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

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Antifa Apartheid Barack Obama Bernie Sanders Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Boers Britain Charlie Hebdo CIA Civil War Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Coronavirus Deep State Democratic Party Disease Donald Trump Economics FBI Feminism Floyd Riots 2020 Foreign Policy Free Trade Guns H1-B Visas Hillary Clinton History Ideology Illegal Immigration Immigration Iraq War ISIS Islam Israel Israel/Palestine Ivanka John McCain Libertarianism Mass Shootings Muslims Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Republican Party Republicans Robert Mueller Russia Silicon Valley South Africa Supreme Court Terrorism Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Antiracism Arts/Letters Benghazi Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Canada Catholic Church Censorship Children Chile China Christianity Christmas Civil Liberties Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conspiracy Theories Corruption Criminality Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Democracy Dinesh D'Souza Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Fake News Ferguson Shooting Football France Free Market Gay Marriage George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Grammys Gun Control Harvey Weinstein Health Care Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Homelessness Housing Ilana Mercer Ilhan Omar Independence Day Inequality Iran Iraq Islamic Jihad Israel Lobby James Comey Jared Kushner Jews John Calhoun Justice Kamala Harris Kirstjen Nielsen Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Lawsuit LGBT Liberalism Libya Lindsey Graham Looting Marco Rubio Massacre In Nice McCain/POW Meghan Markle Megyn Kelly Mencken Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Movies Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Music Muslim Muslim Ban Native Americans Neoliberalism Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Prince Harry Propaganda Public Schools Qassem Soleimani Race And Crime Race/Crime Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Racism Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Robert Mugabe Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Slavery Socialism SPLC Syria Taxes Tech Technology Texas The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Americans White Death White Guilt 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

The “systemic racism” refrain is a meaningless abstraction.

Operationalize the nebulous abstraction that is “systemic racism,” or get out of my face!

To concretize a variable, it must be cast in empirical, measurable terms, the opaque “racism” abstraction being one variable (to use statistical nomenclature).

Until you have meticulously applied research methodology to statistically operationalize this inchoate thing called “racism”—systemic or other—it remains nothing but a thought “crime”:

Impolite and impolitic thoughts, spoken, written or preached.

Thought crimes are nobody’s business in a free society. (By logical extension, America is not a free society.)

The law already mandates that people of all races be treated equally under its protection. The law, then, is not the problem, logic is. In particular, the logical error of reasoning backward.

“Backward reasoning, expounded by mystery author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle through his famous fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes,” writes Dr. Thomas Young, “applies with reasonable certainty when only one plausible explanation for the … evidence exists.”

Systemic racism is most certainly not “the only plausible explanation” for the lag in the fortunes of African-Americans, although, as it stands, systemic racism is inferred solely from one single fact: In aggregate, African-Americans trail behind whites in assorted academic and socio-economic indices and achievements.

This logical error is the central tenet of preferential treatment—affirmative action, and assorted quotas and set-aside edicts and policies.

According to diversity doxology, justice is achieved only when racial and ethnic groups are reflected in academia and in the professions in proportion to their presence in the larger population. On indices of economic well-being, the same egalitarian outcomes are expected.

Equalizing individual and inter-group outcomes, however, is an impossibility, considering that it is axiomatically and self-evidently true to say that such differences have existed since the dawn of time.

Nevertheless, absent such wealth egalitarianism and proportional representation in the professions, the walking wounded who control America’s cultural discourse have concluded that racism, systemic or other, reigns.

The systemic racism non sequitur is even harder to sustain when considering the Asian minority, a minority that has had its own historical hardships. In professions and academic pursuits where mathematical precocity is a factor, Asians are overrepresented, consistently outperforming whites. If proportional underrepresentation signals oppression, then overrepresentation, likewise, must reflect an unfair advantage.

And if social justice requires that the State and corporate America act as social and economic levelers—then surely fairness demands that all minority groups that are overrepresented in assorted endeavors be similarly kneecapped in the name of equality? Should not such leveling policies be deployed to make the NBA or the 100-meter dash more “representative” of America?

High among Corporate America’s priorities is acting as a race leveler—voluntarily sniffing out deviationists and generally proceeding against and “reeducating” pay-dependent prey. Corporate America’s human resource departments are in the habit of deluging employees with the piss-poor racial agitprop of illiterate, if degreed, pamphleteers. The woman who wrote White Fragility comes to mind.

In a workplace so shot through with hatred of whites, quite foreseeable is a form of intellectual reparations, where the designated white “oppressors” labor behind the scenes, while the officially “oppressed” manage them and take credit for their intellectual output.

As recounted in Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for American From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011, p. 103), the African National Congress has pioneered “the creation of a unique cognitive caste system.”

Throughout the South African work force, white subordinates with graduate and postgraduate degrees are doing the hard-core intellectual and technical work for their black bosses. The latter often have no more than a 10th-grade diploma but are paid a great deal more than their intellectual skivvies. A black matriculant (possessor of a high-school diploma) is perfectly poised to climb the South African corporate structure; yet, in order to have a ghost of a chance at remaining employed, a white had better possess the Masters or the Ph.D. degree. Given their pallor, promotion for whites is less and less likely.

Unlike systemic racism, intellectual indentureship could quickly become a reality in America.

 

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s 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 currently on Gab, YouTube, Twitter & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

America circa 2020 continues to erupt in riots, spurred by the death-by-cop of George Floyd. The violence is qualitatively different to the violence that roiled the U.S. during the race riots of 1964.

Whether you thought those riots right or wrong, back in 1964, state police officers were a forceful presence for law-and-order. They did damage to rioters as deliberately as they defended people and their property.

End-stage America” riots, referred to by the malfunctioning media as “peaceful protests,” have engulfed “over 2,000 cities and towns in all 50 states.”

Even Wikipedia has conceded that “most large cities [have seen and are seeing] large scale rioting, looting, and burning of businesses and police cars.” You know how bad things are when such habitual liars for the Left admit to “large-scale” destruction by the Left.

This “mostly peaceful” mob even murdered a man, in Minneapolis, and burned down a pawnshop, all in memory of George Floyd.

Neutered, coopted, infiltrated and compromised—the police force in 2020 is missing in action. In the rare event that they act in accordance with their constitutional obligation to protect innocent people and their property, the police are hobbled—prevented from deploying riot-control tactics and, thus, invariably “hurt and hospitalized.

End-stage America” and its kneeling, pleading police force is the result of institutional rot, brought about because of the Left’s lengthy control of the intellectual means of production (neocons and ConInkers are collaborators).

In 1964, The Law would not countenance the disruption of public order and tranquility. The Law in 2020 has helped invert ordered liberty, so that, in America today, the law protects the outlaw against the law-abiding.

Witness the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey: Riffraff invaded their grounds and encroached on their residence. The legacy media faulted the St. Louis couple, framing the two’s self-defense stance and deterrence as dangerous aggression. The Law followed through with weapons confiscation and criminal charges.

The police, whose first duty is to uphold the negative rights of the citizens, appear to believe they serve not the citizens but local mob bosses like Seattle’s mayor, Jenny Durkan, and her crooked police chief, Carmen Best. The latter, who seems to worry more about the weave on her head and eyelashes than about the working people of the city, commanded her compliant and cowardly police officers to desert their posts and the people they swore to protect.

Another Black Lives Matter stooge—all-round coward and oath-of-office violator—is Paul Pazen, police chief of Denver, Colorado. He stands complicit in standing down so as to enable the violent attack on author and activist Michelle Malkin.

Ms. Malkin, the scrappiest, bravest woman in America, was physically assaulted at a “Back the Blue” rally, in Denver, Colorado, on July 21. Police were present all right. They watched on as a bulldyke with a baton advanced on a little Braveheart of a lady, who screamed her lungs out in fury, not in fear.

But the boys in blue for whom Michelle stood up, stood down.

Inspired by scenes of wanton destruction openly enabled by elected authorities and their private militia—the police—Chris Cuomo of CNN minted a new phrase for the kind of “peaceful protesters,” who physically struck the diminutive Ms. Malkin and are destroying structures across the country: “Inequality riots.”

“Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto”: Another morally corrupt celebrity, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat from New York, has made the Jean Valjean Argument from Bread: Rioters are hungry. Indeed, there are some “heartbreaking videos of starving New Yorkers stealing bread from … a Chanel flagship store on Fifth Avenue.”

The same scenes played out in thousands of cities across the country. Worst of all have been Portland, in Oregon, and Seattle in Washington State.

So, finally, President Trump has sent in the cavalry. The president launched “Operation Legend.” “Announcing a surge of federal law enforcement in American communities plagued by violent crime,” Trump added that he had “no choice but to get involved.”

This paleolibertarian supports the president’s belated defensive actions to launch a counter-terrorism operation with the aim of crushing a violent insurrection against law-abiding America.

It is essential to take back the streets, and to quit misnaming a repulsive specter that is neither democratic nor peaceful.

Upholding rights to life, liberty and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty.

Belatedly, and in furtherance of the violation of individual rights, Democrats frequently rediscover American federalism. (In fairness, to promote their political agenda, Republicans are as opportunistic about deferring to the division-of-power bequeathed by the Founders. Rather than mandate facemasks to save people from dying and killing others; Republicans have left local leaders to supervise the killing fields of COVID.)

The reason the president’s domestic counter-terrorism operation is warranted is because the people’s rights to life, liberty and property are being systematically violated.

And natural rights antedate the state apparatus. Federalism is an excellent principle, but it is not a religion.

Michelle Malkin has a natural right to walk about unmolested and speak her mind free of bodily harm. If Colorado officials will not uphold her inalienable natural rights in Colorado, and mine in Washington State, then bring in the feds. Better still, free armed citizens to do the job their representatives, ostensibly bound by the Constitution, have shirked.

What a shame that a debate that ought to be about inalienable individual rights is straitjacketed into statist terminology.

We are told that “federal authorities from the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, DEA and ATF” have arrived in our states to protect federal property (court houses, in the main), when their true duty is to uphold inalienable rights undermined.

The level of decision-making is immaterial; what matters is the decision. No one has the right to threaten lives and livelihoods (that includes the Internal Revenue Service). By logical extension, it matters not who upholds those inalienable rights to work and walk about Seattle and Denver unmolested—which state or federal official—just so long as someone does.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

If anything, “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”—that “800-page compendium of the crimes of communist regimes worldwide”—treads too lightly when it comes to qualitative comparisons between the Nazi and the “Marxist-Leninist phenomenon.”

On the quantitative front, “Nazism, at an estimated 25 million dead,” turned out to be distinctly less murderous than Communism, whose “grand total of victims, variously estimated at between 85 million and 100 million murdered, is the most colossal case of political carnage in history.”

Qualitatively, the “‘class genocide’ of Communism” is certainly comparable to the “‘race genocide’ of Nazism.” In its reach and methods, moreover, nothing compares to Communism’s continual, ongoing invention of new classes of “enemies of the people” to liquidate. “Mass violence against the population was a deliberate policy of the new revolutionary order; and its scope and inhumanity far exceeded anything in the national past.”

The fact that socialists and communists are still voted into power—with swagger in Greece—demonstrates that communists, despite their murderous past, “belong to the camp of democratic progress,” whereas the Right is forever open to suspicions of unforgiven fascist and Nazi sympathies.

The Jewish people have carried out “the solemn obligation to keep the memory of its martyrs alive in the conscience of the world.” The civilized world has internalized the methods and meaning of the “Final Solution.” As “The Black Book” observes approvingly, “Hitler and Nazism are now a constant presence in Western print and on Western television.”

Alas, although “their practices were comparable,” the “moral auras” of Nazism and Communism are still “antithetical.” “The Communist project” is permitted to claim “a commitment to universalistic and egalitarian goals, whereas the Nazi project” is said to offer only “unabashed national egoism.” The liberal world has refused to similarly stigmatize Communism. “The status of ex-Communist carries with it no stigma, even when unaccompanied by any expression of regret.”

Even more skewed is the situation in the East. No Gulag camps have been turned into museums to commemorate their inmates; all were bulldozed into the ground during Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization. The only memorial to Stalin’s victims is a modest stone brought to Moscow from the Arctic camp of Solovki and placed in Lubyanka Square (though well off to the side), where the KGB’s former headquarters still stands.

Nor are there any regular visitors to this lonely slab (one must cross a stream of traffic to reach it) and no more than an occasional wilted bouquet. By contrast, Lenin’s statue still dominates most city centers, and his mummy reposes honorably in its Mausoleum. Throughout the former Communist world, moreover, virtually none of its responsible officials has been put on trial or punished. Indeed, everywhere Communist parties, though usually under new names, compete in politics.

The regime that was launched “in Sarajevo in 1914 and ended in Moscow in 1991” turned “mass crime into a full-blown system of government.” “Crime [was] the defining characteristic of the Communist system throughout its existence.”

“Islamo-Nazies” is how rightists have taken to dubbing the ISIS Islamists. But nothing beat the communists when it came to the execution by “firing squads, hanging, drowning, battering, [even gassing and beheading], poisoning; the destruction of the population by starvation, through man-made famine, the withholding of food, or both; deportation, through which death can occur in transit (either through physical exhaustion or through confinement in an enclosed space), at one’s place of residence, or through forced labor (exhaustion, illness, hunger, cold),” all meticulously planned and documented by the central authorities.

Perpetuated by the Left and acquiesced to by a perpetually frightened Right, the double standard adopted toward Communism is “scandalously out of line with the century’s real balance sheet of political crime.” It must end!

When we next commemorate the Holocaust, let us remember the forgotten victims of Communism who, too, were exterminated for who they were:

U.S.S.R.: 20 million dead
China: 65 million dead
Vietnam: 1 million dead
North Korea: 2 million dead
Cambodia: 2 million dead
Eastern Europe: 1 million dead
Latin America: 150,000 dead
Africa: 1.7 million dead
Afghanistan: 1.5 million dead
The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 dead

As suggested by Ilya Somin of The Volokh Conspiracy, a “Victims of Communism Day” is long overdue.

 

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s 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: History, Ideology • Tags: Communism 
🔊 Listen RSS

They’re unwilling to defend true dissidents, but Beltway lite libertarians and Con Inkers are forever genuflecting to privileged legacy journalists, who can afford to voluntarily leave their rich gigs in “protest” of cancel culture.

The Right hasn’t shut up about the New Yorker’s Andrew Sullivan, who is far less banal than the New York Times’ Bari Weiss. Both belong to the “nothing new, more of the same” neoconservative tradition. Her resignation antics are a storm in a C-cup; his “defiant” departure is the fussy equivalent (just for gay men).

For a more meaningful scandal, to the Right at least, consider the farce of a Conservative news and opinion organization (founded by a dragon slayer of a broadcaster), which has published lacerating pieces condemning America’s foremost hate group, yet has proceeded to purge writers, in compliance with the demands of said shakedown hate group.

American conservatism capitulating to America-haters? Negotiating with terrorists? Hypocrisy? Yes, yes, and yes.

Prone is the natural position of the Establishment Republican, Con Inker, neoconservative, whatever his latest opportunistic, political permutation may be.

The news site is the Daily Caller. The hate group is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The ransom demands issue from the illiterati of the SPLC, who regularly publish lists of—and hit pieces against—untouchable dissidents. They then proceed against us with all the vigor of a “a money grabbing slander machine,” to quote John Stossel, a veteran investigative journalist who has exposed this corrupt syndicate that lives off destroying people.

For his part, economist Thomas DiLorenzo has skillfully pried apart the revenue-rich, “racial racketeering” of the Southern Poverty Law Center, showing it to be nothing more than a “hate group hedge fund.”

Wrote the great leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn, in the New York Press, in 2007: “I’ve long regarded Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center as collectively one of the greatest frauds in American life. The reasons: a relentless fundraising machine devoted to terrifying mostly low-income contributors into unbolting ill-spared dollars year after year to an organization that now has an endowment of more than $100 million.”

An organization that shakes down paupers and pensioners to support its “ritualized forms of defamation.”

One would expect the Daily Caller, which has written against cancel culture and the Southern Poverty law Center, not to capitulate to such rot. But one would be wrong to expect principled positions from any Con Inc. org.

Opportunistic and prone are the only principles known to the D.C. media types. For they have no philosophy to speak of. Whatever political raiment he happens to be cloaked in—defeatism, hypocrisy and betrayal are the default positions of the D.C. “conservative” swamp dweller.

And so, July 7 saw Geoffrey Ingersoll, Daily Caller’s editor in chief, assume the supine position in a Twitter exchange, which ceded the terms of debate to the Democrats and their most diabolical proxies.

The Twitter entity before which Mr. Ingersoll was kneeling metaphorically in contrition was an account called “Sleeping Giants.” “They’re the worst,” attests Steve Bannon. They appear to be attached to a shakedown hub of cancel-culture activism. Illiteracy precludes any manifesto, but the constant nattering on a Twitter account has earned these cyberthugs a Wikipedia page.

To thrive, thugs need enablers. Enter Mr. Ingersoll.

First up on my Twitter feed, July 7, was a tweet from gutsy reporter Patrick Howley, founder of Big League Politics.

Geoff Ingersoll, best known for ranting sexist slurs at @CassandraRules, … wants everyone to know he does NOT know Ilana Mercer

Lol. Ilana is out of your league, pal

Chimed in the clever and combative Cassandra Fairbanks of the “Gateway Pundit”:

I don’t know [ilana], but if Geoff is denying knowing her to save his ass, she must be super interesting.

Cassandra quickly rendered her assessment of Mr. Ingersoll :

I really really like a bunch of people at Daily Caller, but Geoff is probably the most dull and basic neocon bitch in any dc newsroom.

All the while, I’m thinking: How odd. I certainly know Mr. Ingersoll. But since I’m hoping against hope that this is not about the fabulous segment written about me by the aforementioned SPLC, the “hate group hedge fund,” on August 16, 2017, I keep it light.

So, I jest:

Dear Patrick and Cassandra: What is this about? Thanks for spelling my name correctly. No idea why Mr. Ingersoll can’t. He did in his correspondence with me. LOL.

Beneath Patrick’s feisty throwdown is Mr. Ingersoll’s nervous tweet to his tormentors, the “Sleeping Giants”:

… Illana [sic] Mercer? Never stepped foot in our offices. Who else? [Scott] Greer? He left BEFORE we found out.

Titled “The Daily Caller has a White Nationalist Problem,” the SPLC’s hit piece is an asinine collection of non sequiturs, easily refuted in a society that values reason. But that’s no longer America.

And that’s not the Con Inkers—the con artists formerly known as neoconservatives and Establishment Republicans before that, whose aim is to pacify the Left and deceive the Right.

In fact, what the SPLC wrote about me was high praise—all the more reason for the Daily Caller to keep my animated copy on its anemic op-ed page.

You see, since the firing of former opinion editor Robert Mariani, the Caller’s op-ed page has been festooned by Israel First, neocon boilerplate. Retread rot, really. Its line-up of writers consists of unoriginal, Johnny-come-latelies to the America First position, which has been held by the dissident Right for decades. We do it best.

Principles aside, any op-ed editor whose op-ed page is littered with such insipid fare should warm to the rave review given to me by the SPLC.

 
A Mercer Interview
🔊 Listen RSS

On July 2, 2020, I joined my favorite broadcaster, “Col. Mike” of the John Fredericks Show, syndicated out of Virginia, for a wide-ranging discussion about the issues of the day—from the Soweto-style shantytowns that had sprung-up in Seattle, to China and the Covid quagmire, to America’s immigration-visa labyrinth, and more.

In his interview style, the Colonel, so dubbed in deference to his military rank, will remind older listeners of the legendary George Putnam (by whom I was honored to be interviewed years back).

To wit, when this columnist ventured that the Seattle police had no business deserting their headquarters and posts; that their first duty was to uphold the negative rights of the citizens of Seattle, not to obey the politized commands of Police Chief Carmen Best and Mayor Jenny Durkan—Col. Mike, who knows a thing or two about a chain-of-command, roared:

“They should all be fired.”

Businesses looted and boarded-up are currently suing the City of Seattle. This farce was explored during the interview—for who do think will pay for their legal remedy? You, the taxpayer! Taxpayers are subsidizing the degeneracy of politicians like Mayor Jenny, who should be collared and cuffed for abnegating her constitutional duty to uphold the property rights of her constituents.

Spotlighted was the manner in which high-tech was changing the city, draining it of its character and of the many quirky characters that made Seattle what it was.

Discussed, too, was the outsourcing of American lives to China (and India), a matter this column has been covering since the early 2000s. By “lives” we mean the very stuff of life. Not mere jobs; but careers, not just some products, but entire production lines; not one or two manufacturing plants, but the means of production.

More crucially, China didn’t force the traitors of the American economy to shift crucial production lines to its country and strand Americans without surgical and N-95 masks and medication; homegrown turncoats did. Giants of industry and technology, aided by the philosophical pygmies in government: They made these decisions, all by their lonesome.

COVID saw many a Chinese multinational galvanize to ship supplies to the Mother Ship: back home. Ostensibly international, Chinese companies operating in Australia, for example, began vacuuming up tons of medical materials in the host country and beyond, between January 24 and February 29, in order to send back to China.

Indeed, home is where you ship your masks to.

And much more.

The spouse alleges that I blurted out that the sight of policemen and guardsmen across the U.S. kneeling before their black tormentors conjured scenes from the film “Deliverance.” Denied!

If nothing else, you’ll enjoy the debonair Colonel:

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid

 
🔊 Listen RSS

H.L. Mencken, a contrarian polemicist and the consummate critic, who wrote prolifically and prodigiously from 1899 until 1948, may no longer seem relevant, but the fault would not be his.

Mencken was a well-read bon vivant with a taste for Teutonic philosophy and a fidelity to immutable truth. He was also a brilliant satirist and a writer whose facility with the English idiom and grasp of intellectual history are unsurpassed.

How can a phenom like Mencken appeal in our age, The Age of the Idiot?

He can’t: He should, but he can’t.

Henry Louis Mencken cannot appeal to the bumper crops of humorless, dour “dunderheads” America is now siring. He cannot resonate with those who are afraid to question received opinion, who cannot conjugate a verb correctly, use tenses, prepositions and adjectives grammatically and creatively, or appreciate a clever turn-of-phrase.

How can Mencken, author of The American Language (1919), be relevant in an America in which the rules of syntax are passé, pronouns are politicized and neutered, torrential prolixity is in, concision and precision are out, and “editors” excise nothing, preferring to let mangled phrases and lumpen jargon spill onto the page like gravy over a tablecloth.

Not for nothing did one wag say that the history of ideas is the history of words. And since Mencken was, first and foremost, a man of ideas (and hence, words)—no discussion of Mencken and his ideas is complete without a reference to English, the language he deployed with such verve and vim.

Thus, when “a few newspaper smarties protested” Mencken’s verbal virtuosity, Mencken tartly noted, in his Preface to A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949): “Thousands of excellent nouns, verbs and adjectives … are still unfamiliar to such ignoramuses. Let them … leave my vocabulary and me to my own customers, who have all been to school.”

Written at a considerable level of abstraction, for a prosaic people that, by Mencken’s estimation, “cannot grasp an abstraction,” a Mencken essay is certain to furrow the brow of the above-average American reader, writer and editor nowadays (bar our own editor, here at the American Greatness). Unlike the tracts disgorged by Conservatism, Inc., the least complicated of Mencken’s editorial writings would place excessive demands on the unsupple minds of young activists, who are busy striking a selfie on social media or running to CPUKE conferences.

Indeed, ideas are in retreat; and the incremental and steady “closing of the American mind” is on the march. By virtue of the unsettling, bracing originality of his ideas, Mencken is rendered as inaccessible to the American reader as an alien from deep space.

While Mencken’s libertarian acolytes and admirers focus on his disdain for The State as the leitmotif of his writings—Mencken’s war on the “dishonest, insane, intolerable and tyrannical” U.S. government was, arguably, the least controversial thread in his voluminous oeuvre.

Mencken’s grasp of government as a predatory, “regimenting” force that fleeces the citizen without flinching; that could and does “safely strip [the individual] to his hide”; a “gang well-nigh immune to punishment”—these, nowadays, are the most acceptable of Mencken’s thoughts.

What would make Mencken an outcast to the turgid minds dominating the current marketplace of ideas is his disdain for the “intellectually underprivileged” American electorate, whom he called the “boobs.” As Mencken saw it, Boobus Americanus, so easily and reliably “impressed and enchanted” by the political scoundrels, was largely to blame for why nowhere in the world was government more secure than in the United States. Americans were simply the “most timorous, sniveling, poltroonsish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag …”

“A glorious commonwealth of morons,” Mencken called America. “The American moron’s mind”—this “mob-man’s” mentality—is that of a “violent nationalist and patriot,” to whom ideas are a menace, and who would always opt “to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights.”

These are all Mencken’s words, not mine.

It was Mencken against America, then, to paraphrase the scholar Thomas W. Hazlett. And it would be Mencken against America today.

More so than his anti-statism and strong, spare prose—so different from today’s insipid, anemic, meandering commentary—Mencken shattered every conceivable totem and taboo of American life. It is this so-called anti-Americanism that would make Mencken unpalatable and unemployable in our times.

In a word, being a man of ideas is what would render Mencken a misfit among his countrymen. For, as Mencken saw them, Americans were congenitally and “implacably hostile to” the very things that made him tick: “novel ideas and points of view.” “Everything American,” mocked Mencken, is characterized by “a great distrust of ideas” … and “a harsh fidelity to a few fixed beliefs,” most of which Mencken derided.

Let me count the ways.

American exceptionalism? Not on your life—except as the “greatest show on earth … a show which lays chief stress upon … the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues … clowns in constant practice.”

“American values”? Aren’t those fit for export? Should not America be making the world over in its image?

Are you fit to be tied? Mencken’s conviction was that the “average American” is a narrow-minded chauvinist, who is wont to conflate “differentness” with “wrongness” and immorality. By extension, America’s habitual manner of dealing with “foreign nations, whether friend or foe—is hypocritical, disingenuous, knavish, and dishonorable.”

Christianity? Not too long ago, gingerly cleaving to Edward Gibbon’s scholarship, this essayist pondered whether Christianity might be considered the Social Justice movement of its day. How subtle was that compared to Mencken’s reference to Christianity as a “mob religion” that “paves heaven with gold and precious stones, i.e., with money”!

Nevertheless, in his day, Mencken was seen as merely following his métier as an acidic critic; today, his heretical words on most subjects would have earned Mencken a rebuke from a prissy, Fox-empaneled gaggle of schoolmarms, called upon to expatiate about Mean Man Mencken. On second thought, today, Mencken would have been silenced by “cancel culture.”

Mencken’s views on “monogamous marriage” and the military broke the American mold as well.

The married man ends up “making machiavellian efforts to avoid kissing the everyday sharer of his meals, books, bath towels, pocketbook, relatives, ambitions, secrets, malaise and business: a proceeding about as romantic as having his boots blackened.” Find me a conservative radio mouth or TV anchor who would forgive the Maestro for that uproariously funny quip.

The American military? The “military caste,” bemoaned Mencken, in the Minority Report, did not originate as a party of patriots, but as a party of bandits.” More crucially, Mencken mocked the mighty American military’s fighting prowess. Who gets away with that today?

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

There was a reason this Canadian expatriate missed Canada of late. In particular, the every-day normalcy of its local CTV News.

Often so apolitical, Canadians are always less eager to feature the caterwauling of politicians than cover the joys of a cat rescue.

Or, a kiss.

How natural, then, that a CTV Toronto News anchor intuitively ran one of the most enchanting, culturally significant little video clips I’ve seen for a long time.

In it, a young, adorable girl, clutching a tiny dog, is being interviewed about face masks in Toronto’s Trinity Bellwoods Park. Her meandering replies are meaningless. She’s just a regular, uninformed, inarticulate millennial, until… Wait for it.

A dashing and daring young man with a mop of dark hair appears out of nowhere. He is dressed like the rebel characters in the film “Hair,” Milos Forman’s formidable musical. He grabs the girl and kisses her long and deep and oh-so romantically.

The cute girl goes as limp as a ragdoll in his arms. Or, like Scarlett O’Hara in the arms of Rhett Butler. Every bit of her is saying “yes.”

Here were two beautiful, real, young people, kissing spontaneously—not texting or narcissistically uploading airbrushed images of themselves to social media, but connecting in the sweetest, sincerest of ways.

Here was a young man not being rude, but being romantic, a Prince who, with a kiss, turned an ordinary girl into a Princess.

Best of all, the man and the woman were both momentarily and gloriously suspended in a magic world, free of the #MeToo moral panic and the COVID-19 contagion.

And the girl, she responded as women would have responded to manifestly charming, irresistible men in my day. She beamed, and she stumbled about disoriented and mesmerized. To the reporter she gasped, “He’s hot.” To the boy she called out, “text me.”

The interviewer later quizzed the boy. Was he worried he’d contract COVID from the kiss? The dreamy young man, who had a far-away look in his eyes, replied: “I think the kiss was worth it.”

Damn straight it was.

Feminists and gender-study killjoys—“consent activists,” too, in case you were unaware of their existence—will ruin this mesmerizing moment by raping it with the political and pseudo-academic constructs we’ve come to know an loathe. These are, “non-consensual,” “rape culture,” “groping,” “male toxicity and dominance,” “entitlement”—even “violence and violation.”

The truth is, the moment was pure magic. And the young lady’s face and demeanor said as much.

What a downer it was, then, when the television anchor, Nathan Downer, apologized for intuitively running one of the most charming and hopeful video vignettes I’ve seen in a long time.

You did “good,” Mr. Downer. You uplifted and elevated us all, in these dark and deeply dumb days—in the days of a plague that has turned us all into untouchables and a politics that has made us a little touched in the head.

Nobody could watch that sweet moment and not secretly hope, deep down, that, off-camera, those lip-locked, lovely young people got to fulfil the promise of that kiss.

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

Steve Hilton is a Briton who anchors a current-affairs show on Fox News.

Mr. Hilton made the following feeble, snowflake’s case for the removal of the nation’s historically offensive statues:

It’s offensive to our Africa-American neighbors to maintain statues in public places that cause not only offense, but real distress. And it is disrespectful to our native-American neighbors to glorify a man who they see as having committed genocide against their ancestors. None of this is to erase history. Put it all in a museum. Let’s remember it and learn from it.

“What’s wrong with Camp Ulysses Grant,” Hilton further intoned sanctimoniously. He was, presumably, plumping for the renaming of army installations like Fort Bragg, called after a Confederate major general, Braxton Bragg.

Sons of the South—men and women, young and old—see their forebear as having died “in defense of the soil,” and not for slavery. Most Southerners were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a War for Southern Independence.

Hilton, it goes without saying, is a follower of the State-run Church of Lincoln. To the average TV dingbat, this means that Southern history comes courtesy of the likes of Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln idolater and the consummate court historian.

“Doris Kearns Goodwin,” explains professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, the country’s chief Lincoln slayer, “is a museum quality specimen of a court historian, a pseudo-intellectual who is devoted to pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by portraying even the most immoral, corrupt and sleazy politicians as great, wise, and altruistic men.”

When Doris does the TV circuit, evangelizing for power, she never mentions, say, the close connection between her great Ulysses Grant and Hilton’s “native-American neighbors.”

Yes, Doris, Steve: who exactly exterminated the Plains Indians?

Indian-Americans will likely be hip to the fact that the Republicans, led by General Sherman himself, supervised the genocide of some 60,000 Plains Indians from 1865 to 1890. The Plains Indians endured land dispossession that culminated “in the late 1880s, with the surviving tribes of the West being herded onto reservations,” writes DiLorenzo, in “The Feds versus The Indians.”

Primary sources notwithstanding, to make his case in this tract alone, DiLorenzo galvanizes sources such as L.A. Marshall’s Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972), John F. Marszalek’s Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (1993) and Sheridan: The Life and War of General Phil Sheridan (1992), by Roy Morris, Jr.

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant (commanding general of the federal army) in 1866, ‘even to their extermination, men, women and children.’ The Sioux must ‘feel the superior power of the Government.’ Sherman vowed to remain in the West ‘till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched.’”

“‘During an assault,’ he instructed his troops, ‘the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.’ He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as ‘the final solution to the Indian problem,’ a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later.”

Hilton, who believes in the Republican Party’s moral supremacy, can’t be expected to know that, in “eradicating the Indians of the West,” Sherman was delivering good old “veiled corporate welfare” to “a segment of the railroad industry, which heavily bankrolled the Republican party.”

Some things never change.

More so than The Other Worthies mentioned, “our native-American neighbors” have a tendency to harken back to a once-proud history. If they retain any historic memory, then, America’s First Nations should balk at serving on Camp Ulysses Grant, or at Fort William Tecumseh Sherman.

The folks Hilton dubs “our Africa-American neighbors,” on the other hand, are more vested in breaking and burning stuff to get what they want, which is, invariably, other people’s stuff, sometimes called “reparations.”

It follows that Conservatism Inc. usually uses American Indians as its perennial piñata, while generally acceding to the aggressive demands of African-Americans for permanent victim status. It’s to Hilton’s credit that he even mentioned Native-Americans, who have little political clout and even less of an extractive approach to politics.

Given the state of his knowledge, Steve Hilton can’t be expected to be familiar with Lord Acton’s nuanced thinking on the Confederacy. According to another good, English thing, Encyclopedia Britannica, Acton was “the first great modern philosopher of resistance to the state, whether its form be authoritarian, democratic, or socialist.” And this enlightened British thinker favored the Confederacy.

Lord Acton certainly supported, even admired, Robert E. Lee, and saw secession and states’ rights as a check on the sovereign will.

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

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

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

“Lee,” argues Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina, “was the product of a pre-ideological society, whereas the ‘treason’ shouters [Lincoln and his accomplices] were [modern statists] products of post-French Revolution nationalism. [To them], the Union meant the machinery of the federal government, under the control of their party, to be used for their agenda.”

“But as the Southern poet Allen Tate put it, the original Union was a gentleman’s agreement, not a group of buildings in Washington from which sacred commandments were issued.”

The acolytes of the French Revolution have carried the day, in their nihilistic Jacobinism. Still, for its radicalism, America circa 2020, makes the philosophical descendants of the original Jacobins look positively clingy about their symbols and statues.

President Emmanuel Macron evinced the resolve the Anglo-American surrender monkeys are too feeble to feel, much less display:

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Confederacy, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

On June 9, I tweeted out the following:

“Seattle’s East Precinct has fallen, as Police Chief Carmen Best orders Seattle Police to evacuate. The occupiers, aka the ‘peaceful protesters,’ declare victory. ‘They’ve given us the precinct,’ they boast. Not even in South Africa.”

A mere day on, and the City of Seattle is de facto occupied territory, fallen to the “peaceful protesters”—the same counterculture media darlings who’ve been sacking cities across America.

The rabble—Black Lives Matter sympathizers, which, as police arrest records show is almost entirely local—was further roused by Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, formerly of Mumbai.

Most reprehensibly, Pied Piper Sawant led the “peace makers” to occupy City Hall in downtown Seattle, on Tuesday, June 10.

The altercation between Council Member Sawant and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan gives new meaning to the “broad” sweep of ideas in this dysfunctional city. Sawant, a socialist, called on Mayor Durkan, a progressive, to resign over abuse of power (what power?) and systemic racism (a meaningless abstraction). This, as the city was being sacked.

Surrender Monkeys

As of this writing, the Seattle Police has surrendered without defeat.

Seven blocks of downtown Seattle, renamed the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ), have been appropriated by the Peaceful Ones, with the imprimatur of the mayor and her police chief (Carmen Best aforementioned). Now loosed on the public, these buccaneering entrepreneurs are reported to have set up checkpoints to shake down residents who imagine they may come and go. Not in this satrapy.

On the positive side, Seattle now has that shithole-country vibrancy.

President of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, SPOG, penned an open letter to lunatic Mayor Durkan, pondering how he would fulfill his sworn oath of office to protect lives and property without so much as tear gas.

He got his answer. America did. Across the U.S., the message to law-abiding Americans, from city, town, county council members and other legislators came loud and clear: You’re on your own. Neither police nor politicians are coming to protect what’s left of your businesses or your banal, bourgeoisie little life.

Last I looked, there were 400,000 “guardian angels” in private security toiling to make up for the South African state’s failure to protect its people. Every year, millions in taxpayers’ money are forked out to private security firms to protect the new South Africa’s police stations. “South Africa’s protectors can’t protect themselves.” Will Seattle’s neutered policemen be investigating this option? It’s time for them to cut the shafted taxpayers loose. Let us go private.

When all is said and done, the George Floyd riots are a law-and-order-event. Nothing else matters in the overarching context of a failed state, in which ordered liberty is dead, and the law-abiding are utterly forsaken, even vilified.

Yes, victims are now villains and villains are … martyrs. Unbeknown to Nikolas Fernandez, a gainfully employed security guard, the Capitol Hill district of Seattle now belongs to the “peaceful protesters.” Fernandez dared to drive down it, only to be mobbed by the barbarians and forced to shoot an attacker possessing of animal-like agility. Legacy media quickly turned the narrative on its head. Fernandez, whose brother is a policeman, had invaded “peaceful protester” turf. His attacker took a bullet for peace. Hero.

Kneeling Ninnies

Next came the national kneeling. Once again, Washington State led the way. On June 1, after hundreds of looters ransacked major shopping malls in Bellevue, including the spectacular Bellevue Square, that city’s police chief, Steve Mylett, knelt down like a girl, instead of standing tall like a man for LAW-AND-ORDER.

“That was a scary scene in ‘Deliverance,’” someone quipped on Twitter. That was it. There was no stopping the kinky trend.

Soon, Chief Brian Manley of Austin, Texas, broke down in tears for … the protesters, not for property owners robbed. Real manly. It’s almost as though WASPS get a homo-erotic sexual charge out of prostrating themselves to The Evil Other.

The camera panned out across the country to reveal policemen and guardsmen caving. Against the backdrop of “Mad Max”-like dystopian destruction, men in uniform all collapsed to the pavement s like yogis to the command of their black tormentors. One after another. Here is Santa Cruz Police Chief Andy Mills. KNEELING.

The forces, police and paramilitary, all squatted like sissies. Isn’t there some code of conduct preventing uniforms from groveling? Police acquit themselves honorably by doing the job ethically. Activism is not in the job description.

In Parker, Colorado, masses assumed the postures of ordination: prostration, lying prone, limbs splayed.

Congressional Democrats, led by Nancy, did the same. Is twerking next? Finally! We have a man in the house! “Georgia State Trooper O’Neal Saddler, black, refused to kneel during a Black Lives Matter protest in Hartwell, saying he only kneels” for God.

And what a hot, decadent mess was this national guard bump-and-grind in Atlanta: men, women, and everything in-between, mostly fat, hips swaying as they give themselves over to Dionysian urges.

Cops can’t be responsible for every misstep a feeble-minded protester takes. An elderly geezer, Martin Gugino, in Buffalo, New York, came right up to a cop’s face when the latter was on the march. Cop pushed the git to get past him. The geezer was expecting a group hug. Wasn’t prepared for a shove. He lost his balance and fell back like a twig. I saw no excess force, except a “get out of my face” shove. But the cops were hung out to dry.

Frey The Faker

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Dr. Michael Baden had determined that George Floyd died by cop. That, the courageous onlookers who filmed the snuff film could have told him.

The nation’s foremost forensic pathologist was called in to weigh-in scientifically and independently about the demise of the Minneapolis man, whom millions across the world have, by now, watched slowly suffocate to death on camera, May 25.

“Look at him. Get off him now. What is wrong with y’all. Leave him. You’re killing him. Bro, he’s not moving. Check his pulse.” Blood is bubbling out of his mouth. These good Samaritans loudly protested this police porn. There was a trickle on the asphalt, as Floyd likely lost control over bodily functions, near the end.

Dr. Baden, who confirmed mechanical asphyxiation due to pressure on the neck and back, was asked to perform an independent autopsy because the initial, official one was comical, suggesting the cops’ actions were secondary complicating factors.

The Hennepin County medical examiner made it sound like George Floyd should have been able to endure 8 minutes and 46 seconds with a knee on his neck and three Minneapolis police officers pushing down on his diaphragm, subsequently reducing blood flow to the brain. Floyd failed their “fitness” test because he was on drugs, drunk, COVID-positive, and in really bad physical shape.

I’d hate to have my physical fitness and sobriety tested that way.

The reality is that millions around the world witnessed George Floyd expire on camera because he was made to star in his own State-sanctioned snuff film.

Floyd’s death was a case of, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” Which is the colloquial used when one is staring at an immutable reality, yet choosing to see an alternate universe.

The world saw that Mr. Floyd was not in the throes of death until that knee appeared on his neck and those hands pressed down on his diaphragm. Put it this way: Correlation in not causation, but it was not a complete mystery when 8 minutes and 46 seconds into the boot-and-back treatment the man died.

The non-violent offense Floyd was tackled and terminated for was paying for cigarettes with an alleged counterfeit bill. It’s entirely possible he was guilty of using counterfeit money. It’s also likely he didn’t know the bill was fake. Given how many hands paper money changes, this could happen to anyone.

Uncle Sam—which has its proverbial boot on the American taxpayer’s neck—counterfeits trillions with impunity. America’s central bank (the Federal Reserve Bank) and the banks are forever injecting funny money into credit markets. With government imprimatur, the banking system known as fractional reserve banking is engaged in counterfeiting, when inflating the money supply and issuing paper notes not backed by real assets. The central bank’s phony money creation is counterfeiting by any other name, except that it’s legal, because perpetrated by the State.

Next, they’ll tell us that, just as the State can forge and devalue the coin, so it can also kill us with impunity. That’s what the four brazen cops were broadcasting—that murder under the “Color-of-Law” wasn’t quite murder.

Another of our deformed society’s Big Lies kicked in when, like locusts, rioters and looters descended on America’s cities—from Minneapolis to Miami, from Los Angles to Louisville.

The specter of looting and rioting is another case of, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?

Fake Newsers, Fox News Included, then began energetically, sans evidence—other than some bricks in a trash can—to promote a fake conspiratorial narrative:

Looters were never local, but always mysterious outside agitators; well-organized “Antifa.” The fiction was promoted as enthusiastically by Fox News as it was by CNN and MSNB.

Anything to avoid the reality of crime, while signaling your own virtue.

Even John Robert Lewis, a black civil right leader, got fed up and told MSNBC that looting was local.

Seattle’s Komo New, at one point, divulged that 82 people had been arrested, after the city center was destroyed. All were homeboys.

If rioters everywhere are from somewhere not here, what’s the logic?

If so-called organized, George Soros-activated ANTIFA terrorists intend to ignite the country and operate networks and chapters across it—why would they need to migrate, to lob rocks at a Macy’s in a town away from home? Why not riot in your home town if so organized?

The truth is that conservatives, like liberals, refuse to candidly confront the indisputable realities of race and crime in America, reducing, instead, the reality of crime to a political theory—too much welfare, too little capitalism, not enough Trumpism.

The statistical relationship between race and crime, however, is as strong as the relationship between Officer Derek Chauvin’s knee and the late George Floyd’s neck.

This correlation, writes Unz Review editor Ron Unz, “so substantially exceeds the poverty/crime relationship 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. These are the sort of trends social science measures. Or, once measured.

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

Provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, generalizations are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested. (pp. 41-42)

 
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 unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings