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 Afghanistan Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Antifa Antiracism Apartheid Barack Obama Black Crime Black Lives Matter Blacks Britain Censorship Conservative Movement Constitutional Theory Coronavirus Deep State Democratic Party Donald Trump Economics Feminism Foreign Policy H1-B Visas Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration Islam Israel Israel/Palestine Jews Joe Biden Libertarianism Mass Shootings Muslims Neocons Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Racism Republican Party Republicans Russia Silicon Valley South Africa Taliban Terrorism Vote Fraud White Americans Abraham Lincoln Academia ADL Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Anti-Vaxx Anti-white Animus Arts/Letters Benghazi Bernie Sanders Bill Cosby Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Canada Catholic Church Charles Murray Charlie Hebdo Children Chile China Christianity Christmas CIA Civil Liberties Civil War Colonialism Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conspiracy Theories Corruption Criminality Cultural Marxism DACA Dallas Shooting Democracy Dinesh D'Souza Disease Diversity Economic Development Elites Environmentalism Eric Garner EU Facebook Fake News FBI Ferguson Shooting Floyd Riots 2020 Football France Free Market Free Speech Free Trade Gay Marriage George Floyd George W. Bush Germany Google Government Surveillance Grammys Gun Control Guns Harvey Weinstein Health Care Hispanic Crime Hollywood Holocaust Homelessness Housing Ilana Mercer Ilhan Omar Illegal Immigration Independence Day Inequality Internet Iran Iraq Iraq War ISIS Islamic Jihad Israel Lobby Ivanka James Comey Jared Kushner John Calhoun John McCain Judicial System 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 Meghan McCain Megyn Kelly Mencken Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Monopoly 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 Racial Reality Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Rioting Riots Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Rush Limbaugh Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Science Shias And Sunnis Slavery Socialism SPLC Supreme Court Syria Taxes Tech Technology Texas The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment US Capitol Storming 2021 Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Death White Guilt Working Class Writing Yankees Zimbabwe Zionism
Nothing found
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson appears in thrall to Lara Logan’s political observations—to her “philosophical” meditations, too. Although treated as a Delphic oracle of sorts; Logan is no Roger Scruton.

You might have heard Logan claim, recently and repetitively, that everything in the world is simple. “Everything is simple,” she keeps intoning in her appearances on Fox News.

Applied to the fiasco in Afghanistan, Logan’s Theory of Simple is that, considering that America is omnipotent, whatever occurs under its watch is always and everywhere planned and preventable.

Ridiculous and wrong, yet Tucker, whom we all love to bits, giggles in delight.

“They want you to believe Afghanistan is complicated,” lectured Logan. “Because if you complicate it, it is a tactic in information warfare called ‘ambiguity increasing.’”

“So now we’re talking about all the corruption and this and that,” she further vaporized. “But at its heart, every single thing in the world… always comes down to one or two things …”

Logan likely recently discovered Occam’s Razor and is promiscuously applying this principle to anything and everything, with little evidence or geopolitical and historic understanding in support of her Theory of Simple.

Occam’s Razor posits that, “the simplest explanation is preferable to one that is more complex,” provided “simple” is “based on as much evidence as possible.”

A nifty principle—and certainly not a philosophy—Occam’s Razor was not meant to apply to everything under the sun.

Misapplied by Logan, why? Primarily because Logan’s explanation for America’s defeat in Afghanistan—that the United States threw the game—is hardly the simplest explanation, despite her assertion to the contrary.

The simplest explanation to the US defeat in Afghanistan, based on as much information as is possible to gather, is that, wait for this: America was defeated fair and square. As this columnist had argued, the US was outsmarted and outmaneuvered, in a mission impossible in the first place.

Unlike Logan, who is convinced America could have won a war other superpowers had lost, Mike Martin, a former British army officer in Helmand province, now at King’s College, London, had this to say about the ragtag enemy:

This was “probably one of the best conceived and planned guerrilla campaigns ever. The Taliban went into every district and flipped all the local militias by doing deals along tribal lines.”

What do you know? The Economist did not ask Logan for her “analysis” of “why America failed in Afghanistan.” Instead, the august magazine called on Henry Kissinger, a stateman with a sinewy intelligence, for his analysis.

Kissinger said what this writer had written in columns like, “‘Just War’ For Dummies (2003), “Afghanistan: A War Obama Can Call His Own” (2008) “To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question” (2012), “Grunts, Get In Touch With Your Inner-Muslim” (2012), and others.

Tribal Afghanistan is thoroughly decentralized, always has been. Our indisputably brave soldiers had been ordered to, at once, woo and war against a primitive Pashtun population that disdained the central government we were dead set on strengthening. (“Afghanistan: A War Obama Can Call His Own,” 2008)

Since Baksheesh (bribery) is in the political bone marrow of Afghanistan; American money and profligate spending habits only fed this proclivity for pelf and strengthened feudal fiefdoms and warlords.

And Afghans simply have more of an affinity for the Taliban than for the Wilsonians who were attempting to westernize them. Those we collaborated with are currently being called “our allies.” But it was not uncommon to hear of an Afghan policeman or soldier leading our men into an ambush, or opening fire on his American “colleagues,” during a joint operation.

Now, all we hear from Logan and the neocon Rambo Rescuers of Fox News is of the urgency of bringing these “Afghan allies” to America.

Back in the day, it was curiously observed that the Afghani soldiers “fighting” alongside our men frequently suffered few casualties; Americans invariably paid the price. In 2009, I quoted Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose close friend died in one of those attacks by an “ally.” He said: “You don’t trust anybody here.”

Now we consider them trustworthy—even eligible to take up residence in our neighborhoods.

Wrote Jim Sauer, a “retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service” (2009), about our Afghan allies:

“…the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they ‘true believers.’ They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and apostates to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level… They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP.”

The Taliban does not speak for the small sector of Afghans groomed by America during the occupation. Widely supported by most Afghanis, however, the Taliban tried to tell us that, “the presence of infidels in a Muslim country is a … sin,” and that they would not tolerate the “accursed Western invasion, which [was] forcing itself upon us in the name of democracy.”

They didn’t.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Afghanistan, American Military, Taliban 

Fox News celebrity anchors and their tough-talking guests continue to trip over one another to talk up the wonders of our Afghan allies and the legions of Afghan Americans who have American citizenship, but happen to hang out a lot in Afghanistan. It’s a terrible affront, they all say, that America has failed to lift them all to safety.

Between the Republicans and the Democrats, there isn’t a country in the world that could not be a target for resettlement in America.

Wait a sec, there is: South Africa. Truth be told, I’m deeply repulsed by legions of Americans, ex-soldiers and other sentimental sniveling wrecks, rushing to bring Afghanistan to the United States.

I’m a South-African American. Who’s rescuing the people I love and left in South Africa? We South-African Americans never think to demand it, although Afghan-Americans stridently do.

Some of my people have been robbed and beaten within an inch of their lives. And others are subjected to daily racial depredations and discrimination; their white kids having no future to speak of. All are far more compatible with life here, although, to be fair, my South Africans do suffer a comorbidity: they’re white.

One of the networks interviewed one Tim Kennedy, a hardened, yet teary ex-military man, Special Forces.

On August the 26th, as he packed his bag, Kennedy waxed fat to his interviewer about dying for anyone who wanted to fight for a freer world.

And off this globalist went to fight for his people du jour, the Afghans. (On Twitter he promotes Special Visas for Afghan.)

I find it hard to respect this kind of deracinated, rootless soldier of Empire.

Although funded by Americans, the US military’s allegiances are global and humanitarian. Our soldiers are trained to be “a global force for good.” That’s their mindset. And that, in 2009, was the actual recruiting motto for the U.S. Navy, for a short while.

The slogan was quickly ditched then, but it is perfectly apropos now, since recruits are inculcated with a thoroughly cosmopolitan, even anti-American, sensibility.

I can’t listen to Special Forces Kennedy’s obscene, quintessentially neoconservative rants about the bad, bad Taliban. Unlike ordinarily Americans, these soldiers of Empire have been brainwashed to be thoroughly vested in the fate of homelands not their own. This, as their own homeland is being invaded and is packed with poor, sad people.

Cory Mills is another ex-Special Forces guy bragging about the massive global effort he and another GOP Congressman galvanized in order to import Afghani Muslims into our neighborhoods.

MAGA and America First just didn’t register with the GOP, did they? The GOP’s default is globalism. Which is why I say, “GOP, RIP.”

If members of the US Military had a moral core—in the original spirit of Posse comitatus, an ancient English institution—they’d head to their own country’s southwestern border where an unremitting invasion is underway.

Or, they’d help so many pathetic, helpless and hopeless Americans, an example being “The Whittakers: An Inbred American Family,” living like neglected, shelterless animals in the United States of America. These poor Americans have nothing! But they are not a cause exotic enough for our military and the elites that shape its philosophy. Impoverished Americans don’t have refugee chic.

My point: There is so much unutterable suffering in the US. The bravado of the typical, tough-talking military man, gushing over—and rushing to—Afghanistan not only doesn’t impress me much, but it turns the stomach.

As I watch the wretched of the world living within America’s borders, I think of the words of Cullen Murphy, author of the superb “Are We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of Rome”:

“Imperial overstretch” is “the idea that one’s security needs, military obligations, and globalist desires increasingly outstrip resources available to satisfy them” (p. 71).

Outsized, excessive and over-the-top: The above is a perfect description of the improper and misplaced exhilaration of the Kennedy and Mills military types, on their private mission to Afghanistan. Everything about their displays is outsized, excessive and over-the-top.

Such a military sickens, because a military by definition is designed to defend the homeland and the homeboys.

WATCH: ‘Empire’s Soldiers Head To Afghanistan To Defend The Homeland And Their Homeboys’

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece 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, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new Podcast

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Afghanistan, American Military, Taliban 

Establishing a functioning centralized state in Afghanistan didn’t work. Neither did the backend Deep State take in that country: Corruption runs deep in Afghanistan, but it’s a decentralized affair.

Even so, it would appear that the “U.S. government helped the country set up” a mini-American Surveillance State, namely, “the ability to wiretap and monitor phone calls for surveillance purposes,” even helping “create some of the data through funding and efforts to modernize the government,” reports Politico.

A constitutional republic was not what was being exported to Afghanistan.

Certainly, the extent to which the US can surveil its citizens bellies the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution—that quaint notion that “the people [have a right] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

As the quintessential surveillance state, the United States had tried to foist its spying ways on Afghanistan. At the behest of the US, “The former Afghan government started collecting biometric data about Afghan citizens, including military personnel.”

This was as recently as 2006. But ensconcing a remotely reliable records-keeping bureaucracy in Afghanistan would have taken many more centuries.

“Given Afghanistan’s low level of development,” conclude s Mark Krikorian, “record-keeping there was [never] comprehensive and efficient, if it existed at all.”

Post decampment, Afghanistan, at a cost exceeding \$2 trillion to American taxpayers, is still a tribal society without a functioning bureaucracy. It is highly improbable that the country has kept reliable birth, death, marriage and criminal records on its citizens—many of whom are making their way to the United States.

The best way, then, to vet immigrants is by the faith they practice. As the data show, young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out against their hosts across the West. Second-generation Muslim-Americans are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

Omar Saddiqui Mateen shot up a Florida gay nightclub, in 2016. He was a second-generation Afghan-American. Although Mateern’s father was an admirer of the Taliban, the moron media concluded that junior was no Jihadist, only a latent, self-hating homosexual, fixated on phallic symbols like big guns.

Another proud Afghan-American who’ll be welcoming the hundreds of thousands of Afghans airlifted and funneled into America is Najibullah Zazi, arrested for plotting to blow up stuff stateside, in September 2009. He was released in 2019.

Since public policy is aimed at the common good—a cohort that commits more faith-based murders than another, say Christian Afghans, is, on average, unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US.

The reason for second-generation terrorism is no mystery. More so than girls, boys need strong men in their lives—men who’ll affirm their masculinity. Young men crave manly mentors with a strong moral message. But in contemporary American culture, men are sissified and feminized and biological boundaries blurred. American boys, K-12, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world, where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.

When a Muslim male, moreover, hears American preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country’s Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors—he quickly learns to reject his adopted country’s heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe at Muhammad and his acolytes.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam.

As painful as it is to say, being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion.

By “risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam, we have a religion that doubles up as a political system counseling conquest, not co-existence. “Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned famed historian Samuel Huntington. The data support his prescient and profound analysis.

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” is a 2013 report authored by the Pew Research Center. In case you needed confirmation of Islam’s radicalism, this report found that there is universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) for making Islamic law the official law in their country.

“Muslims across all the regions surveyed also generally agree that certain behaviors – such as suicide, homosexuality and consuming alcohol – are morally unacceptable. …” And most “Muslims say a wife should always obey her husband…”

Even in regions “characterized by relatively low levels of religious observance and strong support for a woman’s right to decide whether to wear a veil, seven-in-10 Muslims agree that a wife should carry out her husband’s wishes.”

Whereas church-state separation is a fulcrum of America, most Muslims think “religious leaders should have at least some influence over political matters.”

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we’ve learned, a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.

So what if moderate Muslims assure us that each and every terrorist was acting out-of-faith! That’s irrelevant to the irreversible outcomes.

As is it a distraction to claim, as the moderates do, that Jihadis are misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or unicorns. Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the “real Islam” or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly to Americans.

Afghans are as tough as teak. America, however, is a soft, feminized, sentimental and self-hating society. It is dangerous to import men from such a militant manly culture into a country that teaches its immigrants to hate American history and heroes, and to despise and dominate our naive, eager-to-please people and their customs.

More so than chaotic countries-of-origin, religion is The Risk Factor in vetting Afghan immigrants. In the popular parlance, w e might say that their Muslim faith puts Afghan Muslims in a security risk group and that Islam is a religious comorbidity.

 

With the American media as master of ceremonies, pundits and politicians—all partners in the neocon-neoliberal joint venture in Afghanistan—are barking mad over the images coming out of the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, and the reality these optics portend.

Naturally, media “reporting” from Afghanistan is nothing but an unremitting sentimental gush, aimed at creating a state of heightened emotions.

“The children; the children; the translators; the translators. Americans held hostage behind enemy lines. ‘Teach the Taliban a lesson, Corn Pop,’” demanded a “macho” personality at Fox News. The same litany runs on a continuous loop.

Forbes reporters dissolved into puddles of tears at the sight of U.S. Air Force pilots bringing in plane loads of young, strong, military-aged men, unfreighted by women and children.

On August 20, about 5,700 people had been flown out of Kabul. Only 169 were American. “Make no mistake,” slobbered Forbes, “lifting six times more people than an aircraft is designed to seat is a heroic achievement of logistics, skill and sheer grit.”

I see a medal of commendation in the future of the Empire’s Pilot, who commandeered a U.S. Air Force C-17 to airlift 800 Afghani passengers from Kabul to Qatar.

War: The Health Of The State —And The Statists

So, who exactly are those “trapped” Americans living in Afghanistan?

What are they doing in such inhospitable climes, in a country most of whose inhabitants hated the American presence? And what is their business in Afghanistan? The incurious moron media have never asked.

My guess is that U.S. citizens in Afghanistan have hitherto lived within Army-erected green zones, paid for by American taxpayers.

My guess is that these Americans are mostly military contractors, an extension of the military-industrial-complex—also the ultimate state, make-work scheme.

A likely breakdown of our “Americans in Afghanistan” comes via Danger Zone Jobs, “which tracks more than 300 companies with overseas contracting jobs in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.”

Most “jobs” for Americans in a place like Afghanistan revolve around the military, “the two primary sources of jobs [being] with private contractors supporting the military and companies who subcontract to various international relief and development efforts.” In other words, the NGO racket.

By Danger Zone Jobs’ accounting, “Approximately 29,389 DoD contractors supported operations in Afghanistan during the 1st quarter of 2019.” There you have it. To paraphrase Randolph Bourne, war is the health of the State and the statists.

Still, you are not a good American unless you fret about Afghani translators (who, in turn, complain on-camera endlessly, and as loudly as CNN’s Dana Bash, about American dereliction).

Realpolitik: What Modest Foreign Policy Looks Like

Similarly, you are not a good pack animal unless you worry about “the Uyghurs, the Uyghurs. China is oppressing the Uyghurs. Our values, our values.”

Uyghurs are also China’s biggest headache, now that America is no longer mired in Afghanistan. What the dummies on the idiot’s lantern fail to tell you—although analysts at The Economist do—“Uyghurs count among thousands of foreign jihadists active in Afghanistan, mostly enlisted in Taliban ranks.”

So, as the skittish media hounds and politicians, stateside, gnash teeth and beat on breast over Afghanistan, less hysterical countries, abutting Afghanistan, are acting calmly in their national interest, to ensure that Jihad and heroin don’t spill over their borders.

Unlike Lara Kissinger Logan of Fox News, who “thinks” America could have won a war that other superpowers have lost—the Chinese and the Iranians are hip to what just happened. This was “probably one of the best conceived and planned guerrilla campaigns ever,” says Mike Martin, a former British army officer in Helmand province, now at King’s College London. “The Taliban went into every district and flipped all the local militias by doing deals along tribal lines.”

In negotiations with the Taliban, Beijing has thus realistically demanded that Afghanistan not become “a base for ethnic Uyghur separatists.” For their part, “Taliban leaders have pledged to leave Chinese interests in Afghanistan alone and not to harbor any anti-China extremist groups.”

Like Beijing, Teheran, too, is busying itself with realpolitik. While Iran is “delighted to see the Great Satan, America, abandon its bases next door,” it worries about cheap heroin flooding in from Afghanistan, as well as the persecution of the tiny Shia minority of Afghanistan.

There is another matter that vexes the Shia of Iran, but is of no concern to the State Department, which generally “doesn’t know Shiite from Shinola.”

Don’t Know Shiite From Shinola

“Shia Muslims … view their own Islamic revolution as a modernizing movement,” explains the Economist. After all, “Women can study, work and hold office in Iran, so long as they veil.”

Consequently, Iranians “look askance at the Taliban’s hidebound Sunni fanaticism.” Shia Iran worries about the Sunni insanity, and rightly so.

That’s yet another aspect of foreign policy that good Americans are not permitted to question. For merely asking, “When last did Iran commit terrorism against the US?,” Fox News’ Tucker Carlson was attacked viciously by rival personality Mark Levin. Carlson, however, was on the money. As I chronicled in 2017: “Iranians killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks in the US between 1975 -2015.”

What do you know? When compared with Sunni Islam (for example, Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism), a faction of Islam with whose practitioners the West feels much more simpatico—Shia Islam (Iran’s poison of choice) is more enlightened. Yet America and Israel side with Saudi Arabia, the epitome of Sunni insanity. Go figure.

 

Yes, we know it was chaos, but then again there was no good way to leave that dusty hellhole—or “shithole,” as the much-missed Donald Trump would have put it.

Joe Biden was right in his “Remarks on Afghanistan“: “… if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that one year — one more year, five more years, or 20 more years of U.S. military boots on the ground would’ve made any difference.”

Tempting as it may be for right-thinking conservatives and paleolibertarians, in particular, to use the inevitable collapse of the charade in Afghanistan against Biden—honesty demands that we avoid it.

TV Republicans, no doubt, will join the shrill CNN and MSNBC females and their houseboys, who love nothing more than to export the American Nanny State, in bashing Biden for his decisive withdrawal. The president said, “I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.”

Falling into the Republican line of partisan, tit-for-tat retorts is wrong. The man made the right choice—as opposed to Barack Obama’s. Indeed, Afghanistan was a war Obama had embraced .

Beware especially the military men, who will flood Fox New with the sunk-cost fallacy. As explained in this 2014 column, “GOP Should Grow A Brain, Join The Peace Train“:

“Military movers and shakers are heavily vested in the sunk-cost fallacy—the irrational notion that more resources must be committed forthwith … so as to ‘redeem’ the original misguided commitment of men, money and materiel to the mission.”

To that end, repeated ad nauseam is the refrain about our “brave men and women of the military,” whose sacrifice for [Afghani] “freedoms” will be squandered unless more such sacrifices are made.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary dispels this illogic: “To continue to invest in a hopeless project is irrational. Such behavior may be a pathetic attempt to delay having to face the consequences of one’s poor judgment. The irrationality is a way to save face, to appear to be knowledgeable, when in fact one is acting like an idiot.”

Besides, it’s time the military heed its paymasters, The American People, a majority of whom don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Afghanistan.

The best thing about Joe Biden’s decisive departure from Afghanistan was that he angered the girls and the “girly boys” of the networks as much as he infuriated the jingoists at Fox News and the globalist the world over.

How good is that?!

As always, David Vance and myself do get serious, and dish out hard, immutable truths, via podcast and video, so listen up or watch!

LISTEN: “Biden Decamps From Dark Ages Afghanistan, Infuriates Dems, GOPers And Globalists: BRAVO!”

https://hardtruthwithdavidvanceandilanamercer.podbean.com/e/biden-decamps-from-dark-ages-afghanistan-infuriates-dems-gopers-and-globalists-bravo/

WATCH: “Biden Decamps From Dark Ages Afghanistan, Infuriates Dems, GOPers And Globalists: BRAVO!”

 

This column is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication.

PAYPAL HOLDINGS, Inc, is an indispensable, American, global corporation, without whose services, financially transacting online is difficult. The company is worth \$16.929 billion.

The worthless Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a meddlesome shakedown operation, in the mold of the Southern Poverty Law Center, that has taken it upon itself to decide who lives and who dies socially and financially. People like Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson the ADL deems to be mired in white supremacism. What next?

The ADL and PayPal have conspired to ferret out “bigotry and extremism” from the financial industry, by which they mean ban thought crimes.

“Racism—systemic or other—remains nothing but thought crime: impolite and impolitic thoughts, spoken, written or preached. Thought crimes are nobody’s business in free societies.”

In response to this particular collusion against thought crimes, Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has vowed to stay chipper. This is not sufficient a solution from so powerful a persona as Mr. Carlson.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ Solution

The requisite and fitting noblesse oblige comes from Justice Clarence Thomas.

As one of the few public intellectual to grasp the gravity of social and financial excommunication by Deep Tech (to denote Big Tech’s enmeshment with The State), and for proposing a way to prohibit wicked social and financial ouster of innocents—Justice Thomas is my hero.

To blabber on about simply finding alternative outlets to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities is asinine verging on the criminal. Coming from political representatives, such advice ought to guarantee loss of face, even political expulsion.

The ordinary guy or girl (check) is told to go up against economic and political entities whose revenues exceed the GDP of quite a number of G20 nations combined.

“It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information,” inveighs Justice Thomas:

“A person could always choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

I’d go further. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s ingenious point, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes.

“Sure, some options remain for you to explore, you hapless loser. Go to it!”

Thomas has argued in favor of the “two legal doctrines” that “limit the right of a private company to exclude”:

The first doctrine, he explained, involves “common carriers,” such as railroads and telegraphs, which have historically been required “to serve all comers.” The second involves “places of public accommodation” or amusement, such as inns, restaurants, and theaters, which have generally been forbidden from denying service to certain categories of people. “The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of accommodation,” Thomas wrote, “may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms.” (Via Reason.)

Republicans, especially the tenured motormouths on TV, have refused so much as to grapple with Justice Thomas’ outstanding assessment of Big Tech and his attendant legal recommendation.

Too complex?

Next Week: Part 3, “Mercer & Mystery Man’s Big-Tech Solutions.”

Part 1: Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication (The Problem)

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian think piece 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, Gab, YouTube & LinkedIn; banned by Facebook, and has a new Podcast

 
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: ADL, Censorship, Facebook, Monopoly, Silicon Valley 

Republican solutions to Big Tech tyranny do not begin to address financial de-platforming, the cancellation of citizen dissidents en masse, including the infringement of the right to partake in the public square and make a living.

In their weak case against Deep Tech (“Deep” to denote enmeshment with The State), Republicans are still defending only some speech on the “merits,” rather than all speech, no matter how meritless.

In a sense, the statist anti-trust bills—targeting especially Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google—being pushed by lawmakers are worse than useless.

The anti-trust impetus is misguided as it conflates corporate size with anti-competitive practices: the larger, the more monopolistic. However, reducing the size of an entity–a corporation–doesn’t necessarily alter its nature.

When a malignant cell divides, it doesn’t grow less potent. To the contrary, it innervates and enervates more spheres. Likewise breaking up Big Tech. Smaller malignancies metastasize and kill just as well.

The habitual failure of the representatives sent by Deplorables to D.C. to prevent cancellation en masse–the Orwellian nightmare from unravelling–cannot be understated. On the line is dissidents’ ability to speak, publish, partake in society; sell our cultural products, and transact financially over the country’s major online economic and social arteries.

No wonder the Tech crooks appear periodically on The Hill to make fun of the country’s comical representatives and their gullible, pliable voters. The richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, has no qualms about letting his delivery drivers, who, “operate under severe [app monitored] time constraints,” urinate in bottles for fear of losing their low-wage jobs.

Do you think the dim bulbs in Congress, posturing for the cameras, scare his ilk?

Do not forget that anti-trust busting or the repealing of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are solutions the GOP had failed to implement when in control of both chambers and the presidency.

It was under Republican control that de-platforming (of a president, no less), the banning of legions of powerless dissident citizens, including detrimental financial de platforming, “occurred.”

Given this incontrovertible reality, The People have an obligation to quit the “my party, right or wrong” unconditional love, and demand the GOP work to unban ordinary, innocent folks, the crooked politicians be damned.

Section 230 Hype

Certainly, Section 230 solutions are insufficient to the task. “Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” explains the Guardian, tech companies currently enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits, stemming from what users post, because they are treated as ‘platforms’ rather than ‘publishers.’”

Section 230 “protects social media companies from being legally liable for content on their networks published by users.”

What Republican reformers who never reform are advocating is that social-media censors be deprived of their state-grants of privilege and protections against liability. Thus depriving these social engineers and censors is more than reasonable.

However, ordinary folks–small, independent entities who’re excommunicated by social media–cannot afford to mount a legal challenge against conglomerates whose revenues are greater than the GDP of multiple G20 nations.

Yes, Section 230 is a cynical slap in the face of citizens. Repeal it. But, do not count such political tokenism as a solution to financial and social excommunication by the Big Tech superhighway.

DeSantis’ Big Tech Bill

To get an idea of erroneous Republican “thinking,” take Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “Big Tech” Bill. It most certainly doesn’t give private citizens deserving, unfettered access to the social media public square. His “Big Tech” bill is neither useful nor fair to the Little Guy or Gal—not unless he or she is prepared to and can afford to launch law suits. I can’t. Can you?

DeSantis has simply made “it illegal for large technology companies to remove candidates for office from their platforms in the run-up to an election.”

And I thought that The People’s representatives were supposed to further our interests, and not grease the skids for themselves and their oleaginous amigos!

This is near-useless tokenism in solving Deep Tech tyranny. DeSantis’ “Big Tech” bill’s beneficiaries are the politicians. They receive protections The People don’t.

By-the-by, has anyone heard a politician or a pundit speak of the cancelling and silencing of the speech of regular dissidents, who aren’t invited to bloviate on Fox News? I haven’t.

Recently, a typical Fox News segment dealt with Facebook’s decision to ban Donald Trump for another two years. Not a word did the unbanned, urbane elites anchoring the segment say about MAGA America.

My own hardly lowbrow websites have been banned by the slum dogs of Facebook for life, presumably, with no discernible way to appeal.

Conversely, former President Trump seems able to appeal.

All you and I really deserve, as innocent, law-abiding individuals, is to have unfettered access to social-media’s irreplaceable public square–to Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, PayPal and other banking facilities–without being singled out for excommunication absent a crime. What are we, social leppers?

No question, the Section 230 grant-of-government privilege must be done away with, but this conventional solution is insufficient for the self-serving reasons DeSantis’ Bill is inadequate.

WATCH: “DEEP TECH’S Economic Terrorism”

NEXT WEEK: The Solutions.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Censorship, Silicon Valley 

Menstrual America has gained the upper hand. Feminized America has been on display in all her undignified inauthenticity, in the crybabies of Congress and in the loud and proud quitting at the 2020 Olympics.

In Menstrual America, medals go to congressmen and cops who wail the loudest when recounting their professional failings on Jan. 6, 2021.

And props are given not to athletes who “bring it” despite the jitters; but to those who crumble and quit, and then crow about the authenticity of it all.

Menstrual America’s rich and famous belong to a fraternity of foolish, showy killjoys. They take a knee anywhere and everywhere, to show the world how gynocentrically great they are.

Speaker Pelosi, of course, is nothing like that; the woman is made of steel. For political effect, though, she lugs around all kinds of crybabies.

One such Pelosi poodle is Adam Kinzinger. The Republican from Illinoi is serving on the January 6th Select Committee at the behest of the speaker.

On Day One of this Democratic happening, Kinzinger denounced Republicans’ attempts to compare the Jan. 6 melee to violence during last summer’s race riots:

“I condemn those riots and the destruction of property that resulted,” Kinzinger whimpered. “But not once did I ever feel that the future of self-governance was threatened like I did on Jan. 6. There is a difference between breaking the law and rejecting the rule of law. Between a crime, even grave crimes, and a coup.”

Kinzinger is correct: There is a difference between a crime and a coup. Crimes against innocent fellow citizens are acts of cowardice; a coup against the State can be heroic–just like the American Revolutionary War was a coup against Britain.

Notwithstanding that Americans no longer live under the rule of law, and are not self-governing in any meaningful way—hardcore libertarians of the Right should take the opposite position to that of Nancy’s Republican poodle, regarding the storming of the Capitol Building, on Jan. 6.

Be they illegal voters, criminal aliens, or just good old vandals, rapists and murderers—the criminal class is now the armed wing of the Democratic Party.

Principled, conservative libertarians will thus distinguish pro-Trump patriots from the armed wing of the Democratic Party: Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other criminal riffraff.

This Democratic militia romped through America, in the summer of 2020, rioting, looting and leveling their countrymen’s businesses, causing billions in damages.

Like locusts, these Democrat cultural revolutionaries descended on their neighbors to menace them in places where the latter shop and socialize, sadistically threatening, and often physically harming innocents, unless they knelt like slaves.

In contrast, the ragtag renegades of the MAGA movement stormed only the seat of power and corruption that is the State. Once!

Yet, in reply to the fact that “entire cities were burned to the ground” by BLM troops (the Democratic Party’s militia), some of the staunchest of conservatives have echoed Kinzinger. “Storming the Capitol building,” many have asserted, unthinkingly, is much worse than “burning down strip malls.”

Wrong!

Like us or not, the radical property-rights libertarian—who does not live inside and off the Beltway—will strongly disagree with the Trump-blaming conservatives.

A certain kind of libertarian, the good kind, distinguishes clearly between those who, like BLM, would trash, loot and level private property—the livelihoods and businesses of private citizens—and between those who would storm the well-padded seats of state power and corruption.

Libertarians who live by the axiom of nonaggression will always prefer the man who proceeds against the State, to the man who destroys private property.

That is because the State is governed by aggression; whereas the institution of private property is largely rooted in peaceful, voluntary transactions between consenting participants.

It’s no secret that rock-ribbed libertarians—as opposed to the lite, fluffy establishment libertarian—view the State, certainly in its current iteration, as a criminal enterprise.

Coupled with the use of COVID-19 as a political cudgel to reflexively fatten State stooges and increase their sphere of influence—the sight of tens of thousands of criminal aliens streaming across the Southern border, by State invitation, funded by the forsaken American taxpayer, must surely cement the status of the United States government as a treacherous entity, having forsaken the legitimate defense of the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.

And, if tempted to argue the theoretical point that the State operates without the consent of the governed, think only of the meaning of the 2020 election:

Upwards of 81 million people, or 51.3 percent of those who voted, not of the people, get to impose their will on more than 74 million, or 46.8 percent of the voters, as well as on the millions who didn’t vote.

Moreover, the winner in an election is certainly not the fictitious entity referred to as “The People,” but rather the representatives of the majority. And while it seems obvious that the minority in a democracy is openly thwarted, the question is, do the elected representatives at least carry out the will of the majority?

No is the answer! In reality, the majority, too, has little say in the business of governance – they’ve merely elected politicians who have been awarded carte blanche to do as they please.

Carte blanche because we are no longer a republic in which central authorities have only limited and clearly delimited powers. Certainly, all the people in the commonwealth are compelled to do as the Permanent State and the new, incoming state dictate.

No! Government governs without the consent of the governed, for the most, and with the backing of often-brutal police powers.

Like Kinzinger, one never Trumpkin conservative at the Spectator whined that he couldn’t tell the difference between the Red Hats and Antifa, decrying that, “They [the Red Hats] were desecrating something they pretend to love.”

The non-statist libertarian has no problem telling the difference.

To us, those “citadels of democracy” mean very little that is good. Loss of life we lament—but the song-and-dance about the Jan. 6 trampling of the Capitol Building we consider overheated.

Our country is not to be equated with the Capitol.

Podcast of “Menstrual America Vs. MAGA America”:
https://HardTruthWithDavidVanceAndilanaMercer.podbean.com/e/January-6-committee-menstrual-america-vs-maga-america/

Subscribe.

 

What are our conservative “kids” thinking? I went in search of one such elusive creature and found Rob Shimshock, DC-based editor. In May, he published his first book, “Nightmare Crescendo: Breaking the Chokehold of Woke Capital.” In the dialogue below, Rob patiently explains the idiom in which he expresses his ideas, political and social. Amazon understood enough Millennial Speak to censor his ad campaigns.

ILANA MERCER: “Blistering diatribe” is the correct way to describe your first book, Rob. For me, it is a much-needed glimpse into the mind of a young, thoughtful conservative, ruminating about the state of our country. Explain what is this cabal that “ensnares” us all?

ROB SHIMSHOCK: If I were a magician and you asked me this, my response would be the expected “pick a card, any card.” Academia, Hollywood, the media, Silicon Valley, the banks … no matter which modern institution you choose, the house wins. Except this house doesn’t accommodate a family; in fact, it is explicitly anti-family, anti-Western ideals, and anti-natural law. It is what I term the “Nightmare Crescendo,” or an amalgam of woke corporations and social decadence that’s as loud and merry as any rock concert. But the volume keeps rising, slowly but surely deafening us to a whole host of horrors.

MERCER: In an atomized, alienated America, you find yourself directing existential questions to a higher-order computer program, to the AI (Artificial Intelligence) called Alexa. What, to you, is the significance of that? You ask, “Alexa, how long before groceries are denied to right-wingers attempting to purchase them at stores using Amazon palm-scanning checkout? How long before such individuals are labeled terror threats?” Indeed. It’s fair to say that CNN and the newly imagined ACLU will be cheering Bezos. But what exactly is the GOP doing, and why vote GOP if it is not looking out for the rights of dissidents?

SHIMSHOCK: Ah, yes, my chapter “Just Asking Questions,” where the narrator begins by asking Alexa when his “My Little Pony” hoodie is arriving, but gradually arrives at more intriguing questions such as whether Jeff Bezos supports diversity because a “heat map” Amazon uses to track Whole Foods stores pinpoints lower racial diversity as a factor making a given store’s employees more likely to unionize. I’d say it’s a cynical swipe at the opportunism and malice fueling “men” like Bezos to replace human accountability with machines pushing narcissism and hedonism for profit.

As for the voting question: American electoral politics is a two-party game for the foreseeable future. But it’s important to remember that neither side is an unshifting monolith defined by a couple hundred Beltway suits. As we’ve seen with the hottest issue of the last couple months–critical race theory–the decisions that matter are being made on the level of state government, school boards, and local interest groups. D.C. can proclaim that all citizens must observe “Meatless Monday” starting next week, but if the states reply “get stuffed,” I really doubt a national military whose collective nose is buried in “How to Be an Antiracist” and social justice cartoons is going to do jack about it.

MERCER: As a longtime paleolibertarian, I’ve managed to straddle the divide between conservatism and traditional libertarian economics, but not without ostracization and derision from one side. I don’t love trade deficits (2010), outsourcing (2003), humdrum work visas (2008), and I loathe what I’ve dubbed corporate “economic elephantiasis and gigantism,” untethered to corporeal communities. You go further. You call all us libertarians “Trojan whores.” Take it away, Rob!

SHIMSHOCK: I think the “paleo” part absolves you of any of my puny pejoratives, Ilana. As for the others, flip the number “12,” change “BC” to “AD” and you’ll get two centuries during which flashy gargantuans have rolled into a city and conquered it from within. But while the Trojan horse ushered in Greek military and scholastic supremacy–a noble subversion, if you will–the prostitute and Koch-inflated “LOLbertarian” lobby are vehicles for disease. I mean this literally, as they each embrace the sexual liberation that results in chlamydia, along with lower birth and marriage rates and general destruction of the nuclear family, but also figuratively as, with the libertarian’s soft spot for sickness, it’s a buy one, get fifty free sale. Trojan whores come stuffed with a free-market idolatry spawning tyrannical Big Tech monopolies, open-border mayhem spurring crime and cultural dissonance, the displacement of the American blue-collar worker, etc.

Conservatives must act now if they wish to avoid a fate far worse than that of the Trojans.

MERCER: Moving to a more, shall we say, delicate part of your book, The data show that compared to young men, for whom it’s a “sex recession,” young women are hoing it up. From your experience with the dating app, I gather the problem is not only #MeToo, but “me, me, me” all the time. Is that right? What is it like for conservative young men out there?

SHIMSHOCK: On the Day of the Disconnect, when the Internet goes bye-bye and Big Tech CEOs are the subject of a tribunal that makes Nuremberg and the Salem witch trials seem small fry, online dating execs will have their feet held to the fire–perhaps literally!–for perpetrating one of the most heinous crimes against humanity: the commodification of romance.

Tinder, Bumble, and their co-conspirators have taken the pure and noble pursuit of finding a life partner and strangled its visage with edited and airbrushed “duckface” selfies, stabbed its vocal cords with vapid and robotic pick-up lines, and then rifled through the corpse to pluck out its heart — the thing capable of forging a long-term relationship — and replace it with a more monetizable libido that keeps users coming back for dopamine hits and one-night stands, at the small cost of their time, money, pair bonding ability, divorce rate, and immortal soul.

MERCER: What’s wrong with you, Rob? Why don’t you understand that you must “serenade her in front of her work colleagues,” cook for her, help pick her tattoo, and adopt her out-of-wedlock rug rats? For other maladjusted men like you, is it “swipe left” or “swipe right” on the mobile?

 
Phill Magakoe/AFP via Getty Images/ABC News
Phill Magakoe/AFP via Getty Images/ABC News

Against the backdrop of conflagration in South Africa, I offer positive commentary about the country of my birth. Do I need to provide a disclaimer before saying positive things about South Africa mid-riots?

Probably—given that I’m the author of a scathing, 2011–dare I say prescient?– indictment of the political dispensation forced upon South Africa by the “Anglo-American Axis of Evil.”

That dispensation is the “one man, one vote, one time” arrangement, to quote “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa”: “Democracy is especially dangerous in ethnically and racially divided societies, where majorities and minorities are rigidly predetermined and politically permanent.”

That’s what The West forced on South Africa.

For the last decade, I’ve seen South Africa as a sea of troubles—and a harbinger of things to come in America. When America becomes a majority-minority country, it will likely resemble South Africa.

But, in their darkest days, the country and its people need upliftment—and have, surprisingly, earned it. I saw a ray—nay, rays—of hope amid the revelry of looting, robbing and arson that has engulfed the provinces of KwaZulu-Natal and the Transvaal (my birthplace), following the conviction and jailing for contempt of court of former President Jacob Zuma.

Dozens have been killed in the two provinces mentioned, more than 200 shopping malls have been robbed then razed, and countless cattle have been stolen, which generally means sentient animals are being savagely hacked to death for food.

The courts issued a verdict that went against the wishes of a tribal faction of the South African population, and it erupted. I assure you, however, that Zuma’s loyalists, the Zulus, were not the only ones partaking in the bacchanalia. The dominant-party state ensconced with American imprimatur was once a variegated country of English, African and Afrikaner. For centuries, British, Boer and Bantu had been clashing and alternately collaborating on the continent.

Now, however, South Africa is an Afro-American multicultural society, united by an affinity for MacDonald’s and mobile phones and a strict enforcement of progressive “thinking,” attendant speech codes and cancel culture.

South Africa has been made over in the image of America, and the outcomes are not good.

While the ruling African National Congress (ANC) was once largely composed of the Xhosa Bantu tribe, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) was Zulu. I wager, though, that the Zulu minority’s loyalties are no longer exclusively with its own IFP.

In the Afro-American society, particularism and tribalism are forcibly replaced with state-approved national identities. So, the ANC is indisputable king in the dominant-party state that is South Africa—just as the Democratic Party will soon command and control the burgeoning dominant-party state that the USA is fast becoming.

Largely Zulu and classically liberal (as in free-market oriented), the IFP had been inclined to cooperate with the defunct white National Party. For this, its leader, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, was dismissed in the West as a puppet in Pretoria’s blackface minstrelsy.

Rather than accommodate Zulu quest for greater autonomy–and, perhaps avert the current anarchic disintegration–America had demanded a strong centralized South Africa, with ANC revolutionaries at the helm. It got its wish.

The Afro-American multicultural society has prevailed in South Africa.

America: Don’t look down on South Africa. It is quite likely that, had former Officer Derek Chauvin not been convicted for the murder of George Floyd—America would have erupted much as South Africa has. Our saving grace being only that the rioting cohort responsible for the “blocking of roads, looting, damage to property and burning of trucks” forms a minority in the United States; a majority in South Africa.

In the US, reality and morality have been inverted. To the Democratic ruling party and its voters, a riot is really a peaceful protest. Crime is said to be the fault of a concocted abstraction known as systemic racism. Rising rates of murder, robbery, rape and home invasions, we are lectured, are exacerbated by guns, not goons. The more violent crime is committed, the less policing and punishment is deemed necessary by Democrats.

No such perverse sentiments have South Africans expressed during the riots, ongoing. Interviews conducted by BBC News’ Nomsa Maseko have revealed a rich seam of decency in ordinary South African men and women. All were united in condemnation of the criminality.

In the United States, a book “in defense of looting” was actually published. Its “thesis” for theft “argued” that looting is “joyous” and can produce “community cohesion.” Someone read this trash, endorsed its publication, edited it, set it in type, designed a cover, compiled an index, read the proofs, and gave it rave reviews.

No South African has offered such Democrat-style exculpation of evil.

Indeed, in 2020, America erupted in race riots. Cities across the republic were sacked, citizens left defenseless. The camera panned out across the country to reveal policemen and guardsmen caving.

Against the backdrop of “Mad Max”-like dystopian destruction–a portend of things to come–American men in uniform all collapsed to the pavements like yogis to the command of their black tormentors. Bringing in the feds was a must since the protection of individual natural rights trumps federalism. However, while the national guard was galvanized, the cavalry was sent to race-riot hotspots to protect not the citizenry, oh no, but federal property.

As bad and as broken as my poor former homeland is, South Africa’s ruling elites came out with powerful declarations of shared moral values. There was no blame game–no allusion to systemic racism. The system of apartheid was not conjured from the past as causality for criminality. Whites were not demonized as the Evil Other. Over 2000 criminals have hitherto been arrested and 117 killed, I imagine, some by cop. Five thousand soldiers are already on the ground.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Black Crime, Rioting, South Africa 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

ILANA Mercer is the author of "The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed," (June, 2016) and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.


PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...