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

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election Africa Afrikaner American Media American Military Antifa 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 Terrorism Vote Fraud Abraham Lincoln Academia Affirmative Action Africans Afrocentricism Alt Right American Left Amerindians Anarchism Anarchy Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anti-Semitism Arts/Letters Benghazi Bernie Sanders Boers Brexit Brian Willams Bruce Jenner Bundy Family Canada Catholic Church 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 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 Megyn Kelly Mencken Merkel Mexico Michael Flynn Middle East Movies Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Music Muslim Muslim Ban Native Americans Neoliberalism Obama Orlando Shooting Paleolibertarianism Pamela Geller Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Police Police State Pope Francis Populism Poverty Prince Harry Propaganda Public Schools Qassem Soleimani Race And Crime Race/Crime Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Radical Islam Rape Reconstruction Riots Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Rush Limbaugh Russiagate San Bernadino Massacre Science Slavery Socialism SPLC Supreme Court Syria Taxes Tech Technology Texas The Bible The South Trump Twitter Ukraine Unemployment Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Voter Fraud White Americans White Death White Guilt Working Class Yankees Zimbabwe Zionism
Nothing found
 TeasersIlana Mercer Blogview

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

The media scrum framed the Trump impeachment circus, round II, as an “emotional” affair.

Headlines homed in on the “emotion” surrounding the trial. “It Tears at Your Heart. Democrats Make an Emotional Case to Senators — and America — Against Trump,” blared one of many hackneyed screamers, this one from Time.com.

The case made by the managers “was both meticulous and emotional,” came the repetitive refrain.

Democrat Jamie Raskin, a representative from Maryland and a lead impeachment manager, sniffed “emotionally” as he related what to him was a heartbreaking tidbit: His (privileged) daughter expressed fear of visiting the Capitol again, presumably because of the January 6 fracas. That made Jamie cry. And when Jamie Raskin cries, normies outside Rome-on-the-Potomac laugh. Uproariously.

Impeachment managers had warned all present in the Senate Chamber that evidentiary footage would be upsetting. Their presentations were “intentionally emotional,” intoned CNN’s Dana Bash, who had paired up with one Abby Phillips for the “solemn” affair. Phillips’ “coverage” of all things Trump, in scratchy vocal fry, was a reminder that the Left’s “empaneled witches and their housebroken boys are guided more by the spirit of Madame Defarge than by lady justice.”

A lady in an armadillo outfit emoted a lot. She was impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett. Although not particularly fashionable or feminine, there was a ton of “emotional” praise on the Internet for Plaskett’s attire. Armani’s armadillo apparel was certainly a preferred distraction to the decibels of weepy rage emitted over the Trump protest.

The “intentionally emotional” affair, the last impeachment trial conducted by the Senate, had been preceded by an even more “emotionally” bizarre “healing” coven in Congress, led by the representative from New York, one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez set up an hour-long primitive, ritualistic session conducted, putatively, to purge the pain over the January 6 protest on the Capitol.

Early in February, a coven of “p rominent Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan),” joined Ocasio-Cortez in forcing such a session, with the aim of “creating space for members to talk about their ‘lived experience’” during that Capitol Hill riot.

Big League Politics, a news website, was incredulous, reporting that “congress [had] devolved into an AOC-led therapy session,” during which “House members cried while detailing their ‘lived experiences.’”

This American “thought” leader, Ocasio-Cortez, and her “harrowing” ordeal dominated the corporate press as well.

Here are some of the histrionic headlines as to what befell Congress’s queen of #MeFirst solipsism.

See if you can spot the operative word that animated the writers’ impoverished text:

“AOC reveals more personal details in new harrowing video …”

“AOC shares harrowing Capitol riot experience, reveals she’s a victim of …”.

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recalls her harrowing … – CBS News”

“’I Thought I Was Going To Die”: AOC Details Harrowing Day …”

It turns out that the “lived experience” of these abreacting women might have “lived” strictly in AOC’s head, since the House Office Buildings, where AOC cowered, had never been infiltrated by the protesters.

Formulaically, Ocasio-Cortez smuggled into her “living experience” an unverified mention of a sexual assault. Well, of course.

It transpires that Rashida Tlaib, who provided an incontinently unhinged account of her “lived experienced” on that fateful day—the Democrat’s 9/11—was most certainly “not even in the Capitol during the breach.”

Still, Tlaib framed her trauma of January 6, as emanating from simply “existing as a Muslim” in America.

Ayanna Pressley rose with the Tlaib Cobra to spit venom:

… as a Black woman to be barricaded in my office using office furniture and water bottles on the ground in the dark, that terror — those moments of terror — is familiar in a deep and ancestral way for me …

… I want us to do everything to ensure that a breach like this never occurs at the Capitol (again) … But I (also) want us to address the evil and scourge that is white supremacy in this nation …

…One of the images that I’m haunted by is the Black custodial staff cleaning up the mess left by that violent white supremacist mob … That is a metaphor for America. We have been cleaning up after violent white supremacist mobs for generations — and it must end.

Note the thrust of Pressley’s words. Hers are not just injuries to an individual who happens to be a black woman: Pressley implies she was subjected to them because she is a black woman.

A man, some legislator, was then dragged in, Roman Colosseum style, to expiate before AOC “for not initially recognizing his ‘privilege.”

It goes without saying that AOC’s castles-in-the-sky “lived experience” mocks out of meaning genuine human suffering.

More to the point: AOC and her squad of progressive Democrats are not advocating “neutral principlism”—neutrality, objectivity, and equality before the law; the noble idea of “rules grounded in law, as opposed to rules based on personal interests or beliefs.

Differently put, AOC’s theory of justice is not metaphysical but mercenarily political. Every event to her is an opportunity—AOC’s idea being to lower the burden of proof so that events that occur in a woman’s head can be acted upon in law.

What makes Cortez so cunningly effective is that she fights just like a woman, underhandedly. Her weapon of choice here is the guilt trip; her objective being to squeeze legislation out of her “harrowing,” “lived experience.”

Almost charming in her childish, exclusively lower-order thinking—what makes AOC’s beguiling, baby-like behavior dangerous is that she uses the idiom of emotional anguish to derive legislative leverage.

 

Some blame a quasi-free-market in electricity for the collapse of the electrical grid in Texas, during a winter snow storm, mid-February, in which temperatures hovered at 0°F (or -18°C). The same people finger deregulation and isolation from the national and neighboring grids.

Opposing opinion has it that an excessive reliance on renewable energy sources, like wind turbines, was the culprit in a grid collapse that saw 40 percent of the power supply fail within hours of the storm, indirectly causing the death of about 60 Texans.

All agree that the oil-and-gas state enjoys both cheap natural gas and abundant wind power, and that its natural resources could have stood Texas in good stead.

The Lone Star State’s human resources are another matter entirely.

Be they wind turbines or gas pipelines; the electrical grid has to be properly maintained. Texas, however, lacked “leadership.” It transpires that the grid had not been weatherized or winterized in anticipation of a harsh winter—pipelines had not been insulated and wind turbines never deiced.

Leadership is a euphemism for intelligence. Texas in the winter of 2021 will likely be looked upon as a case of systemic stupidity; systemic rot.

Things start to fall apart when the best-person-for-the-job ethos gives way to racial and gender window-dressing and to the enforcement of politically pleasing perspectives.

Likewise has the emergency personnel managing the blackouts for the nation’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, joined California’s political leadership to deliver third-world quality service to Californians.

When it is reported that, “Among the hundreds of people who handled the blackouts from Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s emergency operations center, only a handful had any training in the disaster response playbook that California has used for a generation”—that is a fancy way of saying:

Affirmative action.

It doesn’t help that the American Idiocracy is moving at breakneck speed to equate merit-based institutions with institutionalized racism.

Or, think about it like this: When merit-based hiring is deemed racist, bridges fall down.

Literally. The reference here is to engineers from the FIGG Bridge Group. They got the mathematics wrong, and, oddly for mechanical engineers, they seemed to have no feel for the properties of cement. As a result, a bridge meant to connect Florida International University with the city of Sweetwater collapsed, in 2018. People died. Something was terribly wrong with these engineers. Rumors were rife. Was it a designer, female-only outfit? Nobody would come clean.

In any event, when spanking new bridges collapse, trains on maiden trips derail (Washington-State Amtrak trains, in 2018 and 2015), Navy ships keep colliding (USS John S. McCain and USS Fitzgerald in 2017) and police and FBI failure and bad faith become endemic—a picture emerges of a sprawling place, the USA, in which indeed the best-person-for-the-job ethos has given way to racial and gender window-dressing.

The latest exhibit in America’s set-aside and quota fiasco is the Capitol Police. The force received the memo about the unruly protest planned for January 6, but was deaf, dumb and blind as to how to process the information, plan and then proceed against a ragtag band of rumbunctious MAGA men and women.

I’ve lost count of the security breaches in the White House’s formidably protected perimeter. Memorable is the one in 2014. Secret Service Director Julia Pierson oversaw an incident in which one female Secret Service agent was easily overpowered; another lass didn’t bother to lock the White House front door.

The reality into which America’s deformed social reformers have thrust us is better understood by reading the cautionary tale of South Africa, through the prism of Into the Cannibal’s Post: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa, where American reformers were, incidentally, destructively instrumental, too:

“If American institutions continue to subordinate their raison d’être to politically dictated egalitarianism, reclaiming them from the deforming clutches of affirmative action will become harder and harder,” I warned. (Page 6.)

South Africa’s gutted institutions were meant to serve as a harbinger of things to come in the U.S. Ten years since Into the Cannibal’s Pot’s publication, evidence abounds that societal institutions—state and civil—have been similarly hollowed out like husks.

In 2011, readers questioned the emphasis on the importance of the electrical grid. Nevertheless, on page 97 of the same book, the South African grid is depicted as groaning under the weight of affirmative actions:

[South Africa’s] electrical grid has been degraded at every level: generation, transmission, and distribution. Since distribution is now entrusted to the local, increasingly inept, authorities, candles and paraffin lamps have made a come-back in my home town of Cape Town as well as in other cities. Daily power outages affect industries and services across the country. Rolling blackouts—’load shedding’ is the local euphemism—are now as typical of Cape Town’s landscape as the tablecloth of clouds that cascades over the majestic Table Mountain.

And, on page 99:

I’ve lived through Highveld thunder storms and Cape, South-Easter, gale-force winds. Few and far between were the blackouts. … No, Eskom, the utility that supplied most of the electricity consumed on the African continent, did not run out of juice. It just ran out of experienced, skilled engineers, expunged pursuant to BEE [Black Economic Empowerment, aka affirmative action]. ‘No white male appointments for the rest of the financial year,’ reads an Eskom Human Resources memo, circulated in January of 2008 …

The same supple thinking went into destroying the steady supply of coal to the electricity companies. Bound by BEE policies, whereby supplies must be purchased from black firms first, Eskom began buying coal from the spot market. Buyers were to descend down the BEE procurement pyramid as follows: buy spot coal first from black women-owned suppliers, then from small black suppliers, next were large black suppliers, and only after all these options had been exhausted (or darkness descended; whatever came first), from “other” suppliers. The result was an expensive and unreliable coal supply, which contributed to the pervasive power failures.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Affirmative action, Political Correctness 

Rush Limbaugh died on February the 17th. In the encomiums to conservatism’s radio king, mention was made of his 2009 address at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

CPAC for short, or CPUKE before Trump.

At the time, I had surveyed the perennial, Republican Party dynamics surrounding the event. “Addicted to that Rush,” the March 6, 2009 column’s title, came not from Rush’s brief addiction to painkillers, following surgery, but from an eponymous hit by the band Mr. Big. (It, in turn, came from an earlier time when the American music scene produced not pornographers like Cardi B, but musicians like Paul Gilbert and Billy Sheehan.)

Nevertheless, that title alluded to one of Rush’s missed opportunities: Speaking against a war into which he was involuntarily drafted and by which he was almost destroyed: The War on Drugs.

Still, how petty does that war, in all its depredations, seem now?! How unimaginably remote do the issues Rush spoke to, in 2009, seem in light of a country that has come a cropper in the course of one year, due to an unprecedented consolidation of state power around COVID, compounded by an amped up, institutionalized campaign against white America. And, in particular, against white Trump voters.

Other than champion tax cuts and globalization, the Rovian cadre of the GOP had been doing what it has always done: Calling for a more upbeat, inclusive and diverse party. Michael Steele, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, today an “analyst” for MSNBC, had derided Rush as a mere entertainer, describing “The Rush Limbaugh Show” as incendiary and ugly.

Then as now, Steele’s main concerns were not those of main-street Americans. Rather, Steele’s cares were “conciliatory.” The Rovians, like the Never Trumpers and the Lincoln-Project perverts, believed in the urgent need to broaden the Republican Party’s base and “appeal” to traditionally hostile minorities, when in fact the GOP had been courting traditional Democratic constituents with every trick possible, with little success, all the while sticking it to the base.

The Steele-Limbaugh spat fell into Barack Obama’s lap. The former president was losing it—throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the thing he called “the economy,” but which is really no more than the trillions upon trillions of voluntary, capitalistic acts individuals perform in order to make a living.

Introduce government force and coercion into this synchronized spontaneous order, and it starts to splutter. The economy responds poorly to economic planning and planners. BHO had imagined that he could walk on water. America facilitated his fantasy. The former president was realizing that he was not the magic man he imagined he was. Desperate times called for desperate distractions.

In short succession, Democratic henchmen─Paul Begala, Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, and Robert Gibbs─began picking on Limbaugh. Strong-armed too by the Obama administration was CNBC reporter Rick Santelli, who led a revolt from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange against the bailout billions for mortgage delinquents. Little wonder, then, that the contents of Limbaugh’s speech at CPAC garnered less attention than the characters involved.

Rush spoke stirringly. He railed against the enormous expansion of government in the first few, frightening weeks of the Obama presidency.

But, as I noted at the time, not a word did one hear against the man who began what Barack was just completing. George Bush set the scene for Barack. Stimulus, bailouts, a house for every Hispanic—these were Bush’s babies. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been abandoned well before the fist-bumping Obamas moved into the White House.

“Contrary to popular myth,” wrote James Ostrowski, President of Free Buffalo, in 2002, “every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government’s size, scope, or power—and usually all three. Over the last one hundred years, of the five presidents who presided over the largest domestic spending increases, four were Republicans.”

“Include regulations and foreign policy, as well as budgets approved by a Republican Congress, and a picture begins to emerge of the Republican Party as a reliable engine of government growth.”

As rousing as his speech was, not a word did Limbaugh devote to the Warfare State, every bit as corrupt, corrupting, and bankrupting as the Welfare State. As I observed, at the time, over $1 trillion was being spent yearly on imperial expeditions that were awash in American blood, but offered few benefits to the sacrificed, stateside and abroad.

Besides, I asked, “what kind of a nation neglects its own borders while defending to the death borders not its own?”

Rush rightly denounced the State’s failed war on poverty. It failed not because fighting poverty is not a noble cause, but because, given the perverse incentives it invariably entrenches, government is incapable of winning such a war. The same economic and bureaucratic perversions also make the State’s stalemated War on Drugs as unwinnable and ruinous.

Lysander Spooner, the great, American 19th-century theorist of liberty, defined vices as those acts “by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which a man harms the person or property of another.” Government has no business treating vices as crimes.

If for harming himself a man forfeits his freedom, then he is not free at all.

Limbaugh accused Obama of wanting to transform America. This was obvious then, as it is today. But what of George W. Bush, who had wormed his way into the affections of conservative leaders like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham (who used to call Bush a patriot)?

What, I had asked, was Bush’s insistence on unfettered, open borders if not an expression of his disdain for “America the way it had been since its founding,” to quote commentator Lawrence Auster (also since deceased)? The former president refused to enforce immigration law. That was his way of converting “America into something quite different.”

Just like Obama, Bush harbored a death wish for America of the Founders.

Added Auster: “Until conservative opinion makers render unto Bush the censures he richly deserves, especially for the same things for which they now excoriate Obama, their criticisms of Obama will have the [odor] of rank partisanship.”

It took Trump to dispatch Bush.

At the time, I had expressed my hope that conflagrations such as the one between Steele and Limbaugh continue and deepen. “It’s good for the GOP─the party needs to be gashed good and proper if a coherent articulation of ordered liberty is to be forged from the current philosophical chaos.”

Come to think of it, that this tract began with Rush Limbaugh, of blessed memory, and ended with Trump, is in itself significant. For it took the “Donald’s creative destruction” to finish the Republican Party off .

 

The defining difference between Democrats and Republicans is this:

Republicans live on their political knees. They apologize and expiate for their principles, which are generally not unsound.

Democrats, conversely and admirably, stand tall for their core beliefs, as repugnant as these mostly are.

The Left most certainly didn’t rush forward to condemn the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riffraff, as they looted and killed their way across urban America, last year. Instead, Democrats defended the déclassé, criminal arm of their party. “Riots are the language of the unheard,” they preached, parroting MLK.

What of the trammels of despair that drove the Trump protesters of January 6? Trust too many Republicans—goody two-shoes, teacher’s-pet types all—to trip over one another in order to denounce that ragtag of disorganized renegades, the protesters aforementioned, who already have no chance in hell of receiving due process of law.

Consider Nancy Mace. With the dizzying speed of a whirling dervish, the Republican representative from South Carolina rushed to make a name for herself posing as a heroic “survivor” of January 6.

Following the incident on the Capitol, Mace quickly transformed herself into the young, go-to GOPer on the “hive media,” bad mouthing MAGA folks (to the likes of supercilious Don Lemon, of all people) at every turn, and generally making hay over … well, it was not over the pillaging and killings courtesy of the criminal class, acting now as the armed wing of the Democratic Party.

Shortly after the incident Democrats are likening to September 11, during a pit-stop on Fox News with the forgiving Martha MacCallum, miss congeniality attempted to redeem herself as a “constitutional conservative.”

Oh, and how Ms. Mace had suffered. You don’t know the half of it.

Having joined the Democrats in peddling her “harrowing” experience during the January 6 incident, Mace, a middle-class young woman, proceeded to use lefty language for political leverage, to describe her familial situation. For the purpose of self-aggrandizement and drama, Nancy kept calling herself a “single mother.”

A single mother is a term the Left, and now the thoroughly co-opted Right, has adopted to glorify unmarried mothers and fatherless “families.” It was meant to excise the father from the picture and undermine the nuclear family.

Mace’s biography mentions that “she is the mom of two children aged 11 and 13,” and a divorced woman (or womin), and thus, by extension, not a “single mother.” So, give it up, please for the man who made the Mace kids. He is her ex-husband, Curtis Jackson, whom Nancy Mace divorced in 2019.

Political pygmy Adam Kinzinger was another young GOPer to rush onto the “enemedia” to announce his hackneyed vision for reclaiming the GOP from the deforming clutches of Trump and MAGA America. Last month, Kinzinger voted to impeach President Trump.

He further swelled the chorus by announcing that “the Republican Party had lost its way. If we are to lead again, we need to muster the courage to remember who we are.” So original. So inspirational.

“We need to remember what we believe and why we believe it,” Kinzinger continued. “Looking in the mirror can be hard, but the time has come to choose what kind of party we will be, and what kind of future we’ll fight to bring about.” (CNN)

With his Country First initiative, Kinzinger evinces his inability to comprehend that, for him, the “Country” ought to comprise of his constituents, the people he represents. It is the lead of his constituents that Kinzinger is obliged to follow, not his own political métier.

Kinzinger is a spawn of the military. While we’re at it, let us dispatch for once and for all of the conservative mythology surrounding the philosophical fabric of the military, these days (in Kinzinger’s case the reserve).

Isn’t it obvious the military is a morass of leftism, statism, feminism, reverse-racism, interventionism, propositionalism, and other poisonous creeds? If nothing else, the Trump years have made it clear that the military brass has aligned with the Left.

As for Nancy Mace’s bona fides:

“I have spoken out strongly against the president and my own colleagues,” bragged Ms. Mace smugly. “[W]e have a Constitution as our guide. The vote to certify the Electoral College is in our Constitution,” she said of the political battle that precipitated the January 6 riot. “That was a ceremonial vote to certify all 50 states that were legally certified.”

Spoken like a true Beltway Babe.

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

 

I’m not even sure one can still speak freely about theoretical matters. Nevertheless, against the background din of “insurrection” charges against MAGA America, I’ve tried to distill the hardcore libertarian take regarding the storming of the Capitol Building, on January 6, in a brief YouTube clip.

It is very plainly this: Principled libertarians will distinguish pro-Trump patriots from the armed wing of the Democratic Party: Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other criminal riffraff.

BLM rioters trashed, looted and leveled their countrymen’s private property, their livelihoods and businesses, doing billions in damages

In contrast, the ragtag men and women 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 violent militia), some of the staunchest of conservatives have asserted that “storming the Capitol building” is much worse than “than burning down strip malls.”

Wrong!

Principled libertarians, very plainly, think the opposite.

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.

The State is, after all, an entity that, by definition, forsakes the legitimate defense of the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.

The State’s standard operating procedure is to fleece us without so much as flinching, shake us down, so as to fatten its members and increase their sphere of influence.

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 rooted in peaceful, just and voluntary transactions between consenting participants.

There, I’ve said it!

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. For it operates with force and without the consent of the governed.

If you are tempted to argue this theoretical point, 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?

The answer is No! 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 delineated 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.

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 January 6 trampling of the Capitol Building we consider overheated.

Our country is not to be equated with our Capitol.

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

 

When Uncle Sam threatens some blighted and benighted region of the world—ostensibly on behalf of the American People and for their own good—our representatives call it peace through strength.

It is then that ordinary Americans are encouraged to pipe up in praise of the State’s invariably Orwellian peace-through-strength strategies.

Peace through strength on our front porches, while being menaced by lowbrow looters and assorted louts? For that you can be incarcerated in the land where the criminal roams free.

And when practiced by pale faces, our Second Amendment rights, exercised on the perimeter of our properties, as we stand vigil against the vilest of human beings—that’s tantamount to white supremacy and privilege.

Witness the fate of some courageous home owners (the McCloskeys of St. Louis, Missouri) exercising age-old rights—also American constitutional rights—when they ventured out onto their verandas with firearms, intending to stand their ground and deter mobs from overrunning hearth and home.

Good people standing their ground were libeled and charged as criminals. Since these home owners did nothing illicit in the natural law, state authorities had to cunningly conjure charges against their naturally licit stance of deterrence.

Law-abiding Americans who practiced deterrence, or peace through strength, have all-too-often been prosecuted by a justice system characterized by institutional rot.

The Law of Rule

We live under the law of rule, not the rule of law. And the law of rule favors the criminal class. 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.

Duly, the Black Lives Matter and Antifa militia continue to riot in cities across the country. Their “best” work is currently being carried out in the Pacific Northwest, where the degenerate, libertine political climate is seemingly most conducive to legalized crime.

For Americans, reality is refracted through the Fake News cartel and the Deep-Tech manipulated search engine and social media. Try using the search engines to ferret out current news about “riots”—and what these’ll yield is only news about the January 6, storming of the U.S. Capitol building. Not a thing about the Democratic Party’s proxy riots ongoing elsewhere.

Entire city blocks in downtown Seattle and Portland have been commandeered with impunity by these criminals. They face no censure. From licentious city and state leaders, the rioters get not much more than mild rebuke and permissive gestures of good will (although Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, outrageously pepper-sprayed a BLM nasty when his own bodily integrity was threatened).

Riots have been a nightly happening in Oregon for eight straight months, including on the inauguration of Joe Biden, when more than 150 insurrectionists besieged “the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement building in Portland’s south waterfront.”

You know by now that when Black Lives Matter dreck roam the country intimidating, bullying, killing cops and ordinary countrymen, knocking out whites; defiling and destroying public monuments, sacking state capitols and courthouses; burning and looting the property of their fellow Americans—that this insurrection against MAGA America amounts to no more than an exercise of free speech and “peaceful protest.”

Parallel events have become a feature in the City of Seattle, where the same insurrectionists, who turn on their neighbors, continue to target businesses and courthouses and assault the police. Tacoma has also been engulfed by America-hating Antifa militia, targeting police for daring to protect people and their property.

Ongoing Insurrection Against MAGA America

Ad nauseum have we heard TV’s ugly mugs channel MLK to rationalize and normalize violent insurrection against MAGA America (a term used here to signify decent, non-deviant, likely non-Democratic America).

“A riot is the language of the unheard,” they chanted from their walled-off, rarified zip codes. The “billions being paid out in insurance claims,” they tell us, are mostly for peaceful protests, amounting to mere “isolated instances of property destruction.” Or, so goes the farrago of misinformation spread by the lying, malpracticing media about the terrifying carnage unleashed in hundreds of cities across the U.S.A., courtesy of Black Lives Matter and their Democratic shock troops.

During months of mayhem, in 2020, the message to law-abiding Americans, from city, town, county council members and other legislators, Republican and Democrat, came loud and clear: You’re on your own. Neither police nor politicians are coming to protect what’s left of your businesses or your banal, little bourgeoisie life. You’re just not that important. You have no causes, no clout, and, consequently, no constitutional rights.

More often imperiled in law-of-rule America are home and business owners and their valiant protectors. Tired of waiting on a neutered, coopted, infiltrated and compromised police and politicians to come to the rescue, law-abiding taxpayers practiced peace through strength on their properties.

Young Kyle Rittenhouse, for example, came to the rescue in Kenosha. A folk hero was born in September of 2020, and it was not George Floyd. For that, the feds jailed young Kyle.

From Fishtown, Philadelphia, to Snohomish, Washington, as columnist Jack Kerwick has chronicle d, civilians resisted the rabble, in stories of organized self-defense that’ll warm the cockles of your heart.

What better way is there to keep the peace than for the righteous to deter the rabble! Meant for The People, alas, peace through strength is increasingly the province of the State, and not the sovereign individual.

 

Hardcore libertarians differentiate between pro-Trump patriots and Black Lives Matter detritus.

BLM rioters trashed, looted and leveled their countrymen’s private property, their businesses.

Democratic stormtroopers harassed their fellow Americans—meek men and women in eateries, in shopping malls, in the inner sanctum of their homes—often forcing innocents to kneel or recite repulsive, self-incriminating racial catechisms.

These Mao-like cultural revolutionaries descended like locusts on places where their fellow Americans shop and socialize, sadistically threatening, and often visiting, physical harm upon their countrymen, unless they knelt before them like slaves.

In contrast, the ragtag men and women of the MAGA movement stormed only the seat of power and corruption that is the State.

Yet, in reply to the fact that “entire cities were burned to the ground” by the Left’s militarized BLM troops, some of the staunchest of conservatives, staffers at Breitbart, are purported to have concluded, in error, that “storming the Capitol building” is much worse than “than burning down strip malls.”

Wrong!

Hardcore libertarians, very plainly, think the opposite. Like us or not, the radical, libertarian propertarian—who does not live inside and off the Beltway—will strongly disagree with the contention of the Trump-blaming Breitbarters.

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 plush seats of state power and corruption.

For the State is an entity that, by definition, forsakes the legitimate defense of the lives, liberty and property of its citizens. The State’s standard operating procedure is to fleece us without flinching, all the better to fatten its members and, reflexively, to increase their sphere of influence.

Libertarians who live by the axiom of non-aggression will always prefer the man who proceeds against the State, governed as it is by force, to the man who destroys private property, rooted as that institution is in peaceful, just, voluntary transactions.

There, I’ve said it!

It’s no secret that rock-ribbed libertarians—as opposed to the lite, establishment libertarian—view the State, certainly in its current iteration, as a criminal enterprise. For it operates with force and without the consent of the governed.

If tempted, foolishly, to argue this theoretical point, think only of the meaning of the 2020 election, whereby 81,283,098 million people, or 51.3% of those who voted, not of the people, get to impose their will on 74,222,958, or 46.8% of the voters, as well as on the millions who didn’t vote.

Moreover, and since we are no longer a republic in which central authorities have only limited and delimited powers—all the people in the commonwealth are compelled to do as the Permanent State and the newly minted state dictate.

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

Which is why, incidentally, Tucker Carlson’s question to a guest on his eponymous Fox News show, the other day, was so misguided.

The young lady’s two small businesses had been bankrupted by her state’s brutal lockdown regimen, which targeted her tiny enterprises, but not the big-box retailers around them. Why was she still paying her taxes, Tucker inquired?

Really?

Taxes are not voluntary. The State is not based on the principle of voluntary association. Tucker ought to try to withhold his taxes. Fail to fork over the shakedown funds extracted by the syndicate that is the State—and you’ll find yourself in a cell.

Incontestably, your money, as a private individual working in the private economy, comes from the avails of your labor and is 100% yours in natural law. As such, you should be able to withdraw it from an agency that doesn’t serve you—and even harms you—to give to one that does. But you can’t.

For that peaceful act of financial secession, the State will deprive you of your liberty.

Expose the Welfare-Warfare Surveillance State in all its depredations—and you’ll find yourself entombed forever, like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden (who, at least, lives free in Russia).

“What I saw in the Capitol on January 6,” lamented Never Trumpkin Matt Labash, at the Spectator, “made me physically sick… I couldn’t tell the difference [between the] Red Hats [and Antifa]. They [the Red Hats] were desecrating something they pretend to love.”

Truth be told, to the non-statist libertarian, those “citadels of democracy” mean very little that is good. Loss of life we lament—but the song-and-dance about the trampling of those citadels we consider overheated.

Our country is not to be equated with our Capitol.

Certainly, sickening is the cowardice of the garrison city-state that is D.C. In particular, the way the political parasites who comprise it are shielding themselves from us, as they deny us the right to protect private property from them and from their moral emissaries, Black Lives Matter.

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2020 Election, Black Lives Matter, Donald Trump 

AS A COINAGE GOES, DEEP TECH is superior to the Big-Tech term. It better captures the deforming power and tentacular reach into state and civil society of the high-tech monopolists.

That reach notwithstanding, many libertarian-minded and “small-government conservatives” (a contradiction in terms, considering the national debt is $28 trillion) have been stalwart defenders of the rights of Deep Tech to deploy unprovoked financial force to kneecap those users who don’t conform to the tech oligarchy’s monolithic image of the Ideal Citizen.

David French, writer at the Dispatch—and one of the many political dwarfs tossed periodically at Donald Trump, by Never Trumpsters (hey, dwarf tossing is a cruel sport)—emphasized the immutable right of private platforms to de-platform (limit and throttle) “millions of Americans who engage in wrongthink,” the president included.

LET DISSIDENTS EAT CAKE

Let the disenfranchised—those of us who’re routinely blocked from being able to grow our appeal and peddle our intellectual products, now fearful that our books will be digitally burned—create platforms of their own, exhorts French, from the comfort of his conformingly banal, pixelated perches.

“Find other off-ramps,” exhorted podcaster David Rubin affectatiously.

Coming from the conformist mediocracy that runs Conservatism Inc., this cynical suggestion is the equivalent of, “Let them eat cake,” which, in practice means, let political dissidents go dark or resort to a barter economy.

You might not know it, but financial de-platforming has been a staple of many a long-suffering American dissident’s working life. Financial de-platforming is when you are barred from banking or transacting via PayPal. It is an “existential threat to free speech in America,” inveighed Revolver News.

This observation both trivializes what’s afoot and misses the point, for financial de-platforming teeters on violating another’s natural right to make a living.

How do you make a living if you can’t bank? Do you revert to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Go underground? Hunker in home-based industries? Keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Oh, I know: Beat the tom-tom drum, if your email service is severed, given that our email accounts and other server-supported facilities are currently under threat, too, with nary a remedy from fat-cat representatives (screw Josh Hawley’s book).

FLOUTING THE SPIRIT OF CIVIL RIGHTS

As a social-media platform, Parler has been found lacking by the Deep Tech overlords, simply because it sports a different business model.

Deep Tech restricts speech to comport with its censorious, progressive and politically correct, do-or-die guiding lodestars. Parler’s business model, however, is based on more free speech, not less of it.

Quislings such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter quickly colluded in flagrant violation of the American pro-competition sensibility, and flouting the spirit, if not the letter, of civil rights law, to financially segregate, banish and cripple irksome people and enterprises, Parler, in our example. Quick to ape them were other fearful vendors, lawyers, for example.

“Whatever Trump did, there is no excuse for what happened to Parler,” protested David Sacks, a liberal.

“Barring businesses from using online payment systems,” seconded Never Trumpster Bari Weiss, “removing companies from the App Store; banning people from social media—these are the equivalent of telling people they can’t open a bank account or start a business or drive down a street.”

Nice, but Weiss failed to analytically distill the meaning of that prohibition:

“[T]elling people they can’t open a bank account or start a business or drive down a street” is the equivalent of informing them they might not be able to make a living, despite the fact that they are innocent; their only offense is to type or waft words into the ether.

“This is the fate of Parler, courtesy of the Amazon webserver. No such thing as monopoly power? No such thing as deformed, economic gigantism? My a-s!”

I had tweeted out the above in disgust, appended to a screen picture of the following ubiquitous nullity: “We’re having trouble finding Parler; check your network connection.”

“Stop with the monopoly talk,” admonished a diehard ideologue, in reply. “You sound like the government interventionists of the Progressive Era.”

Yes, let the unfettered market-place, peaceful and slow, remedy the speedy and deadly aggression of our tech enemies, who come at us in war, not peace.

This, as the conformists persist in puling, “build your own platforms.” Right. Parler was ever so confident The Competition would be happy for its business. As was I.

For its confidence, Parler was subjected to a coordinated financial attack; dealt an unwarrantedly aggressive, financial death knell. The social-media platform was forthwith robbed of its value, even though it was not the aggressor in a dispute it did not pick—Parler had not defaulted on its financial obligations, and it didn’t perpetrate fraud on its users or vendors.

So, how do conservatives create an “alternative” to Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter, when these are conglomerates whose revenues are greater than “the GDP of four of the G20 nations”; and when “they are, collectively, more powerful than most, if not all, nation states”?

And when, more importantly, the men and women of Deep Tech no longer have products on their megalomaniacal, petty minds.

STRUCTURED LIKE A PETRO-STATE

When Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, and Amazon were growing up, they wanted to be government. Now they are!

Think about this: These are “businesses” whose political plank dwarfs their economic and technological raison dêtre: Work for them and you’ll quickly learn that it’s about minorities before merit, foreign over native born, women above everybody and everything, and white men who’re made to go to the back of the org, although, given their legendary facility with engineering—honky is made to do double duty for all the deadwood hired.

And, everything in deeply ignorant Deep Tech is done by the book—the White Fragility book, a favorite “teaching” resource of the barely-literate, Human Resources personnel.

The profit-structure, moreover, within many a Deep Tech company is reminiscent of that of a Petro-State. Billions flow top down, from these Sheik-dominated organization—Bill Gates, Satya Nadella, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos—to their pet political fiefdoms, within each of their respective companies, where, navigating politics is more valuable than making products.

 

Why repeat hackneyed phrases about annus horribilis 2020?

Recall the opening paragraph of “A Tale of Two Cities,” a classic by Charles Dickens? Interspersed in that epical introduction are countervailing, sweetness-and-light words. Excise these—and you get 2020:

“… it was the worst of times…it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch…of incredulity, it was…the season of darkness… it was the winter of despair. … we had nothing before us.”

MAGA men and women are just that: The best of people in the worst of times.

These good people converged on D.C., Jan. 6, to protest the certification of the Electoral College vote.

They, who have “nothing before them,” had come to demand that something be done by those who had “brought [them] forth into this wilderness,” yet sit “by the fleshpots [on the Potomac] and [eat] bread to the full.” (My adaptation of Exodus 16:3.)

Cassandra Fairbanks, of the Gateway Pundit web-hub, framed her report about the protest that ensued just right: “Patriots Have Stormed the Capitol Building — Masses Breaching Federal Barriers — Cops Losing Control.”

Yes, patriots. Rage that had been simmering over an election whose results lacked constitutional credibility had finally come to a boil.

Prior to the eruption, on Jan. 5, patriots had gathered at the Freedom Plaza in D.C. They patiently awaited their president, who was due to deliver a “Stop the Steal” address the following day. In short succession, they recited the “Lord’s Prayer” (from Luke, not the one-chord grunts of Lil Baby, or other rappers, emblematic of the Black Lives Matter repertoire).

These good people, who have been thoroughly marginalized and demonized—their country made diverse to the point of distrust—puncture their prayers with an “amen,” ancient Hebrew for “so be it.”

Symbolically—oblivious to etymological origins of the word—one of the imbeciles on the Hill (they all make out like bandits on the people’s dime), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo., boorishly closed his Godless chant with an “amen and awoman.” Cleaver had been tasked with giving “the opening prayer on the opening day of the 117th Congress.”

Trump’s America has had it with this confederacy of cretins and knaves, that “minds other people’s business,” and can’t even leave the language alone, much less their president.

Donald Trump has been maligned and sabotaged for the entirety of his term. As his constituents gaze down at their mobile devices, they observe that the president has been canceled by Deep Tech, my preferred term for the high-tech sector, as it denotes how deeply have the head honchos of high tech penetrated and poisoned the American public and private sectors.

Trump’s communications are routinely throttled, plastered with warning notices intended to disgrace a president whom “Deplorables” hold in high esteem.

And this from the president’s Twitter account:

“History will judge Trump as a villain,” vaporized CNN’s John Avlon, the husband and commentary sidekick of Never-Trump Republican Margaret Hoover. Appearing on CNN alone or with Avlon, this progressive Republican has also been disgorging the same “piercing” “insight” for months, if not years:

“This ends not well for the GOP. There will be a backlash for the GOP [for standing by Trump and his base and denying the election result.]”

A backlash with whom, Ms. Hoover? The intellectual and moral sinkhole to which you and your buddies belong?

MAGA men and women have themselves been dubbed “Deplorables” (courtesy of Mrs. Clinton), “lizard brains” (via TV historian Jon Meacham), and, recently, “Jerks,” by Donny Deutsch, a lefty business-cum-media man, on MSNBC, who hollered that “there are 50 million jerks in this country.”

Correction: We are 74-million strong.

The thread that runs through fatuous TV debates, among Lincoln Project founder Steve Schmidt and his ilk, is the failure of the Grand Old Party (GOP) to stand up to Donald Trump.

Unmentioned are the 74 million people who prop President Trump up. These solipsistic, vain TV degenerates—Bush-era operative Nicolle Wallace, the gaseous Ana Navaro, celebutante Margaret Hoover, and many more—have simply “disappeared” or cancelled 74 million Americans.

And, in character, cowardly Republicans have been tripping over one another to join them, since the storming of the Capitol building. (These characters were less inclined to flap their law-and-order chops when the BLM movementarians needed to be stopped from occupying and burning down American cities.)

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, suggested that Ashli Babbit, a patriot shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol, might have had it coming.

“The president should order U.S. troops to secure the Capitol immediately,” tweeted Laura Ingraham, an ego in an anchor’s chair.

Had Ms. Babbit been black, the Capitol would have long since been burned down (and looted) by BLM, to empathetic nods from the “enemedia.”

As to the “OMG, shocking, shocking” huffing and puffing over the pro-Trump protesters, who “descended on the Capitol to protest the certification of results, before clashing with police“:

Get a grip! Where was the constitutional duty to act forcefully when BLM goons romped and rampaged across the country? None was evident. The American power elites, cops too, simply knelt to and with their racial overlords.

Here’s the difference between pro-Trump patriots and BLM detritus:

The latter, BLM, trashed, looted and leveled their countrymen’s livelihoods, their businesses. MAGA men and women stormed the seats of corruption.

 

The Jewish State, by definition, rejects some and welcomes others into the fold.

In “Is Israel Racist?”, a reply to an anti-Semitic interviewer (he bailed), the emphasis was on demonstrating why Israel’s particularism is an extension of the individual’s right as a sovereign, discerning human being, for the freedom to include or exclude is not racist. Rather, it is the inherent right of free individuals, living severally or collectively.”

Jews are to be faulted only to the extent that they deny to other nations the rights they claim for the Jewish ethno-state.

Israel’s particularism, moreover, is not race-based, it’s religious.

As understood in the U.S., racism is more often concerned with discrimination based on distinct physical characteristics. It’s thus important to understand that Jews no longer constitute a race.

Before the two exiles of the Jews from Israel, the first in 586 B.C., I would hazard that Hebrews were likely genetically quite distinct. It is still not uncommon for a Jewish marriage of recessive genes to bring into phenotypical expression certain diseases unique to Jews.

Some scientists suggest there is a “genetic basis for a common ancestry of the whole of the Jewish population.” The Cohanim, descendants of Aaron of the priestly caste, certainly share distinct genetic markers.

Thousands of years hence, however, there are white, brown and black Jews in Israel. In fact, there are Jews from 100 countries, including Yemen, India, the Arab countries and Ethiopia.

In 1991, roughly 36,000 Ethiopian Jews were lifted to safety in a series of daring operations initiated by successive Likud governments, headed by Menachem Begin, heir to founding father Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s classical liberalism. It’s hard to imagine an American government doing the same, say, for the racially persecuted Christians of South Africa or Zimbabwe. At the time, Ethiopian Jews were being oppressed by a brutal Marxist-Leninist, Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam.

While Israeli Jews share a common faith—Judaism—in what way are they a race? Clearly, Israeli Jews are a variegated people – many look just like Arabs and vice versa. The charge of racism as we know it in the U.S. is no more than liberal lather, racial agitation as atavistic and base as the kind that unleashed violence on American cities, during 2020.

By all metrics, Israeli-Arabs are not shunned and “segregated” based on defining physical appearance. The accusation that roughly 18 percent of Israel’s more than 6 million citizens incur “institutional racism” doesn’t pass muster. The same deductive debunking applied to this concept in the column “Systemic Racism Or Systemic Rubbish?” applies in Israel.

Namely, from the fact that distinct racial and ethnic groups are reflected in academia and in the professions disproportionately to their presence in the larger population—it doesn’t follow that they have been disenfranchised. Discrimination is far from the only plausible explanation for the lag in the fortunes of certain homogenous groups.

While (unofficially) rejecting multiculturalism, Israel retains liberal, democratic institutions and accords equal rights and protections to minorities. Israeli Arabs have equal voting rights, freedom of speech, assembly and press, as is evident from the hate-filled Islamic journals that thrive in Israel. Israeli Arabs run for the Knesset, hold government posts, and serve on the bench. Israel is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabic is one of Israel’s two official languages.

The sole legal distinction between the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army, a perk, some would say. As such, they don’t qualify for veteran benefits and, I imagine, will not get work where military security clearance is required. On the other hand, as the Jewish Virtual Library points out, Israeli Arabs get a head-start in the economy while Jews are conscripted for three years.

In a bit of bafflegab, my Jew-hating interlocuter, to whom this column is a response, related that he had become outraged, after hearing about the woes of “Christian Jews.” His ire was over the fact that, as he put it, “a Jew cannot be a Christian and be considered a Jew.”

I suspect that by “Christian Jews,” my interviewer meant a Christian who immigrates to Israel and is barred from becoming a citizen of the Jewish State. But since my partner in conversation writes incontinently about Jews and claims to know his stuff—I will refrain from so charitable a reading, and simply say this:

Of course a Christian is not a Jew—in the same way that a Muslim is not a Jew or a Christian, and a Jew is not a Christian or a Muslim.

A is not B. If A is a Jew and B is a Christian, then the one is not the other and vice versa.

If a Jew wishes to be a Christian, he must undergo a religious process. The same applies to a Christian: If he wishes to convert to Judaism and be recognized as Jewish, he must complete an arduous conversion that entails both study and ritual.

You may convert to Judaism. You are not a Jew until you do. The tantrum over the un-inclusive nature of Judaism is reminiscent of the pronoun psychosis, which amounts to a nihilistic quest to break down the systems of classification bequeathed to us by the ancients.

More fundamentally, the world is filled with categories of discrete entities. To make sense of the world, we’ve ordered it in such a way. Comes the postmodernist progressive and tells us that there are no categories, everything is intersectional and fluid. How dare you deny me, a flesh-and-blood woman, the right to identify as a daisy. Or, the right of a girl to call herself a boy? Or, the right of a Christian to declare himself a Jew?

How dare you! Racist! Evil-doer! Denier (of something or another)!

Sigh.

That Israel arrogates to itself the right to decide who will join the polity enrages its enemies. They consider Israel an illegitimate entity in part because it is not a true multicultural state, but a Jewish state, to which only Jews have a right of return. There is no corresponding Palestinian right.

The selectivity with which the Jewish State confers citizenship is thus reflexively conflated with racism and “apartheid.” “Nazi” is another sobriquet favored by the far-gone left, which would prefer that its Palestinian protégés be masters in a failed state than a minority in a functioning one.

Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be made—based not on ethnic hate—against any Jew, left or right, who rejects the “Right of Return” to Israel proper of every self-styled Palestinian refugee, yet, at the same time, champions a global right of return to the U.S. for citizens of the world.

Oblivious to the logical and moral contradictions inherent in their special pleading—some Jews work toward rightist political prescriptions for Israelis; but leftist prescriptions for Americans.

These Jews insist that Israel is for the Jews, but America is for the World.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Jews, Racism, Zionism 
Ilana Mercer
About Ilana Mercer

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


PastClassics
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement