To Israel’s unbridled barbarism, America has responded by joining in. Trump has naturalized the ideas of conquest, ethnic cleansing; genocide and mass murder.~ilana

The Axis of Epstein seeks to destroy the Axis of Resistance.~ilana

Decent, moral people will root for Iran to hold the line against a Satanic confederacy, Israel in the lead, seeking the fragmentation and Gazafication of Iran and Lebanon.

To that end, President Donald Trump had convened “hucksters and shysters” to head his diplomatic corps to the Middle East and beyond, Iran included. In the commission of the greatest Sins known to Man, the “populist” president had recruited billionaires to his White House, who also happen to be Israel-first fixers and assets. Like their boss, both Trump’s point “men” are regarded as “Israeli assets,” as “one Gulf diplomat with knowledge of the talks” told The Guardian, on March 17.

This, the president, to whom Bibi Netanyahu’s word is law, did with a purpose, the outcome of which is in evidence:

The final and full Israelization of the American military, and the attempted Gazafication of Iran and Lebanon. The “Gaza doctrine applied to a new front,” concludes Jonathan Whittall, a humanitarian and fellow South African. “And the American state is in compliance, providing firepower and striving to finally and fully Israelize the American military.”

The crime of aggression is “the supreme international crime” in international customary law. Why so? Because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The aggression is not only “a crime against the state that is attacked,” but it is “a crime against individuals who are killed or harmed as a result of war.”

Think “accumulated evil” when you look at Trump, a “second-rate gangster who strove to be Bibi Netanyahu” and has finally and fully arrived.

Without half trying, Trump has made us all confederates in Israel’s crimes. The Israel-US criminal regimes are in contravention of the laws of war, and the Charter of the United Nations—Articles Two and 51, in particular—by which “armed force” shall not be deployed against “the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.”

For reasons obvious, the twinned Trump-Netanyahu regimes are also an affront to God’s law, the Ten Commandments—according to which you must not covet or murder—and the natural justice, subsumed within which is the libertarian law. The latter pivots on the universal injunction against unprovoked aggression, not on the “national interest fiat standard.” 

Most of all, this obtains “regardless of a declaration of war”! In other words, the murderous parliamentary procedures and protocols of Israel or the US do not usurp eternal codes of morality and ethics. Codified or uncodified, all laws that govern the comity between the community of nations and uphold individual rights have been trashed by the US-Israel coalition of evil.

By rights, Iran then is not only expected to defend its people—but to defend them against any “State [that] allows its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State [USA] for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State [Iran].” By the letter of the law, Iran is fighting fair when it targets the Persian Gulf states, from which attacks on the Iranian people are staged.

These eternal universal laws have been sundered by two rogue, nuclear powers, whose nuclear proliferation is undeclared and unsupervised. Obscenely, the US and Israel have justified their attack on a third state [Iran] that has no nukes and has not initiated war in centuries, by invoking nuclear control and non-proliferation, comments Craig Mokhiber.

This is enough to make one gag.

Trump’s team of choice gave tone to all negotiation proceedings. The Three Amigos—Trump and his Israel-first fixers—have recruited America into their unbridled barbarism. In progress is a system of plunder developed by this coterie. Don’t, however, let the sweep of destruction they leave in their wake fool you. Trump and his loyalists are amassing fortunes. So too are sons Odai and Qusai making money hand over fist.

The one oaf sent abroad to “represent,” Steve Witkoff, is an old pal of the president. A real estate developer and investor, the man knows less than nothing about most things, the world of stocks and bonds excepted.

As we know, Trump is economical with the truth. Like him, Witkoaff has told lies right and left. About the long-suffering, patient, genial Iranian negotiators—a class act if ever there was one—he piled up a heap of lies to a receptive media:

“There’s almost no stopping them; they have an endless supply of [enriched uranium] … They thought they could strong-arm us. … It was very, very clear that it was — it was going to be impossible, probably by the second meeting…

They bragged about having 60% enriched fuel, enough for 11 bombs,” Witkoaff prattled on elsewhere to reporters seven days into the conflict. “They told me and Jared, ‘We’re not going to give you diplomatically what you couldn’t take militarily.’ So you know, I think they’re gonna need a change of attitude. …In a year, if you had someone who didn’t have the courage to do this action, you’d have 30 or 40 nuclear bombs,” Witkoaff crowed in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday.”

Swap family names and place names with current names and place names—and my description of the ramp-up to the onslaught on Iraq obtains today as well as it did in July of 2003 (minor adaptations are italicized):

Reducing this administration’s single-minded will to war to an erroneous report ignores the big picture. First came the decision to go to war. The misbegotten illegality that was this administration’s case for war followed once the decision to go to war had already been made. The administration’s war wasn’t about a few pieces that did not gel in an otherwise coherent framework; it wasn’t about an Iran that was poised to attack the U.S. with germs and chemicals rather than with nukes and missiles; it was about a resigned, hungry, economic pariah that was a sitting duck for the power-hungry American colossus.
By all means, dissect and analyze what, in September 2002, I called the ‘lattice of lies’ leveled at Iran: the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes from Timbuktu, the invisible ‘meetings’ with al-Qaida in Prague, an al-Qaida training camp that existed under Kurdish—not Iranian—control, as well as the alleged weaponized chemical and biological stockpiles and their attendant delivery systems that inspectors doubted were there and which never materialized.
But then assemble the pieces and synthesize the information, will you? Do what the critical mind must do. The rational individual, wedded to reality, reason, and objective, non-partisan truth saw Trump’s sub-intelligent case for war on Iran for what it was. He saw Trump as the poster boy for ‘the degeneracy of manner and morals’ which James Madison warned war would bring—the same ‘bring ’em on’ grin one can also observe on the face of a demented patient with end-stage syphilis. The rational individual saw all this, and understood that when Madison spoke of ‘war as the true nurse of executive aggrandizement,’ he was speaking of the disposition of this dictator, Trump.” (“Bush’s 16 Words Miss The Big Picture,” Ilana Mercer, July 16, 2003.)

The difference: Trump’s “degeneracy of manner and morals” was already on display in Gaza. “Genocide was Trump’s gateway crime.” Like the vanquishing of Venezuela, the assault on Iran should’ve been easily foreseen by devotees of the codes of justice aforementioned.

The drift of events being what it is; Wittkoaff is begging Iran “to resume talks.” According to reliable pipelines, the worn and wary Iranians now ignore Wittkoaff’s desperate texts.

The other oaf involved is Jared Kushner, Trump’s “best friend and his son-in-law.”

Initially, Trump had puled about being doubly indebted to Kushner. Kushner, Trump had insisted, was the brain trust of his administration, who “was giving [him] ‘valuable expertise’ on Iran while … working as an ‘informal, unpaid advisor.’” Genuflection has since turned to bitching. Still impenitent himself, Trump now concedes that the war on Iran is a result of Kushner’s “expertise,” “because Kushner told me,” quotes Haaretz.

To Israel, Trump has offered nothing but service and subservience. Yet in 2011/12, Netanyahu, then a defense minister, with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in tow, tried to impose the Iran “ticking-clock deadline” on Barack Obama. We’re attacking, he and Ehud Barak threatened. They failed. Subject to the same Israeli shakedown tactics, even President Biden managed to steel himself. Biden refused to “support an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities or oil installations.”

In his devotion to Israel, Trump has bested Biden, a senile, creedal Zionist.

As expected, in amoral Israel, state and civil society, there is no rankle of conscience. Ninety-three percent of Jewish-Israelis love the assault on Iran. The country operates outside all moral gravitational pull, its finest are currently transmitting footage of the trashing of Lebanese lives and land.

Clearly, to Israel’s unbridled barbarism, America has responded by joining in. Trump has naturalized the idea of conquest, ethnic cleansing; genocide and mass murder.

American forces are strafing Iran’s cities and civilians à la Israel—and in coordination with that odious entity. Like Israel, America is giddy over the prospects of illegally and immorally assassinating those Iranian leaders who heroically volunteer to succeed their many colleagues assassinated. Vulgarly, emulating the Israelis, the US State Department has placed a $10 million bounty on the head of supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, whose father they murdered.

It all has a kind of yeehaw quality to it.

Big Daddy Beelzebub and the “Synagogue of Satan” (Jesus’ words, not mine, in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) are crass, boorish entities. Countries and cabals whose philosophy is plunder hate refinement and cultivation in others. That Ali Larijani certainly was. A mathematician, computer scientist, PhD in philosophy with an interest in Kant: murdered! What a waste. President Masoud Pezeshkian “has confirmed ‘the cowardly assassination’ of Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s Intelligence Minister and others: On the homes of the commander of the Basij and the head of the Basij intelligence directorate Israel dropped bombs, for the IDF is an air force, not a fighting force. (To a man, the Israeli Air Force should be served with subpoenas to the Hague.) Murdered too was the spokesperson of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Two (alleged) omissions are noteworthy in the inexhaustive Wikipedia list of Israeli assassinations since 1956: The one dated November 22, 1963; the other occurred on September 10, 2025. 

Americans are now also party to Israel’s chemical warfare, a particularly dastardly war crime prohibited under international humanitarian law. Israel illegally spews banned chemical weapons—white phosphorous—over land across the Levant.

Iranians are thus “gasping for air,” inhaling “airborne crude,” following Israeli airstrikes on “major oil depots and infrastructure in Tehran neighborhoods … as well as in the nearby city of Karaj.” The sky is a blackened dome. The rain has turned acid. Trump’s dissembling  notwithstanding, the airstrikes on the South Pars Gas Field in Iran were, too, a joint, Israel-US effort. Operation Epstein Fury has seen the dropping of “5,000-pound deep penetrator munitions on Iranian missile sites along Iran’s coastline near the Strait of Hormuz,” because, “How dare Iran defend its sovereignty.”

According to UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced. “At least 10,000 residential homes have been damaged or completely destroyed,” all courtesy of the Epstein Alliance. “US forces have struck more than 5,000 targets in Iran since last Saturday.” In all, said Trump’s mini-Israeli Pete Hegseth, “over 15,000 targets have been hit in Iran, while the Iranian Red Crescent reports strikes on over 21,700 civilian sites.” At least 1,444 people have been killed and 18,551 injured by US-Israeli attacks on Iran since February 28, Iran’s Health Ministry says.

With the acquiescence of the collaborator Lebanese government, Israel has murdered more than 1000 of its citizens, amid ongoing airstrike assaults on Lebanon’s infrastructure, a crime to which Israel’s defense minister has copped. With one million people displaced,” Lebanon is nearing “breaking point,” reports Drop Site News.

Since writing the previous paragraph, the number of murdered Iranians has risen to 1500. All figures curated above are already obsolete. Understand: This is in the nature of the serial-killer state and its pathetic, perfidious American poodle.

Fact: Israel poses a grave existential threat to its neighbors! As if the enormity of this threat is not terrifying enough—Iran (Lebanon and Yemen) must now contend with a distinctly flippant approach taken in the West by “credentialed” elites (and some stellar people, inadvertently) in discussing the possibility that Israel might use tactical nuclear weapons on its victims. 

Predictions, classifications, derivations, etiologies: Man has always performed these mental operations. However, the war gaming going on under the guise of military scholarship is both repulsive and dangerous, given the “place of massive impunity” that has been carved out for Netanyahu and his complicit countrymen. As I see it, the gaiety someone like Robert Pape affects, while huffily flogging his war-on-Iran predictions, comes under the “Ugly American” category.

As a method of war, as a military doctrine, Israel is conducting annihilatory campaigns with the intent to bring about the disintegration of Iran as a functioning, sovereign state capable of defending itself. An ideal Iran, from rogue state Israel’s perspective, is a place to which Israeli “fighter” pilots “can return every six months to ‘mow the grass.’” (See Double Down News)

Heightened by American collaboration with a genocidal entity; flippant, morally debased exchanges are a consequence of decreased public and pundit sensitivities to all this legalized crime.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons must be decried with the lash of logic, not logistics, and in clear moral language. Protest, rather than prattle to show how much you know or how predictive your war gaming is.

While Col. Douglas McGregor had underestimated the age of the pre-Christian Persian civilization by a few thousand years during an interview; the colonel is commended for dubbing Iran “a civilizational nation.” In Iran, the Axis of Epstein, whose combined age is 327 years, is trying to destroy a civilization 6000 to 8000 years old. Pray they fail. 

**********

©2026 ILANA MERCER
The Unz Review, March 25
LewRockwell.com, March 28

Ilana Mercer, paleolibertarian author, essayist and theorist, has been writing up an anti-war, anti-woke storm since 1998, starting in Canada. On arriving in the US, in 2002, her weekly column was right away syndicated. Mercer’s national syndication fell through shortly after due to writing in strident opposition to the war in Iraq. ILANA is described as “a system-builder. Distilled, her modus operandi has been to methodically apply first principles to the day’s events.” She’s Jewish, grew up in Israel ages five to nineteen, and left, at 19, never to return. She had refused to serve in the IDF, Israel’s compulsory military. Ilana’s focus since October of 2023 has been the genocide. A war against civilians is a war on civilization.

X: Follow to help defeat Elon’s algorithm: https://x.com/IlanaMercer
LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilana-mercer-378a671b0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ILANAMERCERAuthor/
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/ILANAMERCER
Subscribe: https://www.ilanamercer.com/mailing-list/

The post Trump Goes Amalek on Iran: Israelization of The US Military; Gazafication of Iran & Lebanon appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

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 equally 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.   

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, February 18
Unz Review, February 18
Quarterly Review, February 21

The post Still Addicted To That Rush: Revisiting The ‘09 CPAC Speech appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

America is “a society that is and always has been multiethnic and polyglot,” burbled David Frum, in a 2016 exposition. It’s a refrain repeated by centrists like Frum and French (also David), by all lefties and by well-trained faux rightists.

Such dissembling about America having always been multicultural are no more than post hoc justifications for turning the country into a veritable Tower of Babel.

Early America’s colonies were founded by Englishmen in periwigs, speaking different English dialects. They were joined by Irish, Scottish, French, Dutch, German and Swedish Christians, who quickly adopted English as lingua franca.

Not even the woke Wikipedia denies that, “Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States, were settled by migration from” one colony to another, with “foreign immigration” generally playing “a minor role after the first initial settlements.”

In other words, population growth was organic, a result of the settlers themselves multiplying and being fruitful, not of a flood of immigrants.

This so-called “multiethnic” dispensation saw early Americans publicly debate and come to a broad agreement on some highly complex, abstract matters of political philosophy, an impossibility today. The colonial community had to be pretty tight to arrive at the Articles of Confederation, followed by the Constitution.

Try as he might, not even the sainted Barack Obama got away with claiming, as he did, that, “Islam had been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Beyond their heavy involvement in the slave trade and in the Barbary wars—and contrary to Obama’s modern myth-making—Muslims were most certainly not enmeshed in America from its inception.

Moreover, and almost to a man, the learned Founding Father, as chronicled by Laura Rubenfeld of PJ Media, held a dismal view of Islam and its vampiric prophet.

It gives me great pleasure to break it to my anti-Semitic readers and to Ilhan Omar, the representative from Mogadishu in Minnesota: Jews were around. Early American Jews were of, mostly, Sephardi origins, having hailed from Spain and Portugal. That Jewry has always been more refined and reactionary than their radical, East-European brethren, who arrived much later.

And so we find Jews fighting or financing the War of Independence. Francis Salvador and Haym Solomon come to mind. “The highest ranking Jewish officer of the Colonial forces was Colonel Mordecai Sheftall.” Why, Jews even produced proud Confederate soldiers, the likes of Col. Abraham Charles Myers.

It was to the peaceful Jews of America that George Washington saw fit to promise peace and goodwill in a 1790 address to a synagogue congregation in Newport, Rhode Island.

Descendants of the original inhabitants of the United States of America are certainly not up to dealing with the political aggression brought to the country’s politics by recent immigrants. Come to speak of it, neither are the First Nations, the American Indians, who’re also politically more passive, when compared to the barbarians who’ve joined the Empire, since 1965.

To tether the character of Rep. Ilhan Omar to America’s immigration preferences is perfectly proper. Likewise Rashida Tlaib. The representative from Michigan is a second-generation Palestinian-American, and is every bit as tribal, politically aggressive and reliably leftist as Omar.

By virtue of its main source countries, America’s mass immigration policy privileges individuals like Omar: angry, anti-white, and highly receptive to theories that blacken the West and porcelainize the undeveloped world (a pedagogic poison that is, by the way, hothoused in the U.S.—K to 12 and beyond).

Muslim power in the U.S., we are assured, is negligible. Demographers peg the number of Muslims in America at 3.5 million, a mere 1 percent of the population. Nobody buys that—all the more so, given that “the Census Bureau has not asked questions about religion since the 1950s. “Some say the number is closer to 5 million and rising,” surmises the Economist.

The more politically aggressive the new arrivals, the more demographers stick by their “puny numbers” consolation.

Kamala Harris’ mother migrated to California from Chennai, in southern India. But the senator “rarely mentions the Indian side of her family while campaigning.” (I wonder why?)

How long before Harris tells her unschooled voters that Indian-Americans were “woven into the fabric of our country since its founding”?

The truth is that Indian-Americans have “arrived in America over the past two decades.” They’re a new addition to the country’s state-planned, multicultural mosaic. But, like Muslims, they are highly aggressive politically and reliably leftist.

“… Capitol Hill, for example, is crammed with staff and interns of Indian-American heritage. They also appear to be ‘over-represented’ in academia, the media and other influential posts,” notes the Economist, a left-liberal news magazine.

Again, we are assured that “only 1 million voters of Indian descent are politically active.”

Accordingly, the Economist even attempts to finesse the vile practice Indian arrivals have of cultivating their own, Indian-only “informal networks.” As those in the corporate world know all-too-well, Indian-Americans wrestle jobs for one another and for their kin.

Once ensconced in a position of power, individuals of South Asian descent tend to work assiduously to fire pale faces and hire others of their own persuasion.

Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, hire by talent, not by tribe. Their fate in multicultural America is to be dispossessed by the politically savvy, ruthlessly racist Other.

For that is the reality of multiculturalism in the West. It means conferring political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices and proclivities run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.

©2019 ILANA MERCER
The Unz Review, Quarterly Review,
WND.COM
November 7

The post Multiculturalism Elbows Anglo-Americans Out appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Once upon a time there were two politicians.

One had the power to give media and political elites goosebumps. Still does.

The other causes the same dogs to raise their hackles.

The first is Barack Hussein Obama; the second Vladimir Putin.

The same gilded elites who choose our villains and victims for us have decided that the Russian is the worst person in the world. BHO, the media consider one of the greatest men in the world.

Obama leveled Libya and lynched its leader. Our overlords were unconcerned. They knew with certainty that Obama was destroying lives irreparably out of the goodness of his heart.

Same thing when Obama became the uncrowned king of the killer drone, murdering Pakistani, Afghani, Libyan and Yemeni civilians in their thousands. That, too, his acolytes generally justified, minimized or concealed.  

In June of 2008, Obama marked his election as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Media did not mock their leader’s delusions of grandeur.

All the estrogen-oozing amoebas of mainstream media would do in response to the Obama charm offensive was to turn to one another and check, “Was it good for you? Did he make the earth move and the oceans recede for you, too?”

Recently, Obama romped on to the Third World stage “bigly.” He delivered an address in this writer’s birthplace of Johannesburg, South Africa. The occasion: the centennial commemoration of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

On that occasion, Obama praised “the liberal international order,” which is founded on inverted morality: Good is bad and bad is good.

Small wonder, then, that nobody—broadcaster Tucker Carlson excepted—was willing to shame Obama for lauding genial thug Cyril Ramaphosa as an inspiration for “new hope in [his] great country.”

President hope-and-change Ramaphosa has gone where his four peer predecessors had not dared to go. He led a wildly fruitful effort to tweak the already watered-down property-rights provision in the South-African Constitution. Theft of land owned by whites will now be permitted.

Other than their modern-day-messiah status, BHO and his hero Mandela share something else. Both were silent about the systematic ethnic cleansing and extermination, in ways that beggar belief, of South-African farmers, in particular, and whites in general.

Does the barefaced Barack care that white men, women and children are being butchered like animals, their bodies often displayed like trophies by their proud black assassins?

An example among thousands are Kaalie Botha’s parents: “You can’t kill an animal like they killed my mom and dad. You can’t believe it.” The Achilles tendons of Kaalie’s 71-year-old father had been severed by his assailants so he couldn’t flee. He was then hacked in the back until he died, his body dumped in the bush. The head of wife Joey had been bashed in by a brick, wielded with such force that the skull “cracked like an egg.”

A day in the life of farming South Africa.

Yet, there was Mr. Obama touting the new South Africa as the instantiation of the ideals promoted by Mandela.

Mind you, Obama might be on to something, in a perverse way. As stated, Mandela was mum about these killings, labeled genocidal by the expert Dr. Gregory H. Stanton.

As for “Madiba’s” fidelity to the cornerstone of civilization, private-property rights: In September of 1991, “Mr. Mandela threatened South African business with nationalization of mines and financial institutions unless business [came] up with an alternative option for the redistribution of wealth.”

Had he lived to 100, Mandela would likely be cheering Ramaphosa for authorizing a free-for-all on white-owned private property.

You know who’s not ignoring or minimizing those ongoing attempts at extermination and immiseration in South Africa? President Putin.

Russia has purportedly offered to give shelter to 15,000 white South African farmers, so far, recognizing them for the true refugees they are.

But Mr. Putin must be a racist. At least that’s what the cruel and craven African National Congress (Mandela’s party) dubs any nation daring to succor white South-Africans. The very idea that black Africans would persecute white Africans is racist in itself, say South Africa’s ruling Solons.

In fact, the ANC regularly intervenes to set aside findings made by Refugee Boards across the West in favor of South Africa’s endangered minority.

Putin, of course, has a history of such “racism.” Take his “unhealthy” fixation with saving Christians in Syria. Yes, that community is thriving once again because of the Alawite and Russian alliance.

True to type, “racist” Russia is now looking out for the Afrikaner settlers of South Africa.

In 2011, when “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” was published, there were approximately 40,000 commercial South-African farmers who remained on the land of their ancestors. Minus about 3000 slaughtered.

The total number of commercial farmers who feed South Africa is now less than half the number of “refugees” the US takes in each year. To date, “there has been a trickle of South Africans applying for asylum in the United States on the grounds of racial persecution. Almost all have been deported.”

It should be news to no one that American refugee policies favor the Bantu peoples of Africa over its Boers.

As Obama would drone, “It’s who we are.”

Whichever way you slice it, on matters South Africa, Russia is the virtuous one.

©2018 ILANA MERCER
WND.com, The Unz Review, Quarterly Review,
Townhall.com, Constitution.com, The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom & ZeroHedge.com
August 9

The post Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

President Trump has credibly accused Obama of wire-tapping the Trump Tower phones during the 2016 campaign.

The post The Donald Vs. The ‘Deep State’ appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

The post President Trump Vs. The Democrat Dunce-Cap Lobby appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

BY ILANA MERCER

The Hollywood Idiocracy has let out a primal scream to protest Donald Trump, the people’s president. Members of the collective convened to convulse like Linda Linda Blair in “The Exorcist,” to the sounds of Gloria Gaynor in “I Will Survive.”

This particular protest was made up of mediocre females: Emma Stone, Natalie Portman, Amy Adams, Hailee Steinfeld, Chris Pine, Michael Shannon, Matthew McConaughey, Andrew Garfield, and Joel Edgerton (the last five are women with the Y chromosome).

Miss Blair, of course, was great in “The Exorcist.” The same goes for the demon Pazuzu who possessed Blair’s character (Regan MacNeil) in the film. At his gurgling snarling worst, Pazuzu was easier on the ear than the actors who primal-screamed their way through Gaynor’s fabulous, 1979 disco number.

How full of yourself must you be to sound and look as vapid as these celebrities did on the vid? A less self-aggrandizing group would have used the Auto-Tune technology, a must for the T & A that parade as artists these days! Or perhaps they did, and Team “I Will Survive” is even worse than it sounds.

Speaking of self-adoration, I’ve lost count of how many goodbyes Barack Hussein Obama has bid. The countdown to President-elect Trump’s inauguration has morphed into a search-and-rescue for the Obama legacy, except that when something is dead, it becomes a recovery operation.

The other day, Obama “popped by” to say goodbye to Press Secretary Josh Earnest. I can’t quite recall what 44 said, but the interlude was all about Obama.

Indeed, nothing Obama has ever said is memorable, or has intellectual acuity to it. This goes for his farewell address. President-elect Trump might be inarticulate and plain-spoken; but each of his words means something tangible and actionable. The incumbent’s words, conversely, are like a Rorschach blot: fuzzy, hazy verbal vapor, designed to absorb the listener’s projected emotions and reflect them back soothingly.

The cliché is the operative word in an Obama sentence. Visit any random site or video clip featuring Obama excerpts and you’ll hear mind-numbing banalities. Here’s one at random (2009): “What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart.”

As measured by the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, a “Smart Politics,” 2012 study concluded that “for the third straight Address, the President’s State of the Union message was written at an eighth-grade level.”

During his interminable farewell address, Obama appeared to imply that from the fact some western immigrants were once disparaged and discriminated against in bad old America—it follows that all immigrants to his newly transformed America should never-ever be doubted or rejected. What did I tell you about eighth-grade reasoning?

For the farewell address, Obama had asked BJ the Chicago Kid—is he a Malia crush?—to ululate the National Anthem. “Take people’s minds to another place” was the instruction BJ allegedly received. BJ’s crushingly bad warbling took me back to 2009.

The scene was a “sedate” soiree at the White House—down to the disco ball and the half-nude, pelvis-grinding Beyoncé. The soiree was held by the first lady for Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Bibi Netanyahu, also visiting, was confined to the basement.

Good times.

Back to the farewell address. No sooner had I tweeted, “How long before our dreadful cur of a president mentions the ignominy of slavery and the glory of illegal immigrants”—than Obama went ahead and mentioned … the ignominy of slavery and the glory of migrants and refugees.

“White Americans” were encouraged to keep “acknowledging … the effects of slavery and Jim Crow,” and be cool about allowing “minority groups” to “voice discontent,” which is Obama’s code for burning down neighborhoods.

“How long before the president belittles white yokels,” I tweeted next. Not one to disappoint, Obama followed with a derogatory reference to “the middle-aged white guy.” “From the outside,” noodled Obama, “the middle-aged white guy may seem like he’s got advantages, but has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change.”

Yes, give him some change.

All in all, it was as though the guy failed to realize his vision had been rejected root-and-branch when Mr. Trump was elected. America’s potential, intoned the POTUS, would only be realized if the American democracy works; if we have common purpose. Beware of a socialist preaching solidarity. What “our democracy” actually demands is that the POTUS know the US was born a republic, never an unbridled democracy. In this republic, self-government was to trump centrally imposed solidarity.

To follow was an Obama audacity we won’t miss. He praised his spoilt daughters for graciously wearing “the burden of years” of life in the lap of luxury (courtesy the taxpayer), a sentiment his wife, Michelle Antoinette Obama, voiced non-stop on the talk-show circuit.

As I write, 44 is making news with the Fake News establishment. Obama is giving a last, long press conference. The final love-in with an adoring press corps saw the president—for two more days!—praise the sycophants in the room for keeping him honest. Obama’s “skeptic” lapdogs obliged, as they’d done for eight years, with a drubbing. The phrase “(Laughter)” is the most challenging in the transcripts of this, Barack Obama’s last news conference.

Deplorables can agree with one sentiment Obama expressed on the occasion: “I want to be silent for a while and not hear myself talk all the time.” Hear, hear.

We serenade Barack Obama, who just can’t exit center stage, with the chorus line from “I Will Survive”:

“Go on now, go, walk out the door
‘Cause you’re not welcome anymore …”

©2017 ILANA Mercer
The Daily Caller, Townhall.com, The Unz Review,
Constitution.com, The Liberty Conservative,
The Libertarian Alliance
January 19

The post ‘Go On Now Go,’ Barack Obama, ‘Walk Out The Door …’ appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

BY ILANA MERCER

You’re witnessing a fantastic fit of pique from Barack Hussein Obama. This American president is watching a legacy of statism, Islamism, globalism, elitism, blackism, post-Americanism, post-Christianity slip away, and he’s fighting tooth-and-nail for the ideological sludge in which he has mired America.

Obama is having a terrific tantrum, the effects of which President-elect Donald Trump must reverse. Why so? Aside from a few laudable initiatives—trade with Cuba and a lesser involvement in the Syrian civil war—Obama has fought for nothing but the dreadful propositions already mentioned. Trump has promised to fight for the American people. Never the twain shall meet.

To Trump, making America great means making the American people great. To Obama, making America great means making government great and aggrandizing himself in the process.

But the metrosexual Obama has finally met his match. Two Alpha Males, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, are causing the world’s wunderkind to unravel. Both represent the interests of their voters; while Obama fights for the coercive ideology he shares with Angela Merkel and George Soros. Looking for a brawl with the Russian Bear certainly works against the interests of the American people, and for Washington, Brussels and the “expert” and think-tank internationalist industry.

And so, in the words of a Kremlin spokesman, “Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen.” This, as a spiteful Obama punishes Russia for infractions the American people, by-and-large, don’t believe the Russians committed. Differently put, “The proof is not in the Putin.”

Ordinarily, to mouth about someone’s “motivation” is to make a logically invalid argument. The reason being that the motivation behind an individual’s deeds can seldom be divined. But, “Barack Obama, it’s not as though we hardly knew thee.” We know the outgoing president all too well. Obama is a case study in hubris. He began his presidency by claiming, in 2008, that his crowning was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

“[T]his was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth,” Obama vaporized. “This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

His eight lean years Obama ended with similar arrant and arrogant nonsense: “I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated [my vision of progressive change], I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

It’s perfectly plausible, then, to posit that Obama’s retaliation against Russia, three weeks before the inauguration of his successor, is a last-ditch attempt to gain one-upmanship over Trump, who is dominating the news cycle, a thing the narcissistic incumbent can’t abide.

Essentially, B. Hussein Obama is crashing about like a maniac in trying to retain his unwarranted status. Lo and behold, in the course of BHO’s flailing, we discover that government is perfectly capable of deporting foreigners when it wants to. Witness Obama’s petulant expulsion of Russian diplomats, payback for that country’s alleged harassment of American diplomats (no proof provided). This from the man who did nothing about Muslims murdering an American diplomat in Afghanistan.

Likewise, Obama’s Russophobic lickspittles—establishment conservatives and neoconservatives included—screamed blue murder when Trump merely threatened trade tariffs, as part of a clever negotiation strategy. Trump would launch a trade war, they hollered. The same sorts think nothing of risking real wars by inflicting sanctions that starve children and radicalize entire countries against the US.

In the context of our America-First interests, let’s look briefly at the significance of Obama’s dust-up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel, seeing a weakness in Obama’s crumbling facade, has pounced. Here’s the sequence:

First came the UN’s unremarkable resolution, condemning the establishment of West Bank settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to that ever-elusive peace with the MOPE (Most Oppressed People Ever, the Palestinians). Security Council Resolution 2334 was one among countless over the years. Passing anti-Israel resolutions is a popular UN parlor game.

Next was the US’s “decision to abstain” from vetoing that resolution. Last but not least was Netanyahu’s well-timed fury. The Israeli prime minister has asserted that the US orchestrated the UN vote against Israel. Helping to cement Obama’s legacy as an enemy of the Jewish State was Alan Dershowitz. The prominent pro-Obama civil libertarian has accused B. Hussein of personally lying to the law professor (Dershowitz), early in 44’s presidency, about being friend to Israel.

To top the blows to the outsized Obama ego, the UN cheerily kicked Obama and Secretary Kerry to the curb: It endorsed a truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and Turkey, sans Obama.

So Obama is spinning out of control. His parting shot at Russia has been described in the Russian press using bon mots like “impotent,” “political corpse,” “illiterate in foreign policy,” presiding over a “campaign of disinformation,” as badly behaved as a tenant trashing an apartment he no longer rents; his goal being to “create new problems for President-elect Trump.”

Hissed one Russian political commentator: “Obama has nothing else to do but break all the windows in the White House and deposit a pile of […] on the steps.”

Why is all this good for America Firsters? The dynamic “Process of Trump,” delineated in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” is ongoing. Trump, inadvertently yet tactically, has chipped away at the Obama legacy, as the Left, steered by the nitworks, desperately galvanizes court historians to reinflate this empty vessel of a president.

©2017 ILANA Mercer
The Daily Caller, The Unz Review, Constitution.com,
Praag.org, The Libertarian Alliance, The Liberty Conservative.
January 1

The post Bye-Bye Barack: Loser Fights For Legacy appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

©2017 By ILANA MERCER

If African-Americans didn’t get out and vote for Hillary Clinton, they would be dissing him and his legacy. So warned President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Black Caucus Foundation in Washington DC, on September 17.

The woman whose election promises portend a war on whites, Walmart and the wealthy has nothing to fear. Obama’s political cant notwithstanding, there isn’t the slightest chance blacks will side overwhelmingly with Hillary’s rival. Like never before, the 2016 election has been characterized by “a muscular mobilization of a race-based community, coercive control of territory and appeals by powerful charismatic leaders.”

What do I mean by “coercive control of territory”? Consider what would transpire if Donald Trump were to campaign “big-league” in Birmingham (Alabama), Charlotte (North Carolina), or South Los Angeles. Riots would erupt. (Incidentally, the thing where private property is invaded and looted is not called a protest.)

As sure as night follows day, the American democracy is destined to resemble that of South Africa, where a ruling majority party is permanently entrenched, and where voting is characterized by what has become Barack Obama’s signature tactic, a “muscular mobilization of the race-based community.”

The last, twice-repeated reference is out of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa.” In 2011, the book used the tragic example of post-apartheid South Africa to forewarn Americans of the effects of a shift in their country’s founding political dispensation, a shift being achieved stateside through immigration central-planning.

America’s political class has been tinkering with the country’s historical demographic composition for decades. The consequence of the mass importation of poor, Third World immigrants is that America, like South Africa, is headed to dominant-party status, in which a permanent majority intractably hostile to the host culture consolidates power, and in which voting along racial lines is the rule.

It used to be that the Democratic Party was this nascent majority’s political organ, offering a platform of preferential policies for a voting bloc whose “interests are viewed through the prism of racial affiliations.” Obama’s Dreams from America are for a country in which the historic majority is destined to become a marginalized minority, consigned to the status of spectator in the political bleachers. Ditto Clinton. But, as election year 2016 has shown, the Republican Party is vying for a similar mantle.

That South Africa is riven by race is indisputable. Each election is “a racial census as far as whites and blacks are concerned.” In the much-ballyhooed, historic election of 1994, “only two to three percent of whites voted for historically black parties and perhaps five percent of blacks voted for historically white parties. The ANC relied for ninety-four percent of its vote on black support. The historically white parties had been barred from campaigning in the black townships.” Yet elections since 1994 have had the blessing of every liberal alive, and that includes many of the world’s self-styled conservatives.

“The rule of the people, demos, and the people’s ethnicity, ethnos” invariably clash, argued Michael Mann, “one of the leading historical sociologists of our time.” In “The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing” (2004), Mann contends that in the earlier, more formative stages of their development, democracies are prone to carrying out murderous ethnic cleansing, which in extreme forms can become genocidal. “The growth of popular sovereignty, the institutionalization of universal citizenship, [and] the creation of mass society” have often seen “ethnic groups laying claim to the same territory resort to the use of force, and, when frustrated, to murderous ethnic cleansing and even genocide.”

Examples of this phenomenon in modernity: the ethnic expulsions and massacres in the democratized former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during the 1990s, the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire under the Young Turks (particularly in 1915-1916), and the mechanized mass murder of the Jews in Nazi Germany. While the infant South-African democracy fits snugly within his thesis, democracy devotees [the writer is not one] have accused Mann of twisting like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist to stretch the definition of democracy in making his case.

Where Mann is at pains to prove the murderous nature of young democracies, the arguments against democracy for South Africa, which have been propounded by Duke University scholar Donald L. Horowitz, have considerable force. Finely attuned to “important currents in South African thought,” Horowitz offered up an excruciatingly detailed analysis of South Africa’s constitutional options. In “A Democratic South Africa?: Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society” (1991), Horowitz concluded that democracy is, in general, unusual in Africa, and, in particular, rare in ethnically and racially divided societies, where majorities and minorities are rigidly predetermined.

Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the new South Africa’s Anglo-American cheerleaders were impervious to such sobering pronouncements. It remained for students of democracy such as Horowitz to hope only that “the probability will … recede that one person, one vote, one value, and one state will degenerate into only one legal party and one last election.”

“Elections to be meaningful presuppose a certain level of political organization. … The primary problem is … the creation of a legitimate public order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited, and it is authority that is in scarce supply in the modernizing countries,” warned Samuel Huntington in “Political Order In Changing Societies.” Little did Huntington consider that, with enough tinkering by its ruling elites; a modern and mighty country like the U.S. could devolve into an atavistic and dangerous place.

Not nearly as hopeful as Horowitz was that “noted student of nationalism” Elie Kedourie. “If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority,” concluded Kedourie. It was after a visit to South Africa that he wrote the following, in the November 1987 issue of the South Africa International:

“The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.”

A prerequisite for a classical liberal democracy is that majority and minority status be interchangeable and fluid in politics; that a ruling majority party be as likely to become a minority party as the obverse. By contrast, in South Africa, the majority and the minorities are politically permanent, not temporary.

America’s Founding Fathers had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic. Every democratic theorist worth his salt—Robert Dahl and Elaine Spitz come to mind—has urged that the raw, ripe rule of the mob and its dominant, anointed party be severely curtailed under certain circumstances fast approaching in the United States of America. These are “whenever people of different languages, races, religions, or national origins, with no firm habits of political co-operation and mutual trust, are to unite in a single polity.”

In other words, multicultural America.

Adapted from “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa” (2011). For  The Unz Review, Constitution.com, Quarterly Review
& The Libertarian Alliance

The post When America Becomes South Africa appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

©ILANA Mercer
TownHall.com, The Unz Review, Constitution.com,
Quarterly Review, &  The Libertarian Alliance,
July 10, 2016

The post America’s Sick of Barrack Hussein Obama’s Racial Dog-Whistles appeared first on ILANA MERCER.