SeanGabb – ILANA MERCER

Mourning The Queen— But Did Elizabeth II Drop The Ball?

Ilana Mercer — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:48:56 +0000

It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth II of blessed memory partook in the decision to support the unchecked majority rule of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, my homeland.

Like her Majesty at the time, most politicians and public intellectuals thought nothing of delivering South Africa into the hands of professed radical Marxist terrorists. Yet any one suggesting such folly to the wise Margaret Thatcher risked taking a hand-bagging.

The Iron Lady had ventured that grooming the ANC as South Africa’s government-in-waiting was tantamount to “living in cloud-cuckoo land.” (Into The Cannibal’s Post: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 147.)

But what do you know? Queen Elizabeth did just that! Over Mrs. Thatcher’s objections, in 1987 the queen had bullied Prime Minister Thatcher to sanction South Africa.

And in 1979, noted British paleolibertarian Sean Gabb, the queen also muscled Mrs. Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to another bunch of white-hating black Marxists.

Most disquieting to decency: Although search engines are energetically scrubbing this fact from the Internet—the Queen had knighted Robert Mugabe. Mugabe was chief warlord of Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia (may that country rest in peace).

To quote Into the Cannibal’s Pot, the book aforementioned:

“By the time the megalomaniac Robert Mugabe was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II (1994)—and given honorary doctorates from the Universities of Edinburgh (1984), Massachusetts (1986), and Michigan (1990)—he had already done his “best” work: slaughtering some 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland (1983). Western conventional wisdom was no wiser. (And the United Nations responded invariably by … condemning Israel.)” P. 134.

Sidebar:

Mugabe was nothing if not consistent in his contempt for all life.

Question: What do you call a “person” who butchers and barbeques baby elephant?

Answer: A motherf–ker. Lowbrow Robert Mugabe, as Foreign Policy magazine had reported in 2015, “celebrated his 91st birthday followed by a lavish party with an exotic menu, reportedly including barbequed baby elephant.”

Is it any wonder Dr. Gabb took a different measure of her Majesty in 2012, dubbing her “Elizabeth the Useless“? Gabb’s “Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp” unfurls a list of her Majesty’s acts of constitutional omission, if not unconstitutional commission.

“Although the Queen is without executive function,” argues Gabb, “she never protested the theft of our ancestral rights. It was her duty to resist that theft, and to resist without regard for the outcome – and it was in her power to resist without bringing on her head any of the penalties. At no time in the past [seventy] years, has she raised a finger in public, or, it is probably the case, in private, to slow the destruction of an order of things she swore in the name of God to protect. … she has done nothing to sustain that identity in any meaningful sense.”

By Dr. Gab’s telling, the queen could have also vetoed any parliamentary bill she disliked – and her veto could not have been overridden by any weighted majority vote of Parliament. As could she have protested that her subjects were lied into the European Union. She didn’t:

“The Queen has not sustained our national identity. … she has allowed many people to overlook the structures of absolute and unaccountable power that have grown up during her reign. She has fronted a revolution to dispossess us of our country and of our rights within it.”

And:

“The Queen should have resisted the Offensive Weapons Bill and the Firearms Bill, that effectively abolished our right to keep and bear arms for defence. She should have resisted the Bills that abolished most civil juries and that allowed majority verdicts in criminal trials.”

“She should have resisted the numerous private agreements that made our country into an American satrapy. She should have insisted, every time she met her prime minister, on keeping the spirit of our old Constitution….”

That the queen had enormous moral and political sway is incontrovertible. Observe the impact of her passing on members of the British commonwealth and beyond.

The role of the monarch in England’s constitutional monarchy demands that, “Once the politicians make themselves, as a class, irremovable, and once they begin to abolish the rights of the people, it is the duty of the Monarch to step in and rebalance the Constitution. It is then that she must resume her legal powers and exercise them of her own motion.”

Had they been functioning as they were intended to; the monarchy and the House of Lords could have served as checks on the demotic and demonic forces of the United Kingdom’s “mass-democracy.”

ILANA and David Vance discuss the matter further on the Hard Truth Rumble podcast. WATCH “Monarchy in Mourning — But Did Queen Elizabeth Drop The Ball?”

SUBSCRIBE please.

https://rumble.com/v1k2ar5-monarchy-in-mourning.html

©2022 ILANA MERCER
WND, September 15
Unz Review, September 15
The New American, September 20
Free Life: September 21

* Screen-picture capture via Daily Mail

The post Mourning The Queen— But Did Elizabeth II Drop The Ball? appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Heresies About The Hebdo Headache

Ilana Mercer — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:11:31 +0000

WINNING IN THE WEST. A French “documentary maker”—a title everyone with a camera assumes these days—told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the West was winning. The docu-dude felt that the people of Europe were displaying a winning resistance to the imposition of Islamic blasphemy laws.

How was the West vanquishing the enemies of free speech? In response to the craven, yet characteristic, massacre of staff at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, hundreds of thousands of Europeans—in Barcelona, Brussels, London, Paris, Nice, Lyon—came out en masse to plonk teddy bears on sidewalks and point pens and pencils to the heavens.

“Winning,” as Charlie Sheen would say.

The winners also flaunted their feelings with placards that read: “Je Suis Charlie” and “Not Afraid.” The CNN signatories to the dhimma “pact of surrender” celebrated the triumphant “outpouring of art in response” to the executions in Paris. Meek, wishy-washy drawings popped up everywhere. An example: Patrick Chappatte’s New York Times cartoon, in which a sunken-chested white male sheds a tear, holds a flower. The caption: “Without humor we are all dead.” Fierce.

The terrorists in the midst of the winners were in for more blows. A plural option was added to the rallying cry “Je Suis Charlie”: We are Charlie Hebdo—Nous Sommes Charlie. “Say no to terrorism” was another winning slogan.

Then there was the showy and meaningless parade of parasites in Paris, from which Onan No. 1 was absent: The world’s leaders united against murder, an insight that was already well within the ken of leaders of the ancient world (Ten Commandments?). The charade of charlatans featured the very people responsible for legislation that authorized the round up, around them, of “54 people … for hate speech or other acts insulting religious faiths, or for cheering the men who carried out the attacks.”

THE SWORD IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PEN. No wonder author Martin Amis spoke of clichés of the mind and the heart. The orgy of sentimentality and helplessness came with its share of clichés. Particularly enveloping in its preposterousness was “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Remember the iconic scene in the film “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? Challenged to a duel by a scimitar-wielding, keffiyeh-clad Arab, Indiana Jones draws a pistol and dispatches the swordsman without further ado. In my (allegorical) more accurate adaption, the roles are reversed. The Prophet Mohammad’s avenger faces his somersaulting Western offender, who comes at him with a pen, convoluting about freedom of expression, inquiry and conscience. How does Mohammad’s mercenary respond to the penman’s lofty ululations? As Indiana Jones did: He aims his automatic weapon and drops the prophet’s offender.

Before Charlie Hebdo came the 12 Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons. In 2005, JP drew cartoons that joined Muhammad to the violence that disfigures the Muslim world. While clucking about the sanctity of free speech, countless commentators climbed into the Danes. The illustrators were called juvenile, obnoxious, Islamophobic, even immoral. They were accosted for doing nothing to advance enlightened argument; of acting in “terrifically bad taste”; and indulging in “gratuitous provocation, not worthy of publication,” to quote some of the pieties disgorged by politicians and pundits.

Having been where Charlie Hebdo finds itself today—a catalyst for eruptions across the Islamic Ummah(now innervating the West)—Flemming Rose, JP’s cultural editor and publisher, knows of what he speaks. He informed BBC’s HARDTalk that the sword is mightier than the pen. “Violence works.” The great Danes of JP will not reprint “Charlie Hedbo’s post-attack front cover.”

Winning.

FREE SPEECH FARCE. Far and away the best commentary about the Charlie Hebdo headache was that of Sean Gabb of the British Libertarian Alliance. Unable to stomach “the smug chanting of politicians and media people,” in countries where “[a]lmost every day … someone gets into trouble for opening his mouth,” Dr. Gabb wondered: “Where for them are the defenders of freedom of speech, now more fashionably than bravely holding up pencils or waving candles?”

“I believe that the writers and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had the moral right to say whatever they pleased about Islam, or anything else,” argued Gabb. “But I also believe that Luke O’Farrell and Garron Helm should not have been sent to prison for being rude to or about Jews. Nick Griffin should not have been prosecuted for saying less against Islam than was published in Charlie Hebdo. The Reverend Alan Clifford should not have been threatened with prosecution in 2013, when he handed out leaflets at a gay pride march in Norwich.”

Indeed, just this week, a teenager was jailed in West Yorkshire, for posting a video clip of himself flushing then burning his Koran. To the north, the Scottish Police warned its charges via social media: “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated.”

In general,” Dr. Gabb remonstrated, “we are free to say only what the authorities want to hear. Even when the law does not cover dissent, there are administrative or economic punishments. See, for example, the UKIP members [of Britain’s rightist Independence Party] who were denied the right to foster children, or the difficulty that dissident writers have to find paid work.”

CAUSE CÉLÈBRE FOR CULTURAL LEFT. “Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the [rightist] Front National, and the victims had been Marine le Pen and the party leadership,” posited Dr. Gabb. “Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.”

Dame Helen Mirren would hardly have sported a pencil brooch at the Golden Globes had Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders fallen prey to the peaceniks who’ve threatened to take his life.

“Indeed, we had our answer before the gunmen had opened fire,” claims Gabb quite credibly.

Consider the deceased Dutch, anti-immigration activist Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, descendant of Vincent van Gough—slaughtered like a pig on the streets of Amsterdam for a docudrama depicting the subjugation of women in Islam and in Islamic countries—and Lee Rigby, the British soldier who was carved up by a Muslim wielding a meat-cleaver, on a south-east London street.

When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and Lee Rigby were murdered no less barbarously, we were all urged to moderate our response. In the first two cases, we were told, with more than the occasional nod and wink, that the victims had brought things on themselves. As for the third, the protest demonstrations were broken up by the police.

Concludes Gabb: “Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.”

©ILANA Mercer
WND , Junge Freiheit , Target Liberty, Quarterly Review
Praag.org, The Libertarian Alliance
January 16, 2015

The post Heresies About The Hebdo Headache appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Party of Traitors

Ilana Mercer — Fri, 26 May 2006 00:00:00 +0000

If anything, antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity ~ilana

What is wrong with American conservatism? Hardly anything at all. From tax to immigration to judicial philosophy, conservatives are beginning to set the agenda of public debate. Whole stretches of popular culture are objectively conservative—talk radio and the blogosphere, for example.

While there is no dispute as to which tradition belong “The Incredibles” and “The Passion of the Christ,” I would venture that “South Park” and “The Simpsons” are also conservative-cum-libertarian. They lampoon liberal elites and regularly slaughter the sacred cows of political correctness, diversity, multiculturalism, and radical environmentalism.

“There is now in this country a conservative movement—and I include libertarians in this movement—more passionate and agreed in substance on what needs to be done than I can recall. All that is wrong with [American] conservatism is that it lacks a conservative party. The problem with the [Republican Party] and its associated media is that its function has been less to advance conservative interests than to neutralize conservative opinion”—a function evinced by the Bush immigration betrayal.

The thesis above belongs, almost to the word, to my good friend, the illustrious Sean Gabb, Director of Communications at the Libertarian Alliance of Britain. The object of his calculated contempt, voiced in a speech given at The Royal Society of Arts, however, was the British Conservative Party. Considering that the Republican Party is every bit as corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical, and treacherous, I’ve substituted “American” for “British” and “Republican Party” for “Conservative Party.”

As far as political representation goes, American conservatives and libertarians find themselves in the same pickle as their English cousins, who’ve been led into an ideological latrine by the Conservative Party and its enablers in media. But thanks to a deep-seated affinity for basic conservative principles, the base in both places is disinclined to linger in that malodorous spot for long.
When all is said and done, ordinary American conservatives worry about the growth in the size and power of government under Bush. They fret over mass immigration and the national identity and debt. Keeping what they earn and being able to secure life and property—with firearms—is still a priority. When plied with enough ale, conservatives will increasingly admit their jingoism is a function, not so much of their devotion to W’s Wilsonian wars, but of their patriotism, (unreciprocated) loyalty to the party they believed represented them, and a visceral loathing of the left.

Yes, left-liberals are a singularly charmless lot—in the US, Britain and everywhere else, for that matter. In Gabb’s assessment, the left’s “aim is to construct a new order in which—whatever its proposed merits—we shall have been stripped of our historic liberties and our national identity.” It is faced, however, with a paradox. Although the left has a tentacular grip on societal institutions, “It must rule a nation that, so long as it remains a nation, is strongly conservative.”

How has the Republican Party and its media lickspittles reconciled this paradox? Why, by reinventing themselves as the “Quisling Right.”

“A Quisling Rightist is someone who calls himself a Conservative,” observes Gabb. “When standing for office, he implies promises without making them. If pressed, he will make promises that he has no intention of keeping. If elected, he will make firm declarations of principle and argue over inessentials. His conservative politics are purely symbolic. Where essentials are concerned, he will do nothing to challenge the continued domination of the left. In return for this, he will be invited to the best parties, and allowed endless time in the media. … He will be allowed income and status. He will earn this by systematically betraying those who trusted him to stand up for all that they held most dear this side of the grave.”

The Republican Quislings have contributed greatly to the convergence of left and right. What we have now is a cartel, the traditional ideological differences between the political parties having been permanently blurred (both Democrats and Republicans, for instance, see merit in wars for democracy, limitless immigration, and a massive expansion in Medicare and other entitlements). If anything, antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.

As the reign of the Bush backstabbers draws to an end, we find ourselves “with still fewer of our historic liberties and still less of our national identity.” This being so, Gabb counsels against voting for the party that has broken all its promises so far. I agree; there is no reason for conservatives to vote for the Republican Party. “We in the conservative movement might as well vote for a party that says what we believe. That party will not win either, but at least our votes will be counted and recognized as a clear statement of opinion.”

To press the point, Gabb adds a Parthian shot: “If I must be destroyed let me be speared in the front by someone who looks me in the eye and calls himself my enemy. Far better this than be garroted from behind by a supposed friend.”

©2006 By Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily.com
May 26

The post Party of Traitors appeared first on ILANA MERCER.