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



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

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

I used to have some respect for Lady Gaga. With all her pretentious Yoko Onanisms, Stefani Germanotta, Gaga’s real name, is actually a hard-working and, at times, polished singer.

But to watch Gaga, at the 61st Grammy Awards, perform a number called “Shallow” was to endure an assault on the eyes and the ears.

Legs permanently splayed like an arthritic street walker, Gaga traipsed around catatonically, attempting to head-bang, but getting disoriented. Some things are best left to a macho, metal-head guy.

Gaga’s look was not a good one. But her sound, which is what counts here, was positively terrible. Yet, Gaga—lugging microphone and mount around like a geriatric with a walker—was a highlight in what was a pornographic, cacophonous extravaganza.

Aside the gorgeous Alicia Keys , host of the 2019 Grammys, who is talented and charming, and Dolly Parton, a consummate pro—the event showcased the gutter culture that is the American music scene. The country is truly in the musical sewer.

The petulant female artists, so proud of their seized power, showcased power, all right—but it was all in the hips, the pelvis, and in thrusts and twerks of the tush. Not one transcendent, inspiringly beautiful dance move did these throngs of crass stompers execute, on the pimped stage.

Janelle Monáe? The sum total of this artiste’s musical “talent” is simulating sex on stage. “Let the v-gina monologue,” she hissed venomously at her adoring, masochistic fans, while moving her nether regions to a base, atavistic beat. Indeed, in an orifice, Miss Monáe has found the right interlocutor.

Let us stipulate for the record that this is never about lyrics. Cardi B screaming that she “likes morning sex” but that nothing in this world does she love “more than checks” is not an issue.

Put it this way, if the greatest composer ever, Johann Sebastian Bach, set his divine, god-like cantatas to the saucy, naughty lyrics of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, would I decry his sublime composition as immoral? Don’t be daft. The music of J.S. Bach would still be sublime if it were set to Cardi B’s gutter language.

My point: Cardi B doesn’t make music. The category for which she and her sisters should be nominated, if I am being charitable, is street theatre.

Incessant, asinine, genital-speak is one of the things that distinguishes these female artistes (as in “a person with artistic pretensions”) and makes them particularly repulsive. Do they not realize some things are best left veiled and mysterious?

Women of Monáe’s ilk are first to robotically protest the objectification of their sex, but are complicit in ensuring that The Act itself suffers the very same fate: sex has been made an object, a fashionable accessory, part of an empowering, emasculating life-style.

Screaming there was aplenty at Grammys No. 61. But good voices? None at all. Informed we were that the insipid Kacey Musgraves, a two-chord whiner, is what passes for country music, these days.

While I don’t much care for the country twang, for a while, country music was the closest to rock one could get. The riffs, the relative facility with the instruments, and the musicians’ manliness—amid the rapid queering of rock outfits—resembled the rock of yesteryear. But Kacey Musgraves versus the fabulous Faith Hill? Never the twain shall meet. Why, Musgraves makes me miss Sarah McLachlan and her soft-pop Lilith bosom buddies.

The only great melodies on stage, February 10, 2019, were the few achingly beautiful old songs botched by the newbies’ ugly warbling.

Yes, it’s the custom to yodel and ululate. Nobody learns to sing properly. An example of a caterwauling duo was Chloe x Halle, who absolutely mutilated the exquisite, evocative “Where Is The Love,” performed, in 1972, by Donny Hathaway and the heavenly Roberta Flack.

Again, not one memorable song did I hear, sporting a decent chord progression and some melodic variety; not one vaguely competent guitarist or instrumentalist: nothing at all. As musicians, most of the performers were objectively G-d-awful. Moving melodies, harmonic complexity, gorgeous arrangements, furious licks, superb singing and impossible time-signature fluctuations—by the sound of it, these are competencies lost.

Players (Chris Cornell – “When Bad Does Good”) sustained one or two pitches and exhibited little proficiency on any of the instruments they belabored (St. Vincent, “Masseduction“).

In all, instrumentalist these days can mostly only strum, and produce an amorphous blend—an ill-differentiated, sloppy sonic porridge. Such a structureless cacophony pleases the lazy ear because it’s repetitive, and chock-full of blurry, angst-riddled crescendos.

This deficit in skill is understandable. Why bother acquiring instrumental proficiency, instruction in composition or voice training, when a guitar is just a sexy prop? Swaying hips, a jutting pelvis, bedroom whispers or affectation and attitude (Dua Lipa, H.E.R. ) will get you all the attention and fame you crave, because these gutter-culture commodities are what’s in demand.

Which is where Cardi B comes in. “Be Careful” (an actual Cardi B number, in whose video she culturally appropriates the “Kill Bill” wedding scene). Even if you forget that a glorified lap dancer is not a musician; don’t get addicted to this woman’s audial porn.

As to H.E.R, formerly Gabi: She calls her winning album an “EP,” which stands for “extended play.” My point precisely. What my trained ear hears is aimless, skills-less, stream-of-consciousness, monotonous musical phrases, characterized by little to no harmonic resolution, other than spasms of caterwauling.

And the winner is … Give it up for technology. The tartlets I watched “sing” at the 61st Grammys would have been even more inaudible and tuneless were it not for the mighty Auto-Tune: the “holy grail of recording,” that “corrects intonation problems in vocals or solo instruments, in real time, without distortion or artifacts.”

Indeed, this T & A line-up would be reduced to even more embarrassing grunts, out-of-tune yelps, and bedroom whispers, if not for the Auto-Tune technology.

***

 
• Category: Arts/Culture • Tags: Grammys, Music 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Wall is crucial, but it’s not everything.

Caravans of human cargo are filing into the United States because … they can. U.S. law allows it, even invites it.

Here’s how: Provided you’re not a white, South African farmer—in other words, a real refugee—you may plonk yourself at an American “port of entry,” say San Ysidro in San Diego, and simply assert your right to petition the U.S. for asylum.

Then and there you claim asylum on the grounds that your race, religion, nationality or politics expose you to persecution in the country you want to leave.

Compared to a multicultural mecca like America, where faction fighting is rising, Latin American arrivals seem rather homogeneous. Dare I say they’re largely Hispanic Catholics? Dare I ask who’s persecuting them in their homelands?

By the law’s logic, Muhammadan terrorists entering the U.S. through its southwestern border should have a far better legal case for asylum than Latin Americans: “I’m from Pakistan. I’m an LGBTQ activist, fleeing Islamic oppression. You’d better believe it.”

If you can’t quite manage to locate the legally designated gate, and a “misguided” U.S. border agent attempts deportation, you may, nevertheless, “defend” yourself against U.S. law by—you’re getting the hang of it!—lodging an asylum claim.

The American lawmakers and jurists who legislate and adjudicate immigration generally have the migrant’s back, and will right away accept the “credible fear” yarn he spins. He will thus be granted face-time with a judge. Their stupidity (and venality) is also his signal to vamoose, never to be seen again.

Children are the charm, a magic amulet. Courtesy of the Flores Settlement Agreement, unaccompanied children or adults with children must be released after a brief timeout in well-appointed detention centers. (“Cages,” as Democrat ingrates call this generous gift from the put-upon American taxpayer.)

All a single male or childless couple needs to do is grab a child. Borrow one if there isn’t an urchin handy, and drag him along for the trip. However hirsute and ink-covered your juvenile is; he cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.

Next, “the child” and his adopted Caravan “family” (or predatory parent) rest up in detention, fill in asylum applications and are subsequently cut loose in the U.S. with a nod and wink. (“Come back for your court hearing, amigos, know what I mean? Grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more,” as the old Monty Python skit goes.)

Ludicrous? American lawmakers—incontestable majorities on the Republican side included—don’t think so. Why else would they have kept these aberrant, catch-and-release, mickey-mouse laws in place?!

U.S. legislators and jurists have crafted laws for Americans which, in another time and era, would have resulted in charges of treason. (Perhaps Special Counsel Robert Mueller can make himself useful: Investigate the special interests colluding in the immigration racket.)

If this is confusing, here’s the magic maxim our immigration scofflaw should follow: Just do it. Cross illegally. All roads lead to Rome—to the creation of an immutable reality on the ground: By and large, illegal migrants get to stay in the U.S., even though fewer than 10 percent of asylum applications are officially approved.

“If there is no Wall, there is no Security,” said President Donald Trump on one of the few reliable news outlets he has remaining: POTUS’ Twitter account.

Too true. Regrettably, The Law is in even worse shape than the invisible Wall, if that’s at all possible.

Despite two years without any serious political opposition, the Republicans did near to nothing to end the legal limbo described.

In the early halcyon days of 2017, Republicans floated the RAISE ACT, “Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act.” It was quickly coffined.

Other than Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, nobody defended or haggled for The Act with any vigor, during the Republican dominance on Capitol Hill, from 2017 till 2019.

Back in 2017, Camarota had raised hell for RAISE:

The “Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment,” he argued, would have slashed family reunification immigration by 50 percent—from 11 million people every decade to 5 or 6 million—still a deluge—providing a much-needed respite for economically poor Americans (and for Americans who feel like aliens in their own country).

Seventy percent of legal immigrants enter the U.S. through the family reunification visa. No consideration is given to their skill, education or the needs of the American economy. Roughly half of the legal intake is lacking in any useful skills and without so much as a high-school education. Fifty percent of households headed by legal immigrants access one or more of the major welfare programs.

At current levels, legal immigration suppresses American wages, especially at the bottom rungs of the labor market, and constitutes, inarguably and overall, a fiscal drain.

America’s poor are so very poor, pleaded Camarota on behalf of The Forgotten American. You’d be giving them a raise by lowering levels of legal immigration.

From the missed opportunity of 2017, we fast forward to the border, in 2019. Yes, there is crisis on the border. Today, that “crisis” is west of Eagle Pass, in Texas. Tomorrow it’s in your neighborhoods.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

WHEN A CATHOLIC BISHOP, Roger Joseph Foys, saw a Catholic boy with a beatific smile, standing athwart an agitated, Amerindian elder and smiling in that pacifist, sweetly Christian way—he and the Diocese of Covington simply had to condemned the kid. Who else? What choice did a man of the cloth have?

The same absurdity typified the reaction of the lickspittle liberal mayor of Covington, Joe Meyer. “Appalling,” he called Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, the boy implicated in that “daring” standoff, on the National Mall, in D.C.

Had not philosophical giants like Cardi B (once a stripper, now a rapper, always illiterate) and Alyssa Milano (illiterate starlet) shown us the way?

Indeed. “The red MAGA hat is the new white hood” was Milano’s catechism. She went on to implicate “white boys’ lack of empathy [toward] the peoples of the world [in] the destruction of humanity.” (Only 12 years to go, predicts Comrade Ocasio-Cortez.)

The camera pans out to reveal Milano’s empathy oozing non-white men, also on the scene. These big and burly bullies are the Black Hebrew Israelites. Imagine what they’d have done to young boys like Nick Sandmann and his friends, if the steps of the Lincoln Memorial were not teaming with spectators and stakeholders.

But since the Memorial was swarming with demonstrators—some for the life of the unborn and others for the rights of the indigenous—the Black Hebrew Israelites stuck to hate-filled speech: “Child-molesting incest babies, future school-shooters, dirty, racist crackers,” hollered Alissa Milano’s home-team.

“The biggest terrorist on the face of the earth is the pale-faced man, woman and child.” The “Black Hebrew” hate group was speaking to the young, fragile-looking, pale patriarchy.

Hard on the heels of the “Black Hebrews” came actress Cher: “No one is safe in Trump’s America unless’ they’re white or wearing a MAGA hat.”

Another classy creature—she poses as a comedic writer for “Saturday Night Live”—promised sexual favors to “anyone who manages to punch that MAGA kid in the face.”

CNN’s resident philosopher, Reza Aslan, wanted to know if anyone had “ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s [sic].” (His own, perhaps?)

Never original, South African expat Trevor Noah, a privileged celebrity who took “The Daily Show” from funny to facile, riffed on the same theme: “Everyone ‘wants to punch that kid.”

Some regret for joining a mob that went after minors was expressed by the producer of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show.” “Let’s focus on shitty adults turning out shitty kids,” was his sage suggestion.

The boors of National Review checked Ana Navarro’s Twitter feed and hastened to match her gratuitous hatred for the Covington kids. The gaseous Navarro is a CNN Republican identity-politics activist, a hand-me-down from one of John McCain’s failed campaigns.

On the “Today” show, inquisitor Savannah Guthrie peered down at Nick Sandmann, a mere slip of a boy, with studied contempt. In her grave, vocal-fry tones she inquired: “Do you feel like [cringe phrase] you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own faults?”

Does this lily-white lady not know any young boys like Nick?

Poor child, so full of hope and faith. With his big blue eyes and rosy cheeks, Nick Sandmann imagined he was safe, so long as he did the right thing. But then Sandmann discovered he was hated for something he couldn’t right: the color of his skin. And while formative figures around him will hide this fact—for his sake, let us hope young Mr. Sandmann remains hip to it.

And it’s not that Sandmann was guilty of the Orwellian “facecrime”—“wearing an improper expression on your face” in the Planned Society. Toxic liberalism, socialism, cultural Marxism, Trump Derangement Syndrome: None of these provides a complete explanation for the venom unleashed on the Covington kid.

Reducing what these lads endured to “the culture wars” conservative talking points is criminal when the pathology, racism, is plain to see and so very dangerous, if denied.

Failing to pinpoint the white-hot hatred of whites percolating throughout America is to endanger these children, to leave them helpless in the face of unadulterated, dangerous, near-institutionalized hatred.

Beautifully spoken and highly intelligent, the Nick Sandmanns of America are of a culture and color that dare not speak its name.

Their culture, when practiced, is polite to a fault and passive. They exude Christian piety, which had been willfully mischaracterized as smugness by the aggressive, well-oiled, “multicultural noise machine” that monopolizes discourse.

An Indian elder encroached on Sandmann’s personal space and got in his face. But religious piety and a good upbringing prevailed, resulting in that impossible-to-mistake, passive visual that stuck in the craw of bad people.

Anglo-American manly culture is waning fast. But its quiet, steely dignity still lives in this boy’s countenance, so passive and pure in the face of so much hysteria and malice.

Whether you watched the first 3:45 seconds of the film, or sat through two hours of it—there was never any hidden evidence of wrongdoing to excavate.

The Covington conflagration was never about “due process” denied or about a virulent and viral social- and news media that fakes the news, and rushes to judgement without the facts.

After all, the segment being discussed has a static quality to it. It depicts a noble, not ignoble, reality; one that should be impossible to misconstrue—unless you are part of the corrupt, morally inverse and perverse universe inhabited by America’s cultural cognoscenti.

Pretend those Covington boys were black—conservative, Catholic, pro-life, pro-Trump, black young men, who welcomed with beatific smiles the in-your-face, agitated drumming of an elder Indian. You just know that, were this the case, these black youths would have been praised to the skies.

As they should.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

Speaking recently to Fox News’ Arthel Neville, Andrew Napolitano, also of Fox News, repeated old feminist canards about sexual assault against women being an under-reported, ever-present crime in American society.

The violence-against-women industry in North America—you know, the one-in-four-women-are-assaulted rot—is propped up by the sub-science or pseudoscience of violence-against-women statistics.

In particular, violence-against-women surveys are based on inflated numbers nobody questions; numbers the advocates bandy about and the politicians rely on when drafting policy and plumping for resources.

I’m thinking of the original 1993 StatsCan Violence Against Women survey, and its preposterous statistical offshoots, which, in turn, were spinoffs of the American violence-against-women statistical sisterhood. Canada follows America’s lead.

Anyone who’s studied research methodology at a good school (check) knows that research is shaped by the researcher’s hypothesis. Duly, the corpus of violence-against-women statistics reflects an exclusive ideological focus on female victimization. It thus consists of single sex surveys—never two sex surveys—with no input from men, to the exclusion of violence females incur from other females, or acts of violence women commit against the man in the relationship.

Developed at the height of the “war against women” moral panic, these foundational questionnaires are the product of a collaboration with advocacy groups and feminist stakeholders, and are thus fraught with problems of unrepresentative samples, lack of corroboration, a reliance on anecdotes, a use of over inclusive survey questions and, to charitably understate the problem, the broadest definition of assault.

There’s a lot that goes into skewing data.

The “statistical myths” that pervade the rape-is-rampant claims, states libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy, start with “deeply biased researchers,” who proceed invariably from a “false premise or assumption,” who then use biased and small samples whose selection, in turn, is further slanted by paying participants.

Surveys are, of course, inherently dodgy. The general pitfalls of survey methodology, such as asking leading questions, are legion.

In the realm of “never admit there is sound contradicting evidence,” this tidbit from McElroy is particularly interesting:

“The opening sentence of the [University of North Dakota] ‘study’ states that, ‘Federal data estimate that about one in five women becomes the victim of sexual assault while in college, most of which is committed by assailants known to the victim’ (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 2012). [Yet] the 1-in-5 figure has been exhaustively debunked for many months and should be rendered unresurrectable by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report (12/14) that found the actual rate of rape to be 0.61 percent per year – or 6.1 per 1,000 students.”

Shoring-up the promiscuous statistics yielded in the assorted surveys, moreover, is a reliance on prevalence figures. When claims-makers say a third of all women have been assaulted in their lifetime, they refer to the prevalence of assault over a lifetime, instead of the incidence of assault over, say, a 12-month period, that being approximately 3 percent.

Indeed, lifetime rates inflate outcomes considerably and make for good copy. One wonders, however, what existential meaning can be attached to a report that once in an entire lifetime someone a woman knew touched her knee without consent? There must be, on the other hand, some existential significance to the fact that women continue to live longer than men, that many more young men commit suicide, are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to get another job, and that men are infinitely more likely to suffer potentially life-destroying industrial accidents.

On a lighter note: One of the “intellectual” cornerstones of the violence-against-women industry is the faulty premise of a continuum of violence along which all male actions must be construed. Certainly, sexual innuendo the gender feminist sees as a form of violence against women, which is why she’ll get so exercised over the occasional caustic comment (or off-color joke) uttered by an otherwise mild-mannered man.

President Trump, of course, is no mild-mannered man. So, when he alluded to his svelte wife’s preference for salads—he was guilty of big-time sexism. (Or, something.) And you never know where a joke can go.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

THE topic: American lives snuffed out by illegal aliens.

The forum: The ubiquitous, Fox News, dual-perspective panel that never fails to dim debate.

Arguing in favor of letting potential killers come: Geraldo Rivera, a former daytime talk-show, bosom buddy of Sean Hannity, and a permanent fixture on Fox.

The Rivera “argument”: That some criminal aliens kill is incidental and immaterial to their status as uninvited, unvetted interlopers.

Here are some of the stories Geraldo dismisses as anecdotes sensationalized:

The latest in a string of bereaved parents to appear on TV are the parents of young Pierce Corcoran, 22, killed by Franco Cambrany Francisco-Eduardo (44), recipient of the U.S. Professional Drunk-Driver Immigration Visa. And in 2012, a man named Ramon Hernandez took the tiniest of victims. Dimitri Smith, of blessed memory, was killed in-utero by this recipient of the same visa. The deceased preemie was shown on CNN, in 2012, being held for the last time by young mother Aileen Smith, before being laid to rest.

“In the last two years,” said a solemn President Trump, in his Jan. 8 address from the Oval Office, “ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”

It seems crystal clear that, were it not for Geraldo’s plucky, uninvited visitors—more American than a lot of Americans, sneered Comrade Ocasio-Cortez—there would likely be 100,000 fewer assaults in America, 30,000 fewer sex crimes in America, and 4,000 fewer murders in America.

It seems perfectly clear that young Pierce Corcoran would be alive, if not for a bad hombre who had no business being in the country.

Clear to you and me, but not to “brother” Rivera (Mr. Hannity’s appellation for this idiot).

With the same logical illiteracy that has been given sanctuary and sinecure on Fox News, Mr. Rivera proceeded to make his “case”:

“I would feel equally pained,” he roared, “were the killer Irish, Italian, Puerto Ricans or Jewish, young or old.”

Could a killer illegal alien be “Irish, Italian, Puerto Ricans or Jewish, old or young”? Certainly. But these categories are irrelevant and superfluous to the central point. Rivera is mixing it up; mixing logical categories to the point of moral incoherence.

This studied stupidity led Rivera, in short succession, to his next point: American lives lost and recounted “sensationally” on television were “anecdotes.”

To be charitable, Geraldo here is following his own breaking-eggs-for-omelets argument—and it is that, since the murderers are statistical outliers, the murders they commit are the exception to the rule in what is an exceptional immigrant community.

The logic doesn’t add up, but the numbers of the dead do—each life lost is precious. Each loss comes with a world of hurt that never heals.

Death by illegal alien is not about group crime aggregates, as Geraldo contends. (In particular, his contention that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, therefore, let them come.)

Wrong. Death by illegal alien is about this life-cherishing, immutable logic:

If alien X HAD BEEN REMOVED from the U.S., as the law dictates, innocent American Y WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY.

What Geraldo continues to claim is that the value of the community from which alien X hails cancels out the value of the life of Y, an innocent, American individual. The same goes for the 4000 lives lost and counted by the president.

My guess? If the individuals snuffed out by illegal aliens belonged to Geraldo Rivera, Rivera would lose his callous calculus.

The argument made by open-immigration fundamentalists, left and establishment right—from Tamar Jacoby to Geraldo Rivera—is that the illegality of the perp is irrelevant to the crime.

These advocates have routinely dismissed as redundant to the facts of the case the illegal status of “Carlos Martinelly-Montano, 23, whose Aug. 1 collision, in 2011, in Prince William, seriously injured two Benedictine nuns and killed a third, Sister Denise Mosier, 66, all of Richmond.”

Again: For this kind of conceit to fly, open-border fetishists would have to show that had Bob Clark’s killer (whose identity is still zealously guarded by media) been deported or jailed, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate at the hands of another drunk driver (murderer, child molester, etc.)—a truly fanciful idea.

In case you don’t know, Bob Clark directed one of the most delightful, and most American, films ever made, “A Christmas Story.” He and his 24-year-old son would probably be alive today if not for a drunk, unlicensed, illegal alien careening down Pacific Coast Highway

As to Geraldo. He has been assaulting sensibilities for over a decade on the same Fox News shows, having modified his “argument” only slightly over time.

“It’s not an illegal alien story; it’s a drunk driving story,” he once asserted on “The Factor,” following the slaying of an innocent American in an oh-so familiar way.

Then as now, Geraldo was serious, although, then as now, he should not be taken seriously.

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

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

Muslim men murder two European women backpacking across a Morocco mountain range and, right away pundits holler, “ISIS, Jihad, extremism, terrorism.”

Likewise misleading are the leads from the intelligence authorities, who seem to confirm that, but for “ISIS, Jihad, extremism, terrorism”—it would be perfectly safe to adopt the improvident habit embraced by the deceased and many young ladies like them:

Wander happily all over the world in the belief that the world is their oyster.

To be sure, Jihad was likely part of the predatory behavior involved in the decapitation of the two young Scandinavian lovelies, in Morocco.

But while potent, Jihad—and the Brownie points accrued for offing infidels—is not the main incentive in operation here.

Freud’s Pleasure Principle is—that atavistic, sexual pleasure derived by predatory males, when stalking and subduing a woman.

You adopt the argument of feminism when you willfully ignore sex, gender, and the man-woman disparities in crimes involving these young, attractive women.

Like many an agenda-driven pundit, the authorities are only too pleased to compartmentalize and abstract causality. They’ll tell you that Islamists, not Muslim men practicing Islam, are implicated in violence against women. They’ll tell you that a lofty ideology, not ordinary sex, was the motive for murdering Maren Ueland, aged 28, and Louisa Jespersen, aged 24. On and on.

It’s up to formative figures like parents to counter the crazies—for those who ignore the power differential that comes with biological differences are crazy. What’s worse, these crazies are getting the kids killed.

So, yes, Jihad. But Jihad is secondary to the probable sexual subjugation to which these mindless young women would have been subjected, as they traipsed around the Muslim Maghreb defenseless.

Please, parents and pedagogues, start teaching young girls that “Beauty and the Beast” is a fantasy; that the world, certainly the Third World, is not their oyster; that women can get raped, even killed, if they Kumbaya alone around the world. Or, around the country, for that matter.

The lesson is universal.

Before being abducted, raped and killed by stalker Jesse Matthew, in September of 2014, Hannah Graham drew the attention of this predator by wandering about alone, late at night, in Charlottesville, Virginia, her midriff so bare as to render her crotch almost visible. In surveillance footage, Ms. Graham can be seen swaying as though tipsy.

Invariably, the grief-struck parents of many a young woman like poor Hannah will demur, “She died the way she lived; free.” No: Ms. Graham and too many girls like her—if one is to go by crime documentaries such as “Investigation Discovery”—die horrible, futile deaths. This is likely because these young women are raised in a society that refuses to recognize the limits imposed by biology, preferring to teach them that their beauty, desirability and fragility place no impediments on their liberty to live la vida loca.

Progressive-minded parents are culpable in many ways for sending their girls into the maw of hell. Canadian Rebecca Jane Middleton was but 17 when she was packed off to Bermuda by her starry-eyed parents for a “trip of a lifetime.”

There, Ms. Middleton was tortured, sodomized, gang raped and then stabbed 35 times. Deceptively, the film about Jane’s ghastly demise is grouped in an “Investigation Discovery” series called “Murder in Paradise.”

Bermuda is no “paradise.” It is one of the most dangerous spots in the world, rated by American and British crime advisories as having “a medium-high crime rate.”

You don’t send your gorgeous, gormless (by definition) teenager to such a place, having taught her that the world is one big, extended family, and that to walk the streets of Mogadishu is no different than to walk the streets of Montreal. For she will “accept rides on motorcycles” from natural-born predators, as poor Miss Middleton did.

And again. In October of 2015, a young Canadian, Audrey Carey, was beaten to death in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. What was she up to? She “was on her first solo backpacking trip,” as relatives of Ms. Carey lamented. It was also her last. Carey had planned on day tripping through Europe, too.

A woman should not be backpacking alone through nature reserves, never mind across continents. Is she free to do so? Most certainly. Should she do so? Most certainly not.

American and European parents are universally blasé about their kids, girls especially. They’re also stupendously naïve, sending precious progeny, during their most foolish years, to dangerous spots around the world, to soak in the world, armed with nothing but a sweet smile and delusions about the goodness and sameness of human nature.

The grisly murder of the two girls hiking in Morocco was as predictable as the 2017 rape and killing of an Irish lass, Danielle McLaughlin (28), who was trekking solo across India. And if a calamity is predictable it is also preventable.

Ilana Mercerhas been writing a weekly,paleolibertarian columnsince 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed(June, 2016). She’s onTwitter, Facebook,Gab&YouTube

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Feminism, Political Correctness 
A “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism
🔊 Listen RSS

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well. Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism?

ILANA MERCER: CATO’s political thought is left-libertarianism. I call it “lite libertarianism.” Lite libertarians equate liberty with abstract, lofty ideas, which—against all evidence, historic and other—purport to work magically when applied to every individual in the world.

You can say that the crucial difference between lite libertarians and the Right kind is that, to the former, the idea of liberty is propositional–a value, an idea that’s untethered from the realities of history, hierarchy, biology, tradition, religion, culture, values.

Bluntly put, the principles of American freedoms were not developed by progressive, libertine ladies, marching in pussy dunce caps; by the suffragettes or the LGBTQ community and their program. Are those significant facts? You bet!

The garden variety libertarian, CATO and Reason types, see liberty as a shared, universal quest. They appear to think that inside every Afghani or Yemeni or Iraqi is a Jeffersonian waiting to break free.

In essence, this left-libertarianism is one that underplays, underestimates or just plain refuses to recognize what I just referred to as “liberty’s civilizational dimension.”

Notice how similar are left-libertarians to neoconservatives in the tendencies just described.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Lite libertarians also tend to blame governments, principally, less so the individual, for barbarism in certain parts of the world. Your regular libertarian’s attitude to personal wrongdoing often runs to what I’ve characterized as a form of social determinism: “The state made me do it.”

In other words, if for the sins of man the left is inclined to blame society; a lot of libertarians fall into the same methodological error when they implicate the State. The conservatively minded paleolibertarian will recognize humanity’s innate, biblical capacity for evil.

Both factions (left-libertarians and neoconservatives) are short on punishment, individual responsibility and agency, all preconditions for ordered liberty.

RACISM. And this is vitally important: A lot of establishment libertarians have joined the neoconservative and neoliberal establishments in the habit of sniffing out racists. Sniffing out racists is an absolute no-no for any and all self-respecting libertarians.

True libertarians don’t, or should not, prosecute thought crimes or persecute thought “criminals.” Period.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Which conservative thinkers resonate most with your beliefs?

ILANA MERCER: John Roanoke, John Calhoun, Edmond Burke, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov, Felix Morley, James Burnham (once a leftist), Paul Gottfried, Clyde Wilson, Samuel P. Huntington.

This interview was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018

 
🔊 Listen RSS

In itself, criminal justice reform for non-violent offenders is not anathema to Trump’s libertarian supporters (check).

For what it symbolizes in the broader political context, however, the passing of the First Step Act—as the criminal justice reform bill is called—is a bit of an abomination.

Good or bad, the First Step Act is Jared Kushner’s baby. And Kushner, Trump’s liberal son-in-law, should not be having legislative coups!

Yes, Jared and Ivanka are on a tear. The midterm congressional elections of President Trump’s first-term have culminated in a legislative victory for an anemic man, who provides a perfect peg on which to hang the forceful first daughter’s ambition.

In no time at all have Jared and Ivanka Trump moved to consolidate power. This, as intellects like Steven Bannon and Stephen Miller were either fired, or confined to the basement, so to speak.

Today, Bannon is just a flinty glint in Ivanka’s eyes. But by January, 2017, the president’s former White House chief strategist had already “assembled a list of more than 200 executive orders to issue in the first 100 days. The very first EO, in his view, had to be a crackdown on immigration. After all, it was one of Trump’s core campaign promises.” So said Bannon to Michael Wolff, author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

Many a pundit has suggested that Trump give a kick-ass rah-rah address to explain immigration to the nation.

Nonsense on stilts. The Make America Great Again (S.O.S.) agenda needed to be explained daily and repetitively by someone with a brain. It should have been MAGA every morning with Steve Miller, or Gen. John Kelly or Kirstjen Nielsen. Instead, we got stumblebum Sarah Huckabee issuing a meek, meandering daily apologia.

About that promise to put in place only “the best of people”: Ice princess Kirstjen Nielsen is super smart with a cool temperament and looks to match. Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen had been brought into the Trump Administration by retired United States Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, formerly White House chief of staff. Nielsen might not be optimal in her current position. But she would’ve made a great MAGA mouthpiece.

It’s quite clear that President Trump’s promise to hire only “the best” ought to have begun with firing The Family. Instead, Mr. Kushner‘s national security portfolio has expanded in a manner incommensurate with his skills. It now includes, I believe, China, Mexico, Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The same can be said of Ivanka, who was soon briefing the South Korean president on sanctions against North Korea. That Ivanka lacked a permanent security clearance was the least of the country’s worries, given Steve Bannon’s assessment of her cerebral acuity: “as dumb as a brick”.

Alas, political connections ensured that two branding experts beat Braveheart Bannon of the mighty Breitbart.com! “’The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” he lamented, in August of 2017.

If Breitbart.com is to be believed—and it should—Ivanka was the one to give Bannon the boot (or, rather, the Choo): “Trump’s daughter Ivanka pushed Bannon out because of his ‘far-right views’ clashing with her [recently acquired] Jewish faith.” (Funny that, because my own rightist views clash not at all with my Jewish faith.)

“Jarvanka” (the Jared-Ivanka organism) were also said to have orchestrated the ousting of the last of the old MAGA Guard, John Kelly, aforementioned, a most excellent man. Kelly took his role as chief of staff seriously. He was a hardliner who limited Ivanka’s access to Pater.

One of Trump’s superb personnel choices, Kelly’s fate, however, was sealed when he stated how sick-and-tired he was of the first daughter “playing government.” The Goldman-Sachs wing of the White House, commandeered by the Kushners, had always wished him away. So, Kelly got the Choo, too.
Of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, archconservative Heather Mac Donald observed the following: Sessions was “the only member of the Trump administration who was absolutely staunch in speaking up for the right of Americans to determine what the character of their country should be.”

It takes a strong woman (Mac Donald) to recognize a scheming one. Mac Donald has recently expressed “‘no confidence’ that the president will stop being advised by his daughter, Ivanka Trump, on the issue of immigration.”

Following the midterms, the not-so-sleepy sleeper cell of leftist social climbers in the Trump administration moved to pack the court. It was out with the old (Kelly and Sessions), and in with the Nauert, the reference being to the “nomination [to the UN] of former Fox anchor and State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert.”

Again, the reason for selecting Ms. Nauert, a former “Fox & Friends” host, was that she is “telegenic.” The order came from “Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner [ who declared Nauert] ‘a favorite and pushed for her selection.’”

Telegenic, too, is 36-year-old Nick Ayers. He was slated to replace Gen. Kelly. Why? Because he “had the endorsements of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.”

It so happened that Ayers chose not to play. A trial balloon was quickly floated, but was punctured just as fast. The idea that Jared would be chief of staff was just too preposterous. But oh, the audacity of that fleeting experiment!

So, here we are. The promised land (America) is without the promised Wall. But, liberal legislation in hand, the “Honorable” Kushners (so listed) are off to hobnob at the World Economic Forum in Davos, in January of 2019.

First Lady Melania has been shoved aside, or ceremonially shivved, to use prison parlance. The first couple in-waiting will get to press flesh with local and global elites, while flashing their liberal credentials: criminal justice reform.

Oh how fun it is to schmooze the gilded globalists, rather than to woo Trump voters.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used to trace outbreaks to Patient Zero, the index case—the first patient to get, then transmit, a disease. Is this government agency doing due diligence in the cases of the polio-like paralysis infecting hundreds of America’s kids?

By the dictionary’s telling, epidemiology is “the branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations.”

By WND’s telling, “the diagnosis of the first cases of AFM, acute flaccid myelitis, in 2014,” coincided with the dispersal of thousands of Central American children among U.S. school children. More conspicuous at that time “was an outbreak of a deadly respiratory illness” that put hundreds of America’s children in intensive care. “Both types of symptoms can probably be caused by enterovirus D68, which happens to be endemic in Central America,” opines Dr. Jane Orient.

Are the state’s epidemiologists—whose job it is to trace and terminate outbreaks of contagious diseases—following these connections?

An outbreak necessitates the tracing of “Patient Zero,” the “single individual who bears the unknowing responsibility for having introduced the disease” to a certain population.

The same taxpayer-funded medical sleuths impressively tracked down the index case in the AIDS epidemic in North America. As documented in the late Randy Shilts’ And the Band Played On, he was Gaetan Dugas, a dashing, promiscuous, Canadian flight attendant, who had had approximately 1,000 sexual partners.

Although the CDC has provided a perfunctory status-update of its AFM Investigation, the agency’s mention of a possible genetic etiology for Poliomyelitis, a dreadful, highly infectious viral disease, is bizarre. It reads like a cop-out.

What next? Like the legendary Lancet has done, can we expect the CDC to diagnose “right-wing politics” with folly and fervency for daring to correlate “migration to infection”?

Lest you worried that “the nation’s health protection agency” was putting America First, the CDC boast s of making strides, between January 2017 and September 2018, “Toward Poliomyelitis Eradication”—in Pakistan. (I guess CDC could argue that lots of Pakistanis will end up in the U.S., “looking for a better life.”)

In any event, along for the ride with the thousands of migrants poised to pour into the U.S. from Central America is a healthy array of microbes: measles, Chagas disease, hepatitis and much more. Diversity, baby.

According to Tijuana’s Health Department, via Fox News, 60 percent of the migrants currently encamped on the U.S. border carry respiratory infections. There are, moreover, confirmed cases of tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, chickenpox, and skin infections galore, in addition to lice—these “serve as vectors of diseases like typhus.”

Stateside, “public health experts across the Southwest have documented rises in drug-resistant TB and dengue fever. In June,” says investigative journalist Michelle Malkin, “Australian public health researchers reported that ‘scabies, long considered a disease of the past in the developed world,’ is back. The scientists fingered “mass global migration as a leading factor, noting scabies outbreaks among refugees to the European Union and along America’s southern border.”

On the Continent—in Germany, in particular—“federal epidemiologists reported that since opening the floodgates to migrants in 2015, data show ‘increased incidences … of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.”

First in the liberty community to decry the health hazards from the unfettered flow of migrants across the 1,940-mile-long border with Mexico was dazzling Randian scholar and patriot, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq.

Coupled with her health-care policy expertise, Dr. Cosman was an avid outdoorsman and marksman who regularly volunteered to patrol the border with the San Diego County Sheriff’s agents.

In a 2005, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons paper, “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine,” Cosman addressed the effects on the U.S. health system of the bleeding Southwestern border.
TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of all new TB cases to foreign born people who have up to eight times higher incidence. Apparently, 66 percent of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

Chagas, cautioned Cosman, is yet another dread disease that has been imported from Latin America and has infiltrated America’s blood supply. “Chagas affects blood transfusions and transplanted organs. No cure exists. Hundreds of blood recipients may be silently infected. After 10 to 20 years, up to 30 percent will die when their hearts or intestines, enlarged and weakened by Chagas, burst.”

Thousands of cases of leprosy over the past few decades may seem negligible, but having been eradicated in the U.S, “leprosy, a scourge in Biblical days and in medieval Europe,” is back. By the reluctant admission of the New York Times, it was brought over from Asia and Latin America.

Other diseases with similar origins and vectors of transmission are dengue fever, polio, malaria, Kawasaki disease, intestinal parasites, and the ghastly brain worm, cysticercosis, which, “in the U.S, is an imported disease … found in immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America.”

To qualify for lawful permanent residency, this legal immigrant, now a citizen of the United States, was screened thoroughly for communicable diseases. The American government knows of every relevant antigen and antibody that courses through my veins.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

In the United States, even Customs and Border Protection apologizes for doing its job. CBP is supposed to “protects the public from dangerous people and materials attempting to cross the border …”

On one of the networks that wants all people, dangerous or not, to cross the southern border into the U.S., if they so desire, a CBP officer was bending over backwards to appear like a “global force for good.” (That, believe it or not, was the U.S. Navy’s motto, between 2009 and 2015!)

Tear-gassing rubble-rousing migrants, who were charging his officers and breaching the U.S.-Mexico border, was in the service of protecting … the migrants, especially The Children. Perhaps that’s in the oath of office a CBP officer takes?

Law enforcement officers entrusted with the safety of the American people struggle to articulate pride in executing their mandate. Attached to the expected self-loathing repartee is, invariably, a declaration of loyalties to The World. (Of a piece with this confused loyalty is the typical argument made by the typical TV talker: Illegal immigration must be stopped, so as to … save migrants from the journey’s depredations.)

It’s instructive to contrast the apologetics around defending the U.S. border and the American people with the absence of apologies on Israel’s borders.

In May this year, “Tens of thousands of Palestinians massed near Gaza’s border fence, threatening to ‘return’ to the lands their forefathers lost when Israel was created in 1948.” They wanted in.

Israeli soldiers responded not with tear gas, but with bullets. They killed over 60 protesters who threatened to breach the border. The number has since risen to 120.

Most of us, this writer included, would condemn such excessive force.

Yet surprisingly, the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly—pondered but briefly and nonchalantly about Israel’s army having used excessive force, concluding almost callously: “Every state has a right to defend its borders.”

Come again?!

This from the very same editorialists who never tire of protesting any disruption in the holy quest of weary columns of Christ-like caravanners, planning to defy the U.S. government, by illegally entering the United States of America.

Moreover, calmly and with no histrionics does the Economist report, matter-of-fact, that “Any Palestinian, even a farmer, coming within 300 meters of the fence [with Gaza] is liable to be shot.”

And while the august magazine has declaimed dutifully that “Israel must answer for the deaths in Gaza,” its writers have also evinced a good deal of impatience with the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), stating: “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”

In other words, grow up. The stone throwing was cute when your “Struggle” was in its infancy.

Go figure.

For the longest time, the world raged about Israel’s refusal to accept the necessity for its citizens to be blown to bits or be overrun demographically (by people who’re “only seeking a better life” for themselves and their posterity).

Israel paid no attention to the liberal lunatics aligned against its oft-excessive habit of defending its citizenry’s rights.

In fact, the Jewish State has recently gone one better. Israel has automated the process of defense, creating a set of “auto kill-zones” “by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.”

Bluntly put, Israel has deployed gizmos to Gaza; “Robo-Snipers” instead of flesh-and-blood men and women.

The nation’s “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” are still deployed to the front—but virtually. They sit at a safe distance “behind computer screens,” waiting on “approval by a commanding officer” before “pushing the kill button.”

The IDF Southern Command’s rules of engagement along the Gaza fence are, shall we say, particularly aggressive.

Oh, it’s still pro forma for the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to open every one of their sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel’s actions on its borders and everywhere else.

But even the U.N., a cesspit of venality and stupidity, has gotten the message over the decades. And it is this:

Israel’s army is not going to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs, thereby not committing the crime of using excessive force.

Israel’s action on its borders is not unlike action taken by the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of borders not our own.

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

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration, Israel/Palestine 
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.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored