Category: Ilana Mercer

Stop Shopping until You Drop…or until a Terrorist Drops You


The “known wolf,” left free to hunt for prey, is the rule more than the exception in a country, Britain, that will do nothing to stop the likes of the little snot who struck in a London underground train on September 14.

The same authorities find the will and the legal wherewithal to jail Englishmen for thoughtcrimes – say, reciting verbatim an anti-Islam verse from a book by Churchill.

Where President Trump went wrong was in calling the hissing snake “sick and demented.”  The snake, taken in and housed by a tender-hearted British couple, was just being a snake, doing what his ilk has done since the seventh century.

The “sickest and most demented” of the lot are the British authorities.

Scotland Yard?  MI5?  All are MIA.

When it comes to protecting the lives of innocents, British security is missing in action, habitually, and some say intentionally.

Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers, starred in a Channel 4 TV documentary, The Jihadis Next Door.  Butt was not on the lam during the shooting.  He was not being investigated by the security forces or hunkering in a bunker in Iraq.  He was parading around in Barking, east London, broadcasting his intentions to the British people and their protectors.  Why, even the imam at the local mosque had expelled Butt for his murderous lust.  But to his British groupies, within and without government, Butt was fit to be filmed living among them, scheming against them.

Twenty-two-year-old Salman Abedi murdered 22 youngsters in the Manchester Arena.  He packed his bomb with shrapnel, ball bearings, and nails.  With such a fiendish device, surgeons must slice open the surviving victims, picking from the flesh and burrowing in the bone for embedded shards.  To most decent people, Abedi was detritus.  He ought to have been watched, segregated from civilization, deported, and dispatched one day.

But to the security service MI5, Abedi was part of the terrorist “assets” they had cultivated in Manchester “for more than 20 years.”  The sanctimonious Ms. May has the audacity to scold President Trump for cryptically hinting at her culpability in enabling terrorism, when May was the home secretary under whose imprimatur Manchester’s resident terrorist cell was developed as an MI5 asset (“Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?”).

The London tube attack was the fifth attack in Britain this year.  Naturally, the state sluggards of British counterterrorism are seething over any leaks of information to their lowly subjects.  Leaks reveal their ineptitude, their dereliction of duty, and the elaborate protections they put in place for their privileged wards.

If not complicit, as veteran journalist John Pilger has convincingly contended, the British government and counterterrorism outfits are certainly criminally negligent.

Life with Islam

Clips of the carnage that is life with Islam are few and far between following an event like Barcelona, in which a Maghrebi Muhammadan (helped by two or three or more, including a holy man) drove his van into the crowds on Las Ramblas.  (Yes, August 19, 2017 is already a distant memory, just as the politicians want it.)

The grisly footage warning viewers of “graphic content” is quickly sanitized, stylized, set to somber but pleasant music.  The camera pans out to focus not on the prone victims, never to rise again, but on the prettier, vertical survivors.

But before images of the worst of Barcelona (or Brussels or Berlin or Paris or London) under Muslim assault were cleaned up for sensitivity’s sake, it was possible to glimpse the bloodied bodies and belongings strewn on the streets.  Among them milled the survivors, some dazed and confused, others crouching near lifeless bodies, beside themselves with grief and disbelief.

Alas, many were visibly bored.  As in, “This is the price of ‘freedom.’  Let’s get on with life.  I wonder when the shops will reopen.”  A reaction politicians are banking on must stop.  The prey must become a little unpredictable (like Donald Trump).

Life with Less Islam

To peacefully bring about desired, desperately required immigration and deportation policies, people must secede from the public square to the extent possible.

Shop online.  Make the home your new happening hub.  Dine with friends at home.  Break bread with new friends in homes.  Patronize spots less trendy and off the beaten track.  Organize neighborhood block parties.

It is the political class that the public must defang if we wish to safeguard our lives and way of life.  You see, politicians win if you don’t withdraw from the public square following a terrorist attack.

Let’s unpack this:

Politicians know their subjects well.  All too well do Whitehall, Washington, and the E.U. club know the speed at which the human anthill will return to the streets following a terrorist attack.

Had not their flunkey, Shepard Smith of Fox News, exalted the Belgian human anthill for the speed with which the ants returned to darting back and forth following a Mohammedan’s attack on Brussels’s Central Station (June 21, 2017)?  In Shep’s compliant “thinking,” the terrorists win if we don’t return to our aimless consumption, laughing and making merry as we’re being picked off periodically by the enemy within.

Translated, this means that the terrorists win if we, their potential pool of victims, don’t do as our politicians say.

Like Shepard Smith, Obama kept intoning, “Dare do x, y, or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.”  Or “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.”  Is this not, at once, reverse psychology and cliché?

How did that astringent mind know what ISIS wanted?  It’s more likely that Obama was channeling the political class.  Politicians are deploying reverse psychology to get their subjects across the West to comply with their own wishes.  To wit, “If you stay away from the very public square, we politicians refuse to protect, ISIS wins.”

In practice, you are being ordered to shop until you drop, or are dropped by a Muslim behaving badly.  Oops.

But think about it: if ISIS wants you – regular Americans, Europeans, British – to do what in your estimation is best for your longevity, perhaps the politicians and pundits are wrong?  What a concept!

Only when their Keynesian edifice of nonstop consumption suffers and, consequently, their re-election chances are imperiled will politicians consider carrying out their duty to enact immigration and deportation policies that safeguard precious innocent lives.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and 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).  Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

“Another attack in London by a loser terrorist,” tweeted President Trump.  “These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard.”

Prime Minister Theresa May and the mad media fumed over the president’s insinuation that the Parsons Green “bucket bomber” was a “known wolf” and not a lone wolf.  But Donald Trump was entirely on the mark.  May and her men knew Yahyah Farroukh (whose information the British press is protecting).

The “known wolf,” left free to hunt for prey, is the rule more than the exception in a country, Britain, that will do nothing to stop the likes of the little snot who struck in a London underground train on September 14.

The same authorities find the will and the legal wherewithal to jail Englishmen for thoughtcrimes – say, reciting verbatim an anti-Islam verse from a book by Churchill.

Where President Trump went wrong was in calling the hissing snake “sick and demented.”  The snake, taken in and housed by a tender-hearted British couple, was just being a snake, doing what his ilk has done since the seventh century.

The “sickest and most demented” of the lot are the British authorities.

Scotland Yard?  MI5?  All are MIA.

When it comes to protecting the lives of innocents, British security is missing in action, habitually, and some say intentionally.

Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers, starred in a Channel 4 TV documentary, The Jihadis Next Door.  Butt was not on the lam during the shooting.  He was not being investigated by the security forces or hunkering in a bunker in Iraq.  He was parading around in Barking, east London, broadcasting his intentions to the British people and their protectors.  Why, even the imam at the local mosque had expelled Butt for his murderous lust.  But to his British groupies, within and without government, Butt was fit to be filmed living among them, scheming against them.

Twenty-two-year-old Salman Abedi murdered 22 youngsters in the Manchester Arena.  He packed his bomb with shrapnel, ball bearings, and nails.  With such a fiendish device, surgeons must slice open the surviving victims, picking from the flesh and burrowing in the bone for embedded shards.  To most decent people, Abedi was detritus.  He ought to have been watched, segregated from civilization, deported, and dispatched one day.

But to the security service MI5, Abedi was part of the terrorist “assets” they had cultivated in Manchester “for more than 20 years.”  The sanctimonious Ms. May has the audacity to scold President Trump for cryptically hinting at her culpability in enabling terrorism, when May was the home secretary under whose imprimatur Manchester’s resident terrorist cell was developed as an MI5 asset (“Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?”).

The London tube attack was the fifth attack in Britain this year.  Naturally, the state sluggards of British counterterrorism are seething over any leaks of information to their lowly subjects.  Leaks reveal their ineptitude, their dereliction of duty, and the elaborate protections they put in place for their privileged wards.

If not complicit, as veteran journalist John Pilger has convincingly contended, the British government and counterterrorism outfits are certainly criminally negligent.

Life with Islam

Clips of the carnage that is life with Islam are few and far between following an event like Barcelona, in which a Maghrebi Muhammadan (helped by two or three or more, including a holy man) drove his van into the crowds on Las Ramblas.  (Yes, August 19, 2017 is already a distant memory, just as the politicians want it.)

The grisly footage warning viewers of “graphic content” is quickly sanitized, stylized, set to somber but pleasant music.  The camera pans out to focus not on the prone victims, never to rise again, but on the prettier, vertical survivors.

But before images of the worst of Barcelona (or Brussels or Berlin or Paris or London) under Muslim assault were cleaned up for sensitivity’s sake, it was possible to glimpse the bloodied bodies and belongings strewn on the streets.  Among them milled the survivors, some dazed and confused, others crouching near lifeless bodies, beside themselves with grief and disbelief.

Alas, many were visibly bored.  As in, “This is the price of ‘freedom.’  Let’s get on with life.  I wonder when the shops will reopen.”  A reaction politicians are banking on must stop.  The prey must become a little unpredictable (like Donald Trump).

Life with Less Islam

To peacefully bring about desired, desperately required immigration and deportation policies, people must secede from the public square to the extent possible.

Shop online.  Make the home your new happening hub.  Dine with friends at home.  Break bread with new friends in homes.  Patronize spots less trendy and off the beaten track.  Organize neighborhood block parties.

It is the political class that the public must defang if we wish to safeguard our lives and way of life.  You see, politicians win if you don’t withdraw from the public square following a terrorist attack.

Let’s unpack this:

Politicians know their subjects well.  All too well do Whitehall, Washington, and the E.U. club know the speed at which the human anthill will return to the streets following a terrorist attack.

Had not their flunkey, Shepard Smith of Fox News, exalted the Belgian human anthill for the speed with which the ants returned to darting back and forth following a Mohammedan’s attack on Brussels’s Central Station (June 21, 2017)?  In Shep’s compliant “thinking,” the terrorists win if we don’t return to our aimless consumption, laughing and making merry as we’re being picked off periodically by the enemy within.

Translated, this means that the terrorists win if we, their potential pool of victims, don’t do as our politicians say.

Like Shepard Smith, Obama kept intoning, “Dare do x, y, or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.”  Or “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.”  Is this not, at once, reverse psychology and cliché?

How did that astringent mind know what ISIS wanted?  It’s more likely that Obama was channeling the political class.  Politicians are deploying reverse psychology to get their subjects across the West to comply with their own wishes.  To wit, “If you stay away from the very public square, we politicians refuse to protect, ISIS wins.”

In practice, you are being ordered to shop until you drop, or are dropped by a Muslim behaving badly.  Oops.

But think about it: if ISIS wants you – regular Americans, Europeans, British – to do what in your estimation is best for your longevity, perhaps the politicians and pundits are wrong?  What a concept!

Only when their Keynesian edifice of nonstop consumption suffers and, consequently, their re-election chances are imperiled will politicians consider carrying out their duty to enact immigration and deportation policies that safeguard precious innocent lives.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and 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).  Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.



Source link

1498460069_at-painter-og-image.png

The Declaration No Longer Expresses ‘The American Mind’


For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence — the proclamation of which, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate — doesn’t actually feature in the celebration itself. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig — an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped — John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon, and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Indeed, especially adamant was Jefferson about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'”

For this reason, the philosophy of government articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

By “all men are created equal,” moreover, Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” was certainly not implying that all men were similarly endowed. Or, that they were naturally entitled to healthcare, education, a decent wage, amnesty, or entry into the country he and the Constitution makers bequeathed.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

But Jefferson’s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

Notwithstanding the claims of the “multicultural noise machine,” the Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon.

Our Founders’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have stained this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he so cherished, imagine how he’d view America’s contemporary cultural and political conquistadors — be they from Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond — whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus, they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

Like it or not, Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration, was sired and inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

For most Americans, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration of Independence — the proclamation of which, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate — doesn’t actually feature in the celebration itself. Contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it’s easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

It is fair to say that the Declaration of Independence has been mocked out of meaning.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, urged that the “people be universally informed.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the collective mentality of contemporary Americans and their leaders “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig — an American Whig whose roots were in the English, Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Come to think of it, Jefferson would not recognize England as the home of the Whigs in whose writings colonial Americans were steeped — John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon, and others.

The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, explains David N. Mayer in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Indeed, especially adamant was Jefferson about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'”

For this reason, the philosophy of government articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

By “all men are created equal,” moreover, Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” was certainly not implying that all men were similarly endowed. Or, that they were naturally entitled to healthcare, education, a decent wage, amnesty, or entry into the country he and the Constitution makers bequeathed.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

But Jefferson’s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

Notwithstanding the claims of the “multicultural noise machine,” the Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon.

Our Founders’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have stained this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he so cherished, imagine how he’d view America’s contemporary cultural and political conquistadors — be they from Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond — whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus, they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

Like it or not, Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration, was sired and inspired by the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Ilana Mercer is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.



Source link