How do you know you don’t have a country?
Every single passive, non-aggressive act you take to repel people crossing your borders is considered de facto illegal, or inhumane, or in violation of U.S. or international law, or in contraventions of some hidden clause in the U.S. Constitution.
So say the experts and their newly minted jurisprudence.
You may tell a toddler, “You can’t go there.” But you may not tell an illegal trespasser, “Hey, turn back. You can’t come into the U.S. at whim.”
Please understand that not giving someone something they demand or desire is a negative act. Or, more accurately, an inaction.
You are not actively doing anything to harm that person by denying them something.
Unless, of course, what you are denying them is their right to their life, their right to their liberty, their right to their property. Those are the only things you may not deny to innocent others. These interlopers do not have a right to, or a lien on, your liberty and property.
But if you cannot say to millions of people streaming across your border, into your turf, “You can’t go there.” Then it’s simple:
We don’t have a country.
Oh, sure, we have a territory. America is a market place for goods and services. A mighty one at that. It’s a market place to which millions arrive each year to make a living and engage in acts of acquisitiveness.
America is a territory for trade. But is it a nation? Other than commerce and consumption, what is the glue that binds us together?
For to be a nation, citizens must, at the very least, be allowed to say to millions of strangers, “You can’t cross that threshold to enter my house.
Individual citizens elect representatives so that they may speak on behalf of each one of us and say to strangers we have not vetted, “You can’t cross that threshold into the communities, institutions, and homes of the citizens we swore to protect.”
Individual citizens elect representatives so that these representatives can, collectively, protect their property, including their person, from harm.
According to the “night watchman state of classical liberal theory,” the protection of the integrity of property and person is the sole role of representatives. If you don’t get that small thing from the leaches you elect; you don’t have representation.
Moreover, acts considered illegal and immoral when enacted by one individual against another’s person and property are still illegal and immoral when perpetrated by the many.
To wit, one hungry person may not break into another’s home in search of sustenance. By logical extension, millions of desperadoes cannot invade territories sustained by millions of others in search of their heart’s desire.
What each and every sane American is saying (even liberals), through his representatives, is this: “You can’t enter my home, unless I personally invite you to.”
And if your country and by extension your communities and homes are de facto open to everyone—we don’t have a country.
This piece was previously published at IlanaMercer.com on July 19th, 2019.
The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—has been mocked out of meaning.
To be fair to the liberal Establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.
Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson‘s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of the collective mentality of the D.C. establishment, “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
By “all men are created equal,” Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” did not imply that all men were similarly endowed. Or that they were entitled to healthcare, education, amnesty, and a decent wage, à la Obama.
Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”
This is the very philosophy Hillary Clinton explicitly disavowed during one of the mindless presidential debates of 2007. Asked by a YouTubester to define “liberal,” Hillary revealed she knew full-well that the word originally denoted the classical liberalism of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. But she then settled on “progressive” as the appropriate label for her Fabian socialist plank.
Contra Clinton, as David N. Mayer explains in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, colonial Americans were steeped in the writings of English Whigs—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others. The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.
Jefferson, in particular, was adamant about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”
“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’”
For this reason, the philosophy of government that Jefferson articulated in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.
But Jefferson‘s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.
The Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon. Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England‘s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.
Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”
If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he cherished, imagine how he’d view our contemporary cultural conquistadors from the South, whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!
Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.
The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in A Summary View of the Rights of British America. “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”
For the edification of libertarians prone to vulgar individualism, the Declaration of Independence is at once a statement of individual and national sovereignty.
And, notwithstanding the claims of the multicultural noise machine, the Declaration was as mono-cultural as its author.
Let us, then, toast Thomas Jefferson—and the Anglo-Saxon tradition that sired and inspired him.
This piece was previously published on WND on July 4, 2019.
“The U.S. government discriminates ‘against genius’ and ‘brilliance’ with its immigration system,” asserted President Trump, as he rolled out Jared Kushner’s immigration plan.
The president has insisted that “companies are moving offices to other countries because our immigration rules prevent them from retaining highly skilled and even … totally brilliant people.”
While it’s true that U.S. immigration policy selects for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking – it’s incorrect to say that it doesn’t “create a clear path for top talent.”
Kibitzing about a shortage of talent-based immigration visas is just Mr. Kushner channeling the business and tech lobby’s interests.
No doubt, Big Business wants the “good” old days back. They currently operate in a labor market. They don’t like that, because in a labor market, firms compete for workers and wages are bid up. Companies don’t like a labor market. They prefer that workers compete for jobs and wages not rise.
Multinationals, moreover, are stateless corporations. They are “global beasts with vast balance sheets” and no particular affinity for American labor. But it’s not only about the Benjamins (to borrow from a U.S. congresswoman who, too, dislikes Americans).
The “men” who run multinationals are true believers. They are social justice warriors first; businessmen second. Tech traitors like the FAANG – Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google – are certainly radical leftists, who believe in replacing American labor as a creed and as a principle to live by.
Back to the talent-shortage myth. The 2017 IEEE-USA Employment Survey, which appears to be the latest from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, has some “bad news.” “The nearly two-thirds of U.S. IEEE members who reported being unemployed at some point during 2016, had not been re-employed by mid-April of 2017.” Hopefully, the updated report will be more upbeat.
Still, there is unemployment in the ranks of American electrical engineers. Yet for years, consumers of the H-1B visa (multinationals) have insisted they were bringing in the best and the brightest because America had too few, if any at all. Not true. The H-1B visa brings in ordinary workers to displace ordinary Americans, the kind the IEEE tracks.
Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is a huge high-tech hoax, not a special visa for highly skilled individuals? It goes mostly to average workers. “Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices,” by the Economist’s accounting.
Overall, the work done by the H-1B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning or higher-order thinking. “Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work,” attest the experts who’ve been studying this intake for years. The master’s degree is the exception within the H-1B visa category.
While visa advocates – economist Stephen Moore, a Trump adviser, is one – perpetuate the tall tale that the H-1B visa provides a steady supply of talent; visa opponents, for their part, like to cry croc about exploitation and slave-labor. I guess they think that misplaced compassion adds force to their arguments.
H-1B visa holders are not paid inferior wages. From the fact that an oversupply of high-tech workers has lowered wages for all techies, it does not follow that these (average) men and women are being exploited. Rather, it is the glut of average worker bees – their abundance – that has depressed wages for all, which is just the way billionaire businessmen like it.
More significantly, and as this column has attempted to inform, since 2008, there is a visa category reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. It doesn’t displace ordinary Americans.
It’s the O-1 visa. There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed.
“Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics,” states the Department of Homeland Security, “means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”
So, you see, America could recruit as many as it wished from the world’s pool of “totally brilliant people.” Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.
But this is not what business wants. When Big Businesses bend Trump’s ear about “top talent,” they mean, largely, the H-1B system. Touted as a means of trawling for the best and the brightest, the H-1B system is anything but.
In 2018, 10 years after my O-1 visa revelation, immigration lawyers who make their living by outsourcing American lives are finally admitting as much: The H-1B visa was always meant to displace Americans. Via Forbes magazine:
“The drumbeat of an H-1B being intended to only bring the best and the brightest has been incessant the last three years or so. The problem is, of course, that was not the purpose of the H-1B and we already have a temporary visa for that – the O-1.”
Note: The principal sponsor in the Mercer family is a recipient of the 0-1 visa. The 0-1 visa replaces no American. It’s a unique-abilities/achievements visa.
This piece was previously published at IlanaMercer.com on May 23, 2019.
Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, said he thinks “everyone should have the right to vote—even the Boston Marathon bomber … even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”
Bernie is right about a “slippery slope.” But the befuddled Bernie is worried about the wrong slope.
Denying the vote to some and conferring it on others is not a “slippery slope.” It’s exercising good judgment.
Insisting that the vote in America belongs to everyone, irrespective: now that’s a slippery slope, down which the slide is well underway.
As it stands, there are almost no moral or ethical obligations attached to citizenship in our near-unfettered Democracy.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates for the vote—and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers, including America’s constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country—unconditional voting—is but an extension of “mass franchise,” which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk’s magnificent exegesis, “The Conservative Mind,” thought that “the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their particular corporations.”
By “corporations,” Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary, community-killing multinationals.
“Corporations,” in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in “the spirit of cooperation,” between the communities that constitute the nation—neighborhoods, cities, parishes, townships, professions, and trades. based upon the idea of a neighborhood.
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these “little platoons” (Edmund Burke’s iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for political participation.
“If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right,” cautioned Canning, “citizens become mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy,” which, in reality is “the enthronement of demagoguery and mediocrity.” (“The Conservative Mind,” p. 131.)
That’s us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exist and are no longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of “Democracy and Liberty” (1896) predicted that “the continual degradation of the suffrage” through “mass franchise” would end in “a new despotism.”
And so it has.
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by Lecky, attacked “institution after institution,” harbored “systematic hostility” toward “owners of landed property” and private property and insisted that “representative institutions” and the franchise be extended to all irrespective of “circumstance and character.”
Then as now, the socialist radical’s “last idea in constitutional policy is to destroy some institutions or to injure some class.” (Ibid, p. 335.)
And so it is with the radical Mr. Sanders, who holds—quite correctly, if we consider democracy’s historic trajectory as presaged by the likes of Lecky and Canning—that a democracy must be perpetually “expanded,” and that “every single person does have the right to vote,” irrespective of “circumstance and character.”
The vote, of course, is an earned political privilege, not a God-given natural right, as Bernie the atheist describes it.
The granting of political rights should always be circumscribed and circumspect; it ought to be predicated on the fulfillment of certain responsibilities and the embodiment of basic virtues. “Thou shalt not murder,” for example.
Indeed, the case of the Boston Bomber and his ballot is a no-brainer.
Tsarnaev came from a family of Chechen grifters. He got the gift of American political and welfare rights, no strings attached, no questions asked. That’s how we roll. That’s how little these rights have come to mean.
Yet Dzhokhar Tsarnaev didn’t merely pick a quarrel with one or two fellow Americans or with their government; he hated us all. If he could, Tsarnaev would have killed many more of his countrymen, on April 15, 2013.
But for a radical leveler like Mr. Sanders, virtue has no place in a social democracy. Sanders’ project, after all, is “legislating away the property of one class and transferring it to another.”
Since Bernie Sanders was so perfectly serious in protesting the removal of the Boston bomber’s political privileges—he should not be taken seriously.
This article was previously published on April 26, 2019 at IlanaMercer.com.
As appealing as she is as an activist, Candace Owens is no clear thinker. She certainly manages to confuse with her default definition of nationalism vis-a-vis the Trump Revolution.
The setting: Some moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.
There, Owens roughly asserted that “Hitler killed his own people hence he was not a nationalist,” which is a non sequitur.
Ms. Owens here is proceeding from the asserted premise—for she doesn’t argue it—that nationalists do not “kill their own people.” This may be true (but would further depend on definitions; what is meant by “own people”), although I very much doubt it. Nevertheless, it appears that Owens’ thought process is something like,
“I like nationalism [check], and, therefore, Hitler, whom I most certainly don’t like, and who was a monster, could not have been a nationalist.”
Consider: Like all Republicans, Owens, no doubt, adores Lincoln. But would she call Honest Abe a nationalist? Why not? I mean, nationalism is a good thing and Abe, say Republicans like Owens, was a good guy.
Well, there is the pesky fact of Lincoln having killed “his own people” … hmmm. By Owens’ seemingly dogmatic definition of nationalism (not killing your own people), Lincoln, at least, does not qualify as a nationalist.
Just so we’re clear.
What preceded Owens’ odd assertion above was an even stranger comment, again, about Hitler. (This was at the same moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.)
“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine,” she says. “The problem is … he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German.”
The problem with Hitler? Heavens! Where does one start? It was not that he was a “globalist.” (Is that the kind of “globalist” George Soros Citizen of The World is, Candace?)
How about that Hitler is synonymous with conquest, subjugation, slavery and industrialized mass murder in the service of world hegemony, which, he truly believed, would make Germany indisputably the greatest power?
The presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire of 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)
This piece was originally published at IlanaMercer.com on April 9, 2019.
It takes a foreign correspondent planted amid our White House Press Corps to highlight the latter’s dysfunction. During a presser with “Trump of the Tropics”—Brazil’s visiting prime minister, Jair Bolsonaro—a Brazilian lass distinguished herself by focusing exclusively on … hefty matters. When this foreign correspondent asked President Trump about the “OECD,” the furrows on the sloping brows who make up the American press scrum deepened.
To these presstitutes, it mattered not whether America was going to put in a good word for Brazil at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, when there was one overriding, life-or-death matter to tackle:
Trump’s irredeemable, unrelenting, absolute awfulness, which not even an exoneration by the sainted Mr. Mueller has ameliorated.
Yes, Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia in the 2016 election. This has altered not a bit the hyperventilating done by the harridans on the ubiquitous television panels.
Let me be clear. When I allude to the women of TV, I include those with the Y Chromosome.
However, other than a few “men”—Don Lemon and his CNN sideshow, Chris Cuomo, come to mind—the housebroken boys on the typical TV panel are tamer than the tarts. Some of the “men” might even be pretending to be temperamentally unhinged in order to hook-up with good-looking girls in the Green Room.
Brooke Baldwin of CNN and Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC continue to spit out Trump news in CAPS, just so you know HOW EACH ONE FEELS DEEP DOWN INSIDE, AND WHO ARE THE ANGELS AND THE DEMONS IN THE STORY. (Donald and his Deplorables are never angels, if you get the drift.)
Not coincidentally, the asphyxiating hysteria matches the vapid vocabulary. TV’s women rob the English language blind, deploying breathy figures of speech to fit a simpleton’s febrile, emotionally overwrought state-of-mind: “Unbelievable, incredibly embarrassing, amazing, OMG!”
This p-ss-poor, teenybopper English comes with sound effects. TV’s tarts all speak in insufferable, grating, staccato, tart tones. At least, that’s how I’ve always described the gravelly voice of the tele-ditz. Believe it or not, such a depiction is no longer politically proper. The voices from hell have been dignified. Explains the Economist,
“Two vocal features are associated with young women: vocal fry and uptalk. Uptalk, as the name suggests, is the rising intonation that makes statements sound like questions? And vocal fry—often said to be typical of Kim Kardashian, an American celebrity—happens at the ends of words and phrases when a speaker’s vocal chords relax, giving the voice a kind of creaky quality.”
Mandatory elocution lessons might ease the viewer’s pain.
Bad English and bad thinking are intertwined. By logical extension, the “ladies” resort reflexively to ad hominen attack. If Trump expresses an opinion, it’s not because he sincerely thinks it or believes it, but because he’s narcissistic, isn’t nice, makes them sad.
As befits the pedestrian minds described, our pig-ignorant panelists (with apologies to pigs) are incapable of grasping the role of government.
TV’s tele-tarts focus not on the role of government, but on the tone of government.
Thus is disagreement cast as diabolical. POTUS dares to dispute the notion that white nationalism is an urgent problem. He has the audacity to dislike John McCain (who is, likewise, despised by many a Vietnam War veteran), and he’s unconvinced a few Russian bots threw the 2016 elections. Trump doesn’t conform. He rejects received opinion. He’s not like all those sinecured, empaneled “normies.” The reality of difference among TV’s distaff sets off the kind of uncontrollable twitching and writhing conjuring medieval mass hysteria. St. John’s dance frenzy, six-hundred odd years ago, for example.
All this is the stuff of tabloids. For the disciplined mind craves data. It craves facts, not folklore. By contrast, devoid of discipline and a sense of propriety, and seeking the warm smell of the Fake-News herd—cable’s cretins escape into gossip, feelings, and fantasy.
The girlie nature of news reportage means a lurch from one scandal to the next. And it’s never about real news. The “Five W’s” journalists are obligated to impart in their coverage no longer count. These were: Who, What, When, Where, Why. Nowadays, the women in control keep it sensational, as opposed to informative and substantive. They pick the most perverse aspect of a story—often entirely imaginary and symbolic—zero in on it and work it, until the next fix presents itself.
And, no, these dames are not nameless phantoms. Here are some of American TV’s more memorable mediocrities:
Yamiche Alcinder (PBS), Ruth Marcus (WaPo), Marie Barf, Jessica Tarlov and Rochelle Ritchie of Fox News, Alexis McGill Johnson, Jackie Speier (politician), Ana Maria Archila, Nomiki Konst and Symone D. Sanders (high-flying Bernie babes both), Asha Rangappa (former FBI, ever Democrat), Michelle Goldberg (atrocious writer at the New York Times), Hallie Jackson (MSNBC), Sarah Westwood (snide at CNN), Emma Brown (WaPo), Shannon Pettypiece (Bloomberg), Catherine Rampell (WaPo), Eliza Collins (USA Today), Maya Wiley (MSNBC), Jessica Valenti (author of “Sex Object”), Liz Plank (cringe factor infinity ∞ at Vox Media), Liz Mair (lite libertarian), Cynthia Alskne (dumps on Donald for MSNBC), Natasha Bertram (The Atlantic), Anne Rumsey Gearan (Washington Post’s White House Reporter); Jennifer Horn (AP News), Neera Tanden (former adviser to BHO and Democratic operative), Adrian de Vogue (CNN Court reporter), Laura Coates (CNN), Xochitl Hinojosa (big wig in the Democratic Party, if you can pronounce her name), Jay-Newton Small (Time magazine), Adrienne Elrod. On and on. These females are interchangeable in opinion and in demeanor.
And here is my modest Swiftian proposal:
It so happens that a hero of the left, mass murderer Mao Zedong, once proposed exporting 10 million Chinese women to the United States. In a long conversation with Henry Kissinger at the Chinese leader’s residence, in February of 1973, Mao moaned about “the dismal trade between the two countries.” China was a “very poor country,” said Mao, with “an excess of women.”
“Let them go to your place. They will create disasters. That way, you can lessen our burdens,” Mao pleaded in earnest (for he had no sense of humor).
That’s the one and only page America might consider taking out of the Little Red Book—in reverse. Ship the aforementioned to China. Bomb China with American bimbos. Alas, as soon as one prototypical panelist falls away, like sharks’ teeth, another moves in to fill her slot.
This piece was previously published at IlanaMercer.com on March 28, 2019.
The particular CNN segment I was watching concerned Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. It was meant to help terminate the controversial anchor’s career.
I recognized the sourpuss, dressed in marigold yellow, who was presiding over the seek-and-destroy mission, targeting the ultra-conservative Mr. Carlson.
She was no other than Poppy Harlow.
It transpires that years back, Carlson had routinely called into a Howard-Stern-like shock-jock radio show and made naughty comments, some about women. Women were “extremely primitive,” he had quipped.
To watch the countless, indistinguishable, ruthless, atavistic women empaneled on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox News—one cannot but agree as to the nature and caliber of the women privileged and elevated in our democracy, and by mass society, in general.
They’re certainly not women with the intellect and wit of a Margot Asquith—countess of Oxford, author and socialite (1864-1945). Would that women like Mrs. Asquith were permitted to put lesser “ladies” like CNN’s Ms. Harlow in their proper place.
When asked by American actress Jean Harlow how she pronounces her first name, Margot Asquith shot back, “The ‘t’ is silent, as in Harlow.”
Naturally, you’d have to have a facility with the English language to know what a “harlot” is.
You’d certainly need an education, as opposed to a degree, to recognize the next character referenced.
TV’s empaneled witches and their housebroken, domesticated boys are guided more by the spirit of Madame Defarge than by Lady Justice.
If parents saw to it that kids got an education, not merely a degree, the brats would know who Madam Defarge was.
But our uneducated ignoramuses no longer seek out the greatest literature ever. This is because the best books were penned by the pale, patriarchal penile people. Given this self-inflicted ignorance, few younger readers will know this most loathsome of literary icons, from “A Tale Of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens.
Madame Defarge is the bloodthirsty commoner, who sat knitting, as she watched the en masse public beheadings of innocent aristocrats (17,000 of them) in Paris, during the Reign of Terror, aka the French Revolution, whose symbol ought to be the guillotine. (Another 10,000 perished in prison sans due process.)
Manafort, formerly a Trump campaign adviser, will be jailed for seven-and-a-half years for non-violent “crimes” excavated by Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller, and committed against that most wicked of government departments, the Internal Revenue Service. That a broken, frail, wheelchair-bound man might not die in jail enraged the wicked, pitiless witches of the networks.
Cheered on by our contemporary Madame Defarges, Manafort’s next sentencing Judge, an angry female, failed to limit her ambit to the application of the law, namely to sentencing. Instead, she lectured the defendant for a demeanor that displeased her, and for an inadequate display of contrition. Judge Amy Berman Jackson subjected a visibly broken Mr. Manafort to a vicious tongue-lashing.
For that the TV harpies rejoiced as one.
Not one bit did the ugly landscape that is the collective mind of TV’s liberal women care that Manafort had also been subjected to double jeopardy. In contravention of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prosecutors simply tweak or reword an indictment just enough to twice or thrice put a defendant “in jeopardy of life or limb” “for the same offense.”
The cable coven was having none of this compassion stuff (that’s for immigrants who murder Americans, not for elderly white men who had worked for Mr. Trump). Mercy? What’s that! Manafort had stolen from the government, shrieked one NBC harridan (the IRS itself being a thieving, corrupt and oppressive entity).
Undeniably, this reign of terror on TV is dominated by women. And they’re as flippant about a new arms race with Russia as they are about jailing individuals for crimes created in the process of conducting a Mueller-like inquisition, with its “storm-trooper tactic” and overweening, extra-constitutional powers. (Is Maria Butina still in solitary, by the way?)
Likewise, the attitude of TV’s females to alleged sex crimes is to drop the word “alleged” and dispatch the accused: guilty! In the lexicon of these feral creatures, whom we watch day-in and day-out gesticulate and fulminate, to be accused of a sex offense is to be guilty of it (unless you’re a ruthless illegal alien who’s raped a helpless cow). Due process? That’s too much of a high-minded abstraction for the average tele-tart.
Then there are the phrases these women deploy and the direction their impoverished discourse invariably leads on the ubiquitous panels:
“It’s not normal!”
“Look at what President Trump just said. Look, he shows more affection toward dictators than democrats.”
“Look at the ‘untraditional nations’ he is befriending, look at the war he is not prosecuting. It’s not normal. Help. Restrain him. Make him ‘normal.’”
The “not normal” refrain issues from the uterine bowels of the tele-tart. It is a visceral cry for conformity, uniformity of thought at all costs.
Never mind that the path to some kind of unity in this fractured, broken country of ours is through peaceful disunity. That, these radical females consider dystopic. They’re unprepared to accept respectful disunity, or accord an opponent respect. It’s a fight to the death—though not theirs.
This piece appeared at IlanaMercer.com on March 21, 2019.
Sen. Kamala Harris talks a lot about “our American values.” Ditto the rest of the female candidates who’ve declared for president in the busy Democratic field. They all lecture us about “values.”
“Our American values are under attack,” Harris has tweeted. “Babies are being ripped from their parents at the border …”
As her own proud “know your values moment,” the Democrat from California pinpoints the U.S. Senate Supreme Court confirmation proceedings inflicted on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
To manipulate Americans, politicians have always used the values cudgel.
With respect to immigration, the idea is to impress upon gullible Americans that the world has a global Right of Return to the U.S. Fail to accept egalitarian immigration for all into America, and you are flouting the very essence of Americanism. (Or, to use liberal argumentation, you’re Hitler.)
When politicians pule about the importance of preserving “our values,” they mean their values: Barack Obama’s values, Hillary Clinton’s values, Angela Merkel’s values, Chucky Schumer’s values, Jeff Bezos’ values, the late John McMussolini’s values, Lindsey Graham’s values, and Jared and Ivanka’s values (but not Trump’s).
When a politician preaches about “the values that make our country great,” to quote Mrs. Clinton, chances are they mean multiculturalism, pluralism, wide-swung borders, Islam as peace, communities divided by diversity as a net positive and the Constitution (it mandates all the above, just ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg) as a living, breathing, mutating philosophical malignancy.
For them, “protecting” the abstraction that is “our way of life” trumps the protection of real individual lives. “We must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are,” dissembled Obama in the waning weeks before he was gone. The empty phrase is meant to make the sovereign citizen – you – forget that government’s most important role, if not its only role, is to protect individual life.
In his last few addresses, Obama promised to speak up on “certain issues,” in times when he imagined “our core values may be at stake.” Likewise, in delivering her Control-Alt-Delete speech against the Deplorables, Clinton had asserted that “our country is great because we’re good. … Donald Trump disregards the values that make our country great.” The two’s groupthink notwithstanding, only individuals can be virtuous, not collectives.
Self-government, and not imposed government, implies that society, and not the State, is to develop value systems. The State’s role is to protect citizens as they go about their business peacefully, living in accordance with their peaceful values.
When you hear an appeal to “permanent values” – “the values that make our country great,” to quote Clinton and the current crop of Democratic candidates – know you are dealing with world-class crooks. These crooks want to swindle you out of the freedom to think and believe as you wish. For in the classical conservative and libertarian traditions, values are private things, to be left to civil society – the individual, family and church – to practice and police.
The American government is charged purely with upholding the law, no more. Why so? Because government has police and military powers with which to enforce its “values.” A free people dare not entrust such an omnipotent entity with policing values, at home or abroad, for values enforced are dogma.
When incontestable majorities call on government to curb Islamic and other in-migration because this imperils American lives, President Trump’s unswerving opponents (within his party and without) and their media mafia will invariably intone, “That’s not who we are.”
When you hear that manipulative mantra, tell them to zip it up, mind their own business, and stick to their constitutional mandate to protect the people, not police their minds.
Remember that through an appeal to values, the State aggrandizes itself.
A limited government, serving an ostensibly free people, must thus never enforce values. It follows that, because our form of government is incompatible with the enforcement of values, the American People can’t and mustn’t admit into their midst civilizations whose values are inimical to the survival of their own.
Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media call it “identity politics.” “The left is playing identity politics.”
Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. For, blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky. Hence, anti-white politics or animus.
The ire of the multicultural multitudes is directed exclusively at whites and their putative privilege. Anti-whitism is becoming endemic and systemic.
Take “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett deceived the country and the Chicago Police Department about having fallen prey to a hate crime, which, it transpired, he had crudely orchestrated.
The Chicago Police Department superintendent expressed the requisite righteous indignation that a black man (Smollett) would desecrate symbols of black oppression in the process of framing innocent Others. (A noose had been purchased at Smollett’s behest.)
Nobody, Superintendent Eddie Johnson included, said sorry to the accused group, whose reputation had been sullied: “Trump supporters or white persons.”
“Trump supporters” is indeed a proxy for “white persons.” The conflation of “white” and “Trump supporter” was made, for one, by an anti-white, anti-Trump, professional agitator: Trevor Noah of the “Daily Show.” Noah is neither funny nor very bright, but he is right, in this instance.
Conservatives, for their part, persist in skirting the white-animus issue. The Smollett libel fit the “progressive narrative,” they intoned. (Overuse has made the “narrative” noun a bad cliché.)
It was a right vs. left matter, insisted others.
Smollett was sick in the head, came another obfuscation. What would public expiation and excuse-making be without the rotten habit of diseasing misbehavior?! His antics might still make him a big-time actor, but Smollett is a small-time crook, a common criminal of low character. To disease immorality is a corruption of traditional conservative thinking.
We have here a politicization of crime, reasoned other compromising conservatives.
Come again? What is the hate-crime category if not a politicization of crime? With the hate crime designation, we are essentially saying that a murder committed with racial malice is worse than one committed without it. Is that a normative call or a political one? I’d say the latter.
Some conservatives remarked that the Smollett affair occurred against the backdrop of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Is TDS not a proxy for the white-hot hatred of whites?
Four minutes and 13 seconds in, a video filmed at the Washington State Evergreen College gives way to softly hissed, but deranged, diatribes by faculty. Theirs is unadulterated, anti-white agitprop. Yet the TV host who screened this pedagogic incitement chuckles lightheartedly about secondary, lesser issues like victimhood chic. Never once is the thing called what is it:
Incessant and dangerous incitement to hate innocent whites for their alleged pigmental privilege.
A recent and jarring anti-white incident involved the curriculum imposed on students by the Santa Barbara Unified School District. As if public education is not sufficiently corrupt, “educators” now contract out to an educational black op. These tax-paid mercenaries come to schools as social levelers to put your kids through an indoctrination boot camp. However, it’s not egalitarianism that the schools are increasingly teaching, but anti-whitism.
“Just Communities Central Coast” (JCCC) is such an “educational” black op. The reported outcomes of the “Just Communities” initiative tell us a lot about the impetus behind the course.
“JCCC’s discriminatory curriculum has led to increased racial animosity toward Caucasian teachers and students,” reported Eric Early, a Republican candidate for California attorney general.
American kids can barely read properly or speak and write grammatically. They’ll never know the wonders of the Western literary canon (banished because produced by the pale patriarchy). But they’ve committed to consciousness ugly, nonsensical, stupid, decontextualized grids that tabulate the ways of white oppression.
Talk about “The Closing of the American Mind”!
Yet, the litigant, a Republican candidate for California attorney general, had a hard time coming out with it. JCCC’s anti-white teachings were merely anti-American, he told Fox News apologetically. Is that all you’ve got, sir?
I read Esquire’s Feb. 12, cover story featuring Ryan Morgan, of West Bend, Wisconsin. Fox News’ Martha MacCallum called it “provocative,” before inviting U.S. Army veteran Darrin Porcher and activist-actor Rumando Kelley to trash “The Life of [this] American Boy at 17.”
The only reason the humdrum story of poor Ryan Morgan was deemed “provocative” is because he’s white. As it transpired from the disjointed “thoughts” disgorged by MacCallum’s two black supremacist guests, “There is [sic] more important people in the world than white middle-class.” (Ryan is not wealthy. He holds a job for which he rises at 6:30 a.m., before school. I’d put him in the working-class category.)
While the one unedifying black supremacist conceded that, “We do need to lend some credence to what a Caucasian man goes through,” the irate Rumando roared that, “Esquire dropped the ball on this.”
Rumando could not quite explain why the experiences of white boys deserved to be expunged, in the era of anti-whiteness and suicide rates rising among this very cohort: white American males.
Indeed, the suicide rate is declining everywhere in the world except for America, where it is 12.8 per 100,000, “well above China’s current rate of seven.” Dubbed “deaths of despair,” white Americans and native Americans are the most suicidal populations in the U.S.
This piece originally appeared on IlanaMercer.com on Feb. 28, 2019.
"There are no more civil libertarians left," warned celebrated attorney Alan Dershowitz.
The topic was the left. The location was Tucker Carlson's TV studio, May 30.
Dershowitz, a life-long liberal and civil-libertarian, has refused "to allow partisan politics to pre-empt his views on the Constitution," in general, and in the matter of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his tribunal, in particular.
Conversely, the American Civil Liberties Union has supported the FBI's manifestly unconstitutional raid on Michael Cohen's offices, even asserting that the seizing of client-attorney privileged files from the Trump attorney was kosher.
"... all indications thus far are that the search was conducted pursuant to the rule of law," crowed the ACLU, in "stunning rebuke to the basic concepts behind the [organization's] mission."
To ACLU silence—and in contravention of that quaint thing called the Fourth Amendment—Mueller had previously taken possession of tens of thousands of emails exchanged among President Donald Trump's transition team.
The meek, weak Jeff Sessions has failed miserably to bust these sham, kangaroo-court proceedings, leading former House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz to carp: "The attorney general is just not up to the job."In the absence of an effective legal counterweight, Mueller, of course, is getting away with it.
On TV, Dershowitz has been joined by the talented Mr. Turley (Jonathan Turley, Esquire), in protesting the warrantless theft of the Trump campaign's emails.
Let the record show that Dumbo Napolitano (Fox's Judge Andrew) seconded Mueller's legal authority, declaring, on December 18, 2017, that, "Mueller did not improperly obtain Trump's transition emails."
Talk to the hand, Judge Napolitano, because this face ain't listening to you any longer.
"The left is less interested in civil liberties," observed Tucker, ruefully, to which Alan Dershowitz quipped: "The ACLU is dead in the water when it comes to defending the civil liberties of people they don't agree with."
Do "the shoe is on the other foot test," Dershowitz instructs. Ask yourself: "If the shoe were on the other foot, would you be taking the same position you're taking today?" Everyone has to pass it.
Having taken the test, you'll sympathize with the intractable positions against the partisanship of justice, taken by civil libertarians like Alan Dersh and libertarians like this writer.
For us, justice for all is about justice for every individual. Each one of us is safe only when justice is meted out equally. Defend the rights of all to be "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," so that every single one of us may live free of unconstitutional raids on our person, businesses and bedrooms.
"Too many on the right and the left do not pass the shoe-is-on-the-other-foot test," averred Dersh: Conservatives fail the test. Liberals fail the test. Dershowitz, on the other hand, even stood up to the shill, Sean Hannity.
Indeed, by logical and ethical extension, good civil-libertarians and libertarians will have condemned the 1998 (Kenneth) Starr Chamber just as we do the Mueller Inquisition.
"We need neutral principles. We need standards of constitutionality," inveighed Dershowitz.
We have them, sir. We ditched them. We don't follow the original Constitution.
Another near-extinct political animal is your old-school, antiwar liberal.Remnants of this Old Left eke out a political existence on The Nation magazine. They approve of President Trump's North-Korea initiative and mock neoconservatives in opposition to peace with that country.
Foremost among the chicken hawks derided in The Nation for "spinning" the outreach to Kim Jong-un "as a dangerous event" were Mad Max Boot and Jennifer Rubin, who had grand mal fits over the pages of The Washington Post. They were joined by the fulminating Nicholas Kristof (New York Times) and Robin Wright (New Yorker).
In all, the absolute smackdown to Hillary Clinton and to Sen. Bernie Sanders' vacuous "revolutionaries" was delivered by another liberal, John Pilger.
Pilger calls Hillary "the Great Obliterator," for she "might have attacked Iran and lobbed missiles at Putin, whom she likened to Hitler, a particular profanity given the 27 million Russians who died in Hitler's invasion."
"What is known in the US as 'the left,'" laments Pilger, "has effectively allied with the darkest recesses of institutional power, notably the Pentagon and the CIA," to tamper with "a peace deal between Trump and Vladimir Putin and to reinstate Russia as an enemy, on the basis of no evidence of its alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election."
"The true scandal is the insidious assumption of power by sinister war-making vested interests for which no American voted. The rapid ascendancy of the Pentagon and the surveillance agencies under Obama represented an historic shift of power in Washington."
A coup of sorts, one approved by the left.
At its most effective and substantive, the left once protested against gratuitous wars. Under Pilger's lens, "the new liberal brand" amounts to nothing more than "commodified and market-tested 'diversity.'"
The responsibility of all to end the prospects of a nuclear war fails to penetrate those "liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics."
So spoke a bona fide liberal. And with disarming candor.
This piece was originally published at IlanaMercer.com on May 31, 2018.
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