Union League's] instructions. We don’t know nothing much.” (In their strong-arm, violent tactics, Union League members were most definitely the Antifa arm of Reconstruction-era Republicans.)

Is there any wonder that the South under Radical-Republican Reconstruction became a “howling Babylon of Corruption”? This was to be expected from the “riffraff of conquerors and conquered alike.” The planter class had been destroyed. “Many whites and Negroes of the new ruling class could not even sign their name,” attests historian William Miller.

In mitigation, the less-radical Lincoln had proposed that “the right to vote be given to the most capable [blacks].” Johnson’s advice was to give the vote to propertied blacks worth $250. (Wood, P. 349.)

Not unlike today’s Republicans and Democrats, the Radical Republicans of yore had sidelined a large segment of the white population in the South. Johnson had dared to flout congressional Radicals by showing some fairness to these vanquished Southerners.

“When the South came to elect its Senators and Representatives in 1865, it had but one class of men it would trust to turn to, and that was leading secessionists.” (Wood, P. 349.)

“Northerners were [being] asked by the Southern States to recognize, on terms of civic and official equality, confederate cabinets members, congressmen and brigadier generals.” (P. 346.) Radical Republicans set about preventing such charitable normalization.

 

“Some crazy person just compared President Abraham Lincoln to Hitler. Yes, this just happened on CNN and Brooke Baldwin’s reaction was perfect.”

So scribbled one Ricky Davila on Social Media (Twitter).

Indeed, an elderly Southern gentleman had ventured that President Lincoln, not General Lee, murdered civilians, a point even a Court historian and a Lincoln idolater like Doris Kearns Goodwin would concede.

While the Argument From Hitler is seldom a good one; Ms. Baldwin’s response was way worse. Were she an honest purveyor of news and knowledge; anchor-activist Baldwin would have sought the facts. Instead, she pulled faces, so the viewer knew she not only looked like an angel, but was on the side of the angels.

Pretty, but not terribly bright, Ms. Baldwin would be shocked to hear that the civics test administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recognizes as correct the following answers to questions about the “Civil War”:

If asked to “Name one problem that led to the Civil War,” you may legitimately reply: “States’ right.”

If asked to “Name the war between the North and the South,” you may call it, “the War between the States.”

Brook would wince, but, again, your reply would be perfectly proper if you chose to name “economic reasons” as one of the problems that led to the Civil War.

Not even the government—the USCIS, in this case—will risk denying that the 1861 Morrill tariff was one cause of the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln, a protectionist, was expected to enforce the tariff with calamitous consequences to the “the import-dependent South, which was paying [at the time] as much as 80 percent of the tariff.”

It’s fair to assume that the civics naturalization test (I took it) was not written by pro-South historians. Yet even they did not conceal some immutable truths about the War of Northern Aggression—truths banished from Brooke Baldwin’s network.

And from Fox News.

There, you must tolerate progressive Republicans, like John Daniel Davidson of the Federalist, warning about the dangers of identity politics in a majority-white country like the US. (Davidson should try out identity politics in a minority white country like my birthplace, South Africa, where the lives of white farmers are forfeit.) Another Federalist editor seen on Fox is Molly Hemingway. She has vaporized about the merits of “taking down Confederate statues.” If memory serves, that was a position the oracular Chucky Krauthammer was willing to dignify.

Back to the white, marginalized gentleman, mocked on CNN.

In all, Lincoln’s violent, unconstitutional revolution took the lives of 620,000 individuals, including 50,000 Southern civilians, white and black. It maimed thousands, and brought about “the near destruction of 40 percent of the nation’s economy.”

While “in the North a few unfortunate exceptions marred the general wartime boom,” chronicled historian William Miller, “[t]he south as a whole was impoverished. At the end of the war, the boys in blue went home at government expense with about $235 apiece in their pockets.” “[S]ome of Lee’s soldiers had to ask for handouts on the road home, with nothing to exchange for bread save the unwelcome news of Appomattox.”

Many years hence, Americans look upon the terrible forces unleashed by Lincoln as cathartic, glorious events. However, “The costs of an action cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to morality,” noted Mises Institute scholar David Gordon, in Secession, State & Liberty.

At his most savage, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged “total war” on civilians and did not conceal his intent to so do. On commencing his march through Georgia, in September 1864, Sherman had vowed “to demonstrate the vulnerability of the South and make its inhabitants feel that war and individual ruin [were] synonymous terms.” To follow was an admission (of sorts) to war crimes: “The amount of plundering, burning, and stealing done by our own army makes me ashamed of it.”

For Sherman’s troops sacked and razed entire cities and communities“:

Sherman’s troops exhumed graves to loot the corpses. Sherman’s troops tore up little girls’ dolls and nailed family pets to doors. Sherman’s troops left countless civilians – including the slaves they were supposedly liberating – without food or shelter. Sherman ransomed civilians to armies in the area, threatening to execute them or burn their homes if they did not comply. Sherman had a few contemplative moments and was always careful to maintain plausible deniability, but he knew what was happening and let it happen.

Here’s the brass tacks (via William Miller, Yankee sympathizer) about Lincoln’s brutality and the extent to which the North upended life in the South:

“Confederate losses were overwhelmingly greater, representing a fifth of the productive part of the Confederacy’s white male population. Thousands more died of exposure, epidemics, and sheer starvation after the war, while many survivors, aside from the sick and the maimed, bore the scars of wartime and most war malnutrition and exhaustion all the rest of their lives.”

The South sustained direct damage as the war was fought, for the most, on its soil.

“Land, buildings, and equipment, especially of slaveless farmers … lay in ruins. Factories … were simply forsaken.” “Poor white and planter were left little better than ex-slave. … [A]n every-day sight [was] that of women and children, most of whom were formerly in good circumstances, begging for bread from door to door. In the destruction of southern life few suffered more than the ex-slaves.” By estimations cited in Miller’s A New History of the United States, “a third of the Negroes died” in their freemen, informal, “contraband camps,” from “the elements, epidemics, and crime.”

“The weakening of purpose, morale, and aspiration among the survivors was depressing enough to make many envy the dead,” laments White, noting that “rebel losses in youth and talent were much greater than the devastating total of human losses itself.”

“The men in blue,” said one Southerner late in 1865, “destroyed everything which the most infernal Yankee ingenuity could devise means to destroy: hands, hearts, fire, gunpowder, and behind everything the spirit of hell, were the agencies which they used.”

Still, despite having just fought a civil war, there was a greater feeling of fellowshipamong our countrymen then than there is today.

Struck by how achingly sad the South was, a northern observer, on a visit to New Orleans in 1873, cried out with great anguish: “These faces, these faces, one sees them everywhere; on the streets, at the theater, in the salon, in the cars; and pauses for a moment struck with the expression of entire despair.”

Today’s America lectures and hectors the world about invading Arab leaders for “killing their own people.” What did the sixteenth American president do if not kill his own people?

Yes, “Emerson’s ‘best civilization’ was about to be ‘extended over the whole country’ with a vengeance.”

Of this, Adolf Hitler wholly approved.

 
How Politicians & Policy Wonks Play God With Your Life

No sooner do terrorists attack, than those who monopolize the conversation revert to abstractions: “terrorism returned,” “terror struck,” when, of course, not terrorism, but terrorists struck Barcelona, Spain, on August 17. Terrorists did the same days later, in Newcastle, England and in Turku, Finland.

The men who murdered 14 in Spain, maiming and injuring over 100, 15 of them critically, are flesh-and-blood. Young, Muslim, Moroccan men with murder on their minds. It is the duty of governments to bar such men from civilized society, or keep such barbarians at bay.

So, drop the Orwellian bafflegab when describing what elites have wrought through their policies. The Maghrebi Muhammadans—aged, 17, 18, 22 and 24—had been given free range and limitless access to their victims, in the name of those victims’ freedoms. The only lucky sorts living safely are the elites who grant the barbarians license to kill.

Thus were Theresa May, the Spanish royals and other leaders—well-protected courtesy of their taxpayers—able to flout the reality faced by the ordinary fellow and utter fatuities like, “These assassins, these criminals won’t terrorize us.” The truth is that these darling buds of May and Merkel do and will continue to terrorize ordinary men and women, but will spare invulnerable elites for reasons obvious.

Of Spain’s many millions, “only” 14 lives were lost in one day, in Barcelona. Similar numbers obtain in London, Manchester, Melbourne, Paris, Nice, Normandy, Stockholm, Saint Petersburg, Berlin, Hamburg, Columbus (Ohio): Only a few people were picked off in each attack, this year. In the grand scheme of things, the numbers are relatively small. Or, so we’re lectured by the contemptible aggregators who decide who will reside among us.

On TV, June 1, 2017, Alex Nowrasteh, immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, argued that “foreign-born terrorism is a hazard,” but a “manageable” one, “given the huge economic benefits of immigration and the small costs of terrorism.”

Spoken like a collectivist, central planner and utilitarian rolled into one.

This is the Benthamite “utilitarian calculus” at its cruelest. It requires, first, for someone to play God. Whether she sits in Downing Street, D.C., Brussels, or Barcelona; the Godhead has determined that Muslims in our midst are a must in bringing “the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens.” Along the way, a few people will die. For the greater good.

In the words of “Stalin’s apologist” Walter Duranty, ”You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

However, a natural-rights libertarian values the life of the innocent individual. Only by protecting each individual’s rights—life, liberty and property—can the government legitimately enhance the wealth of the collective. Only through fulfilling its nightwatchman role can government legitimately safeguard the wealth of the nation. For each individual, secure in his person and property, is then free to pursue economic prosperity, which redounds to the rest.

See, statistics are silly unless given context. If you have one foot in fire, the other in ice, can we legitimately say that, on average, you’re warm? Hardly.

Probabilities, in this case the chance that any one of us will die-by-Muslim, are statistically insignificant—unless this happens to you or to yours, to me or mine.

It is this crude calculus that politicians and policy wonks like the Catoite mentioned peddle.

Were it possible to arrange for wonks, pols and their beloved to pay for the policies they promulgate—were these ugly aggregators told, “Yes, we like your idea of flooding western societies with Muslims at the price of a few lives—provided that those lives lost belong to you and yours; the John McCains and Jeff Flakes of the world would quickly retract their policy follies.

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

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

Of the many men who toil in high-tech, few are as heroic as James Damore, the young man who penned the manifesto “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In it, Damore calmly and logically exposed the tyrannical ideological edifice erected to perpetuate the myth that, in aggregate, women and men are identical in aptitude and interests, and that “all disparities in representation are due to oppression.”

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (“Engineering by the Numbers,” By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

As Damore, and anyone in the world of high-tech knows, entire human resource departments in the high-tech sector are dedicated to recruiting, mentoring, and just plain dealing with women and their ongoing nagging and special needs.

In high-tech, almost nothing is as politically precious as a woman with some aptitude. There’s no end to which companies will go to procure women and help them succeed, often to the detriment of technically competent men and women who must do double duty. Their procurement being at a premium, concepts such as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to coddled distaff.

A woman in high-technology can carp constantly about … being a woman in high-tech. Her gender—more so than her capabilities—is what defines her and endears her to her higher-ups, for whom she’s a notch in the belt.

While male engineers—and, indubitably, some exceptional women—are hired to be hard at work designing and shipping tangible products;women in high tech, in the aggregate, are free to branch out; to hone a niche as a voice for their gender.

Arisen online and beyond is a niche-market of nudniks (nags): Women talking, blogging, vlogging, writing and publishing about women in high-technology or their absence therefrom; women beating the tom-tom about discrimination and stereotyping, but saying absolutely nothing about the technology they presumably love and help create.

Young women, in particular, are pioneers of this new, intangible, but lethal field of meta-technology: kvetching (complaining) about their absence in technology with nary a mention of their achievements in technology.

The hashtag “MicrosoftWomen” speaks to the solipsistic universe created by females in high-tech and maintained by the house-broken males entrusted with supporting the menacing matriarchy. Are these ladies posting about the products they’ve partaken in designing and shipping? Not often. Women in high-tech are more likely to be tweeting out about … being women in high-tech. Theirs is a self-reverential and self-referential universe.

For example, to learn more about the unbearable lightness of being “principal engineering lead at Microsoft” when woman, turn to “I Want Her Job™.” Mind your P’s and Q’s, numskull. This isn’t a website—but a “community,” in the lingua franca of feminized America—bolstering women’s pursuits and careers. In trendy speak: “Connection. Community. Conversation.”

One featured techie’s professional title, aforementioned, is impressive: “principal engineering lead at Microsoft.” As is to be expected of a woman hard at work in the ruthlessly competitive field of high-tech, she spends her days as “a female tech ambassador,” writing fluffy, gyno-centric books on self-affirmation, “mentoring other women via Skype,” “answering emails … on how they, too, can enter the world of tech,” designing clothes, and, according to her impartial boosters, being the “next greatest female tech rock star.” It’s all in a woman’s day’s work.

The techie men known to this writer don’t have time to design clothes, although they dream of it (men and women being interchangeable, and all that stuff).

So intent are women on equal outcomes at all costs, as opposed to equality of opportunity, that they’re pleased to serve as political props; ornaments in a corporate world compelled to affirm the idea that under the skin—and but for the Great White and his wicked ways—men and women are similarly inclined and endowed.

Working from the premise that equality of representation—engineering being 50 percent female—is an achievable, desirable and laudable goal for all, Pinterest’s Tracy Chou, at gigaom.com, calls for “a ‘state of the union’ every year, where companies” are compelled to cough-up their latest “demographic data,” and are thus held “accountable” to the public, while also tracking which of their initiatives has worked.

To incriminate, presumably, Chou has published a series of charts detailing the male-to-female ratios in America’s technology titans. (Delve deeper and you find, moreover, that men are still doing most of the technical work; women the non-technical work.)

Yes, women are making different career choices. Viva la difference.

Of course, to say that “science [or applied science] needs women,” reasoned Theodore Dalrymple, in a 2014 Taki’s magazine column, is as logically consistent as saying that, “Heavyweight boxing needs Malays,” “football needs dwarf goalkeepers,” “quantity surveying needs bisexuals,” “lavatory cleaning needs left-handers.”

“Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism, Google, Political Correctness 

PREDICTABLY, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already pooh-poohed President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directives, banning the politicized transgender production from the theater of war.

Why “predictably” (preachy, too)? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that can kill.

And has killed.

Islam Über Alles

The most notorious example of killer PC in the military was Major Nidal Malik Hasan. After he murdered 13, “Commander Colonel Steven Braverman, a colleague of Hasan at the Darnall army medical center on Fort Hood, vouched that Hasan had performed well in his job and had shown no obvious signs of trouble.”

He lied! For it mattered not to the military brass that this mass murderer in-the-making was a lousy and sadistic psychiatrist, that the topic of his “medical” lectures was Jihad, not his VA patients, and that “Soldier of Allah” was embossed on his calling card. The US military made a conscious decision to keep Major Hasan in style.

Hasan’s recorded professional and personal failings notwithstanding, his higher-ups thought he was worth the risk—that he deserved his secret security clearance, his rank, and a six-figure income. With military imprimatur had Hasan breezed about Fort Hood in his Lawrence of Arabia robes.

Likewise did the late Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at Fort Hood, brag about the “no-guns” policies on that base. These left Hasan’s victims helpless: “As a matter of practice, we don’t carry weapons here, this is our home.” A funeral home for some!

LGBTQ as Social Engineering

LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Y, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance. In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Moreover, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?”

From Gender Neutrality to Gender Fluidity

Girls: It was about their presence in the military that Gutmann was warning, circa 2000, not “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning.” As trailblazing as Ms. Gutmann’s shoe-leather investigation was, back then, into the way women had transformed the military, its morale and readiness—never could this author have imagined that from gender neutrality, the military would move into the even Braver New World of gender fluidity.

Gutmann saddled “Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretaries of Defense Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Cohen, the Congresses who wrote and passed the bills they signed, and the Pentagon leadership who just grinned nervously and sat on their hands while all of this was going on.”

What were the fatal conceits of these leaders and their legislation?

“One of the projects mesmerizing the brass throughout the nineties was the integration of women. … [T]he nineties were a decade in which the brass handed over their soldiers to social planners in love with an unworkable (and in many senses undesirable) vision of a politically correct utopia, one in which men and women toil side by side, equally good at the same tasks, interchangeable, and, of course, utterly undistracted by sexual interest.”

“[W]omen have been in the forces since … well … forever,” observed Gutmann. “But something new happened in the nineties in respect to the way the military handled ‘women’s issues.’ The goals “changed from making good use of the relatively small numbers of women the military had been attracting over the years, to achieving what President Clinton and Secretary of the Army Togo West [had] called ‘a force that looks like America.’”

The rest is history. The “New Army,” as it was openly termed, was created, “the warrior culture” obliterated, replaced with a weepy sensitivity. What appalled Ms. Gutmann was, again, the utter disinterest expressed by “the big boys (and a few big girls)” “in the hearts and minds of soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in various ways during the last half of the nineties.”

This craven indifference is still apparent today, and is evinced in leadership’s reaction to President Trump’s transgender-policy impetus. When Sen. Orrin Hatch, joined by GOP leaders, enjoined the president against his transgender ban—did he/they show any interest in “good-faith information” about how transsexualism “plays out at ground level,” to echo Gutmann’s charge against political and military leadership, circa 2000?

Do these arch social-planners give a hoot about how flesh-and-blood men interact with a mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes at a buddy? And how do these layered dynamics affect life-and-death situations?

Still, LGBTQ in the military is inconsequential by now. It’s a minor matter in a spent force, shot through with punitive sexual politics, hobbled and demoralized by the needs of women, as interpreted by military and political leadership.

A Few Good Women

To the surprise of liberals, a few good women have protested. Former Army Spec. Catherine Aspy, for instance. Her account, “published in Reader’s Digest, February, 1999,” was relayed by columnist Fred Reed. Aspy, who had “graduated from Harvard in 1992 and enlisted in the Army in 1995,” said this:

“I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries. They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren’t allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them ‘Battle Buddies.’ It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn’t go to the bathroom by myself.”

Neutered Since the 1990s

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, LGBT, Political Correctness 

Said the president: “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and, at times, a policy-making arm of the Government. … [T]his quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.”

This dire warning about the propensity of the Central Intelligence Agency to go rogue came from Harry S. Truman.

Truman’s call to “limit the CIA role to intelligence” was published in December 22, 1963, by the Washington Post (WaPo). The same newspaper is now decrying Presidents Trump’s decision to “end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials.”

The move is a good one. The WaPo threw Russia into the reportorial mix purely to sully President Trump (and due to the intellectual deficiencies of correspondents incapable of teasing apart policy from political intrigue).

The 33rd U.S. president, a Democrat before the great deformation of that party, was first to issue the warning against the agency he had established. Not only was the newly founded intelligence arm of President Truman mutating into “a policy-making arm of government,” but it was “a subverting influence in the affairs of other people,” he cautioned.

In 1963, Truman was meditating on restoring the monster he had created “to its original assignment” of intelligence gathering in the raw. The CIA’s sole purpose was to keep the president apprised of information unfiltered, un-politicized.

In 2017, Trump is dealing with a genie too powerful to beat back into the bottle: a mutated swamp creature.

So, is this a screeching U-turn in Trump’s foreign policy? Who know, but in Syria, at least, President Trump is inching closer to delivering on a campaign promise. The president finally appears to be seeking a solution sans regime change, with strongman Bashar Al Assad still at the helm.

Curtailing this “symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue”—stopping the CIA and the National Security Council (another of President Truman’s metastatic creations) from fomenting more war in Syria and confrontation with Russia—is a start. In ending the “covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria,” Trump, hopefully, has disassociated from the “rebels.” The little we know about these people is not good.

For one thing, they play Americans like a fiddle. For another, they can’t be trained.

One US training program for these prize Syrian fighters—for whom John McCain is plumping from his sickbed—cost the American taxpayer one billion dollars. The program yielded “four or five” trained people on the battlefield! Not “four or five” battalions, but “four or five” individuals. That’s no waste of American taxpayers’ money! That’s not a bad return on an investment; it’s a scandal! For corruption on this scale in China, the politicians in charge are executed.

The Swamp—the generals, the CIA and the NSC—is roiling. Try as they may, their arguments for unseating Assad are poor, best encapsulated in the angels-and-demons worldview of Nikki Haley, Trump’s U.N. ambassador. The president has hired individuals who don’t articulate the principles he ran on, former Gov. Haley, for example. Thanks to President Trump, Haley went from provincial idiot to global village idiot.

Once confined to spitefully tearing down Gen. Lee’s battle flag in South Carolina—Haley’s windy verbiage is now heard around the world. The woman promotes war on behalf of an administration that promised diplomacy where doable.

“In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad at the head of the Syrian government,” thundered Haley. Her Disneyfied production at the U.N. stars an evil dictator who was killing his noble people, until, high on paternalism, our heroic Haley (and Hillary before her for Libya)—rode to the rescue.

Our bickering wards in the region aren’t about to forget their religious jealousies and join forces, and certainly not under American guardianship. The conflict is regional, tribal, ancient. Syria is impervious to outside, top-down intervention.

For their part, the marionette media and their political puppet-masters detest Donald Trump. For them, an honest examination of the merits of his decision to divest from anti-Assad rebels is out of the question.

Instead, a decision to terminate what Truman himself would view as a rogue CIA operation is refracted through the distorting prism of America’s “reigning Russophobia.”

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.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: CIA, Donald Trump, Syria 

Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, seems a perfectly nice man. But nothing he has said during confirmation hearings, on July 12, distinguishes him as someone who would reform Barack Hussein Obama’s Islamophilic FBI.

President Trump ran on a quixotic set of ideas about aggressively stopping Islamic terror. Like a fly in amber, the standard operating procedures (SOP) governing the Obama Federal Bureau of Investigation guarantee to preserve the same systemic, intractable failures that unleashed mass murderer Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and bride Tashfeen Malik, to maim and murder dozens of Americans.

From Wray’s comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee, we know how he’ll bravely break with President Trump but that he’s partial to his predecessor, James Comey. To wit, Wray said he sided with Comey in rejecting a domestic surveillance program in 2004, “… not because he knew the substance of the dispute,” but because of his affection for Comey.

Given his unalloyed loyalty, Wray’ll be unlikely to remove from FBI training manuals the fiction about Jihad being a peaceful pillar of the Islamic faith.

To get a sense of how the outfit being glorified by the Senate panel operates, consider this: You hire a private firm to protect you, only to discover that, as part of your protection plan, your protectors undergo sensitivity training to desensitize them to potential perpetrators and evil-doers, thus giving the latter easy access to you and yours. This “strategy” would endanger your life. The company executing this harebrained scheme, moreover, would be in violation of its contractual obligation to keep you safe. If you came to harm, you’d sue.

But first, fire the fools before they get you killed.

Thanks to the president, we can only hope that firing the director of the FBI will become a new norm. For among his many other “virtues,” former FBI Director Comey believes that “unless [his] passport is revoked,” an American citizen who holds an American passport and who has fought for ISIS—maybe even decapitated a dhimmi or two—“is entitled to come back” to the US. We know this because Comey said it on “60 Minutes”!

In 2014, he was asked about the status of the fighters America, unwittingly, exports to ISIS Land. This sanctimonious civil servant, traitor to the people who pay for his keep, promised to “track [the fighters] very carefully,” after he let them in.

At the time, anchor Megyn Kelly had aptly used the word treason, although she applied it exclusively to ISIS-Americans, when they, at least, were being true to their vampiric god. To whom was Comey being true? Certainly not to the law. In Judge Andrew Napolitano’s telling, the federal government’s top law enforcement agent didn’t know the law [or, was willfully ignoring it]:

“[Comey] forgot there’s a statute called providing material assistance to a terrorist organization. So, if he knows that Americans have been fighting with ISIS and he also knows that the secretary of state has declared ISIS a terrorist organization, that is more than enough evidence for him to arrest them upon their re-entry to the U.S. It is crazy to let them back in and wait and see what they do.”

That’s our crazy Comey. And the new guy, Christopher Wray, loves him just the way he is.

Another swamp creature for whom Wray has “enormous respect” is former FBI Director Robert Mueller. “[T]he consummate straight shooter,” gushed Wray.

Both the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute would agree. Thanks to Mueller, Comey’s predecessor, these and other special interests were involved in shaping FBI counterterrorism training.

Before Russia (B.R.), when the-now monomaniacal media touched occasionally on an issue of abiding interest to Americans (“murder-by-Muslim-immigrant“), they used milquetoast words. Again, the T-word (being floated for Donald Trump Jr.) would more appropriately describe how White House and FBI leadership invited Muslim advocacy groups to shape American counterterrorism training.

In Feb., 2012, WIRED magazine published an article titled “FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia,” and hashtagged Islamophobia. The magazine took some credit for urging the FBI to scrub counterterrorism training manuals of what sentient human beings would view as undeniable and dangerous trends and proclivities in Islam and its practitioners. Bragged the author: “The White House ordered a government-wide review of counterterrorism training late last year [2011]. A Pentagon document responding to the order cited [WIRED magazine's series] as an impetus for the effort.”

To better know thy enemy, your FBI had purged the scholarship of the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes from the FBI training library at Quantico.

How did this book-burning go down? Enter Director Mueller. In 2012, wrote WIRED, Mueller, who was succeeded by Comey, undertook to excise the FBI’s counterterrorism training program of “anti-Islam materials.” Essentially, Mueller saw to it that Islam was porcelainized.

Soon, the agency was redacting or expunging documents perceived to “stereotype” Arabs or Muslims, to sport “factual errors” (such as that Islam is not peace, presumably), be in “poor taste” (perhaps a less than polite reference to The Prophet), or “lacking in precision.” (Because the “truth” is that no “authentic” Muslim theologian would ever suggest that decapitation of a non-believer could be considered a mitzvah in Islam.)

Guidelines were published to help our comical FBI “protectors” defend against “anti-Islam documents.” You can feel safe. New FBI recruits are brainwashed to believe Americans who fly Gen. R. E. Lee’s Battle Flag are as likely to erupt as Muslims.

It’s easy to see how this frightful situation saw Mohammed A. Malik, friend to Orlando mass murderer Mateen, dutifully report Mateen to the FBI, only to be dismissed. (Just another self-hating Muslim. Hug?) Faithful to Mueller’s mandate, Director Comey personally vouched for the botched investigation that facilitated slaughter in Orlando.

Both men, role models to the new guy, were clearly Eric Holder loyalists. The attorney general had declared that the FBI harbored “systemic” anti-Islam bias and needed a fix.

One such “fix” entailed ridding the FBI of heroic men like Philip Haney.

Forcibly retired from the Department of Homeland Security, the soft-spoken, demure Haney has since divulged that the Obama Administration “nixed the probe into the Southern California jihadists” (Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik and their network), eliminating a program he, Haney, had developed. The Haney database would’ve helped connect certain networks—Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement—to domestic terrorism rising. Haney’s files were destroyed and he subjected to an internal investigation for doing his patriotic duty to protect Americans.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, FBI 

For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—doesn’t feature. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.” (They were!)

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders (Rep. Ron Paul excepted) “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Indeed, especially adamant was Jefferson about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’”

For this reason, the philosophy of government articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

By “all men are created equal,” moreover, Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” was certainly not implying that all men were similarly endowed. Or, that they were naturally entitled to healthcare, education, a decent wage, amnesty, or entry into the country he and the Constitution makers bequeathed.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

But Jefferson’s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

Notwithstanding the claims of the “multicultural noise machine,” the Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon.

Our Founding Fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he so cherished, imagine how he’d view America’s contemporary cultural and political conquistadors—be they from Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond—whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus, they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

Like it or not, Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration, was sired and inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

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.

 

Yes, it has happened. A mere 23 years after the 1994 transition, in South Africa, to raw ripe democracy, six years following the publication of a wide-ranging analysis of that catastrophe, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, a Beltway libertarian think tank has convened to address the problem that is South Africa.

The reference is to a CATO “Policy Forum,” euphemized as “South Africa at a Crossroad.” One of the individuals to headline the “Forum” is Princeton Lyman, described in a CATO email tease as having “served as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa at the time of the transfer of power from white minority to black majority.” At the “Forum,” former ambassador Lyman was to discuss “America’s original hopes for a new South Africa and the extent to which America’s expectations have been left unfulfilled.” (Italics added.)

The chutzpah!

The CATO Institute’s disappointment in the South Africa the United States helped bring about is nothing compared to the depredations suffered by South Africans, due to America’s insistence that their country pass into the hands of a voracious majority. Unwise South African leaders acquiesced. Federalism was discounted. Minority rights for the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu were dismissed.

Aborted Attempts at South African Decentralization

This audacity of empire is covered in a self-explanatory chapter of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, titled “The Anglo-American Axis of Evil,” in which Lyman makes a cameo. (It’s not flattering.) From the comfort of the CATO headquarters, in 2017, the former ambassador will also be pondering whether “growing opposition will remove the African National Congress [ANC] from power.” The mindset of the DC establishment, CATO libertarians included, has it that changing the guard—replacing one strongman with another—will fix South Africa, or any other of the sites of American foreign-policy interventions.

So, what exactly did Princeton Nathan Lyman do on behalf of America in South Africa? Or, more precisely, who did he sideline?

Ronald Reagan, who favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, foresaw the chaos and carnage of an abrupt transition of power. So did the South Africans Fredrick van Zyl Slabbert, RIP (he died in May 2010), and Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The first was leader of the opposition Progressive Federal Party, who, alongside the late, intrepid Helen Suzman became the PFP’s chief critic of Nationalist policy (namely Apartheid). The second was Chief Minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). At the time, Buthelezi was the only black leader with any mass following who could act as a counter to the ANC. These men were not “lunch-pail liberals” from the West, but indigenous, classical liberal Africans—one white, one black—who understood and loved the country of their ancestors and wished to safeguard it for their posterity.

Both Buthelezi and Slabbert had applied their astringent minds to power-sharing constitutional dispensations. Both leaders were bright enough to recognize democracy for the disaster it would bring to a country as divided as theirs; they understood that “a mass-based black party that received enough votes could avoid having to enter into a coalition and could sweep aside the minority vote.” Thus, Buthelezi espoused a multi-racial, decentralized federation, in which “elites of the various groups” would “agree to share executive power and abide by a system of mutual vetoes and spheres of communal autonomy.” Paramount to Buthelezi was “the preservation of the rights of cultural groups and the protection of minorities.” Slabbert studied a “new system that entrenched individual rights, encouraged power-sharing through a grand coalition of black and white parties, and gave a veto right to minorities in crucial issues.”

Although he eventually threw his intellectual heft behind simple majority rule, in better days, Slabbert had spoken with circumspection about “unrestrained majoritarianism,” expressing the eminently educated opinion that, were majority rule to be made an inevitable corollary of South Africa’s political system, the outcomes would be severely undemocratic. It’s worth considering that even Zimbabwe for its first seven, fat years of independence, allowed “white members of parliament [to be] elected on a special roll to represent white interests.”

Washington Destroyed South African Federalism Before It Began

In his tome, Partner to History: The US Role in South Africa’s Transition to Democracy (2002), Princeton Lyman, the American Ambassador to South Africa from 1992 to 1995, records the active role Americans performed in the transition to democracy, especially in “dissuading spoilers”—the author’s pejorative, it would appear, for perfectly legitimate partners to the negotiations. One such partner, introduced above, was Buthelezi; another was military hero and former chief of the Defense Force, Constand Viljoen.

Avoid “wrecking the process”: This ultimatum was the message transmitted to the Afrikaner general and the African gentleman, loud and clear. The United States, with Lyman in the lead, failed to lean on the African National Congress (Nelson Mandela’s goons) to accommodate a federal structure. It promised merely to hold a future South African government to its “pre-election commitments, including shared power and the protection of minorities.” Until then, the skeptical Buthelezi was instructed to trust the ANC to relinquish the requisite power. Enraged, Buthelezi threatened to take his case to the American people and “spotlight” the knavish confederacy between their government and the ANC. (Then, Republicans were generally with Buthelezi, Democrats with the ANC. These days, both parties are with the ANC.) Being the man Prime Minister, F. W. de Klerk was not, Buthelezi rejected the pressure and overtures from the West. “I am utterly sick of being told how wrong I am by a world out there,” he wrote to Lyman. The dispensation being hatched was “an instrument for the annihilation of KwaZulu.”

Viljoen, who represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces, believed de Klerk had abdicated his responsibilities to this electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state. Likewise, Buthelezi, whose championship of self-determination had been denied, was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis (warriors) were every bit as fractious as Viljoen; every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden. For setting his sights on sovereignty, the Zulu royal and his following (close on twenty percent of the population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West (and by CATO’s point person).

 
• Category: History • Tags: Apartheid, South Africa 
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
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored