A day after the January 16th hostage-taking at the Colleyville Beth Israel synagogue in Texas, near Fort Worth, the media reported that, “FBI and local police breached the building and ended the hostages’ 12-hour ordeal.”

Details were murky and the media, ever malfunctioning, remained chronically incurious about the story’s nuances. Unclear was what transpired toward the end of the hostage-taking, courtesy of a British Muslim on a mission of Jihad to the U.S.

The day after, we didn’t even know if terrorist Malik Faisal Akram died by law enforcement or by his own hand. Akram had aimed to free a Pakistani woman, Aafia Siddiqui. She had received a life sentence, under a terror enhancement, for attempting to murder U.S. soldiers occupying Afghanistan. Like her menacing, over-the-top moniker, “Lady al Qaeda” is serving what seems an excessive sentence in a Texas federal prison. (Gleaned from his own words, Akram’s primary motive is America’s foreign policy.)

Sketchy details notwithstanding, it also appears true that Rabbi Cytron-Walker acted as an “American folk hero, demonstrating composure and leadership under intense pressure.” A quiet and unassuming young man, the rabbi had led his captured congregants out of harm’s way by throwing a chair at the gunman and instructing his congregants to bolt. It later transpired that it was he and not the FBI who extricated the hostages.

When in recent memory has the FBI stopped an attack on the homeland other than attacks originating in its own entrapment schemes, where a low-IQ Abdul is persuaded to purchase explosives from the FBI “for Jihad” and then is “caught” in the act. A presser follows.

That said, had the rabbi not welcomed the stranger into the inner sanctum of his synagogue, throwing caution to the wind—heroics would have been unnecessary. More material, the incident could have been prevented had the country’s derelict “principal federal law enforcement agency” not welcomed Akram into the country.

The FBI has no shame. As standard operating procedure, not a day goes by when FBI agents or local law enforcement don’t tell a supplicating white America that the loss of their beautiful sons and daughters to focused and furious black hatred is entirely random, merely a function of mental illness, as that murmured mantra goes. Lies.

Duly, when the dust settled on the Texas synagogue incident, one of the FBI agents announced pro-forma that the attack on Beth Israel was … “not specifically related to the Jewish community.”

Jewish leaders were having none of it. They were quick to put the errant FBI in its place. Would that Christian leaders did the same, for they never pipe-up in the matter of the country’s black-on-white, daily deluge of hate crimes. Warn the flock that a pale, often-beautiful face can get them killed, will you?

At the mercy of a different kind of mediocrity was Serbian Novak Djokovic, the best tennis player in the world and a holder of 20 Grand Slam titles. Covid has given cover to legions of mediocre busybodies whose tentacles have enervated all fields; sports included. Under the cloak of Covid control, these tyrannical state stooges are suppressing and taming individuality and excellence.

Djokovic arrived in the penal colony that is Australia, to play in the 2022 Australian Open. Whereupon the country’s Covid wardens detained him in a Melbourne detention hotel, following a dramatic layover at the border. The exercise culminated in a visa cancellation. All because Djokovic, a perfect specimen of health, wouldn’t take his medicine like a good boy. Those are the terms of debate in the “Free World.”

With the world’s best player—a champion of the game, of freedom and of reason—out of the way; tennis’s lesser players scurried to construct a tournament without the best, which is a lot like watching the 100-meter dash without the Usain Bolt of the day.

The acme of athletic achievement, expressed in the immutable truths of speed, strength and skill, is uncontested. The charmed men and women grace the podiums for no other reason than that they are the finest in their fields. What greater contrast can there be between the sports champion, who powers himself to the pinnacle, and the politician, who drapes himself in the noble toga of idealism, in the famous words of Aldous Huxley, so as to conceal his wicked will to power?

Sometimes what that noble toga conceals is just insufferable self-righteousness.

Like Australia’s freedoms, so are American freedoms being whittled away by busybodies and bullies. It doesn’t help that the new citizens America accepts into her midst have no feel whatsoever for the exquisite fragility of our individual rights. Why would they, if fame and street cred go to those championing a cause célèbre, instead of speaking up about the demise of the Bill of Rights. (The two—a cause célèbre and the protection of the Bill of Rights—appear to be mutually exclusive causes.)

Anus Kanter Freedom, a basketball player (and hardly a fertile mind), is a newly minted American citizen who cares above all not about his countrymen’s rapid loss of liberties, but for the lost freedoms of a Chinese minority. In that, Kanter is the consummate global citizen. It is thus unclear why Tucker Carlson, a nationalist, celebrates and elevates this internationalist, whose trendy cause is deployed reflexively like a moral amulet: “See. I’m good; probably better than y’all. I speak up about the Uyghurs.”

WATCH “The Good, The Bad, The Eternally Boosted & The Plain Annoying” And SUBSCRIBE.

https://rumble.com/vsxyie-the-good-the-bad-the-eternally-boosted-and-the-plain-annoying.html

©2022 ILANA MERCER
WND, January 20
Townhall.com, January 20
Unz Review, January 20
The New American, January 21
CNSNews.com,  January 21

The post Enough About The Uyghurs! Speak Up About America’s Liberties Lost appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

War: The Health Of The State —And The Statists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Realpolitik: What Modest Foreign Policy Looks Like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Know Shiite From Shinola

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

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

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

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

After Afghanistan, we can all agree that American foreign policy is an angels-and-demons Disney production—starring the prototypical evil dictators killing their noble people, until the US rides to the rescue—and that the producers at Foggy Bottom don’t have the foggiest idea what they are doing.

WATCH:

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, August 26
Unz Review, August 26
CNSNews.com  August 30
The New American, August 27
Quarterly Review, August 29

The post Afghanistan: Bringing The Military-Industrial-Complex Home appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

“We brought it up early and often,” Posner bragged to the press. “It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

The post In Defense Of Obama’s Apologizing appeared first on ILANA MERCER.