Category Archives: Intelligence

UPDATED (3/24 Attack): No Wonder Obama Dismissed Profiler Philip Haney From DHS

Donald Trump, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Islam, Political Correctness, Terrorism, Uncategorized

Patriot Philip Haney (see “Obama’s Eyes Were Dry When Nixing DHS Program”)—dismissed by Barack Obama from the Department of Homeland Security, and nowhere to be found in the Trump Administration—was on the Sean Hannity show (radio is always more informative). There he spoke about certain identifiers gleaned from pictures of the Westminster attacker. These gave Haney some ideas about the perp. Haney was careful to warn that these profiling impressions were preliminary, a starting point:

The configuration of facial hair would seem to indicate the murderer of three, including of a police officer, might be a Salafi Muslim. The body, said Haney, would indicate the murderer was likely a local lad, as Fake News would say. The Investigation Discovery addict in me would guess that Haney means the Wheat Belly on the (thankfully) dead Asian man.

Yes, Asian.

No wonder Haney was given the boot by well-wisher of Islam Mr. Obama. Haney’s methods are effective because politically incorrect. You have to be effective. Otherwise you’re just decoration (like Ivanka in the White House. Sorry, but that situation is WRONG. We’d say the same if Hillary was POTUS and Chelsea got a White House office.)

Perp (allegedly):

Patriot (without a doubt):

UPDATE (3/24):

Of course Theresa May is “unafraid.”


Cut out the Churchillian act, Pier Morgan:


Tommy Robinson, now there’s a hero.

Sadiq Khan should be afraid but he’s brazen, striking fear in Londoners. 

The Big Lies:

UPDATED (3/15): Fox News Fluff

Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Critique, Gender, Intelligence, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Thank goodness for periodic outbreaks of so-called sexual harassment at Fox News. It thinned the herd a bit. Some fems left. But now, instead of terrible Tamara Holder, former friend to the Sean Hannity TV show, the eardrums and intelligence are assaulted by the likes of Jessica Tarlov. It wouldn’t matter that Tarlov’s voice sounds like it was squeezed from the nether regions of her anatomy, if she had something to say.

Enough of the 23-year-olds who know nothing. Do hard time as journalists in a war zone, say for 10 years—like Iona Craig—then come back to tell us a thing or two.

Being lectured to by silly fresh-faced Millennials ought to insult adults. Don’t call yourself a cultural conservative if you unleash kids to lecture adults. Commies were big on putting kids in control of the adults and thus inverting the natural order.

Tucker Carlson turns in outstanding journalistic performances nightly, on Fox News. Topping today’s segment was Ann Coulter, who should have her own show. (But won’t, unless she knocks off 20 IQ points to pacify other egos in the anchors’ chairs.)

But if Tucker starts featuring cretins like Austan Goolsbee and Geraldo Rivera, we’ll switch off. These are Sean Hannity’s regulars, and they’re insufferable. And it has nothing to do with their liberalism. It didn’t matter that the late intellectual Christopher Hitchens was a liberal. He was brilliant.

Hannity is crossing over into the light—becoming increasingly libertarian and anti-statism. We love him for it. But at the same time, the popular anchor still insists on featuring a dizzying array of dumb bimbos on his show.

UPDATE (3/15):

FoxNews’ AWOL on the heroic Julian Assange.

The Donald Vs. The ‘Deep State’

Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Intelligence, The State

“The Donald Vs. The ‘Deep State'” is the current column, now on TownHall.com. An excerpt:

President Trump has credibly accused Obama of wire-tapping the Trump Tower phones during the 2016 campaign.
Whether the tapping of Trump Tower phones can be traced to Obama; whether it’s true or false—consider the counter-accusations floated by President Donald Trump about Barack Obama as part of a strategy.

The president is in survival mode. He’s backed into a corner and is fighting back with brio, counter-punching at the Machine intent on unseating him. The Donald is destabilizing the destabilizers.

The opinion makers were incensed. “He had no evidence when he smeared his predecessor. Just contemplate the recklessness—the sheer indifference to truth,” yelped the New York Times. “The administration can’t substantiate the wire-tapping claim,” screeched the MSNBC collective. On CNN it’s been incontinent outrage, every hour of each day, since president Trump shot across the bow at Obama.

Marching in lockstep, media have ruled that Trump’s wire-tapping taunt is unworthy of investigation. At the same time, the RussiaGate conspiracy with which media are hobbling the Trump presidency, and for which no credible proof exists—that’s beyond reproach as a news story.

Fake News’ fantastical idée fixe is that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to rob their “beloved” Hillary Clinton of her presidential birthright. To them, that’s what you’d call a perfectly legitimate and logical line of inquiry!

A CORRUPT NEWBORN? COME AGAIN?

Pursuing an investigation of the Trump Administration on the grounds that it’s deeply corrupt is like accusing a newborn baby of stealing a sibling’s toys. Trump’s policy making “past” is a few weeks old; Trump’s political record a few months old. Donald Trump is a political newborn.

In the language of law, President Trump has no political criminal record. (Come to think of it, El Chapo has a cleaner criminal record than the last two American presidents. El-C had menaced and murdered fewer people than 43 or 44.)

If anything, the counterclaim against Obama is much more intuitive. Obama has a long, checkered political past, having passed the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation retroactively legalized the Bush administration’s illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, first revealed by The New York Times in 2005, and indemnified the telecommunications companies for their cooperation in these acts.” (The assessment excerpted is courtesy of Bill Moyers, considered an august force on the Left.) …

… READ THE REST. “The Donald Vs. The ‘Deep State'” is now on TownHall.com.

An Individualist’s Position On Rubbing-In Racial Differences In Intelligence

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, Morality, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Reason

It’s about etiquette and kindness, really. (Or being a softie.)

I had tweeted out the American Renaissance interview with a young black man, the point being to note how he was “ostracized as an Uncle Tom for being a bookish, high-achiever, high IQ individual, who spoke standard English.”

On the Facebook thread, our reader made this point:

Paul Bustion:I find articles like this distasteful. I find it distasteful to emphasize the racial differences in intelligence. Its probably true that Europeans, Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews on average are more intelligent than Africans, but I think its distasteful to make a point of emphasizing the fact.”

My reply:

Ilana Mercer, Author:Perfectly put. My sentiment exactly. The lady in me recoils from such cruelty. I could never. I’m an individualist. While I recognize reality about everything—cleave to it in writing, closely deduce from it—I find no redeeming personal virtue in [rubbing-in the point on inter-racial, aggregate differences in IQ scores]. I do, and will, fight tooth-and-nail when I am called a racist because of the intellectual and moral shortfalls of others.”

“Kudos [to our reader] for making this point! “

This quagmire is touched on in my “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

UPDATED: FACEBOOK THREAD:

Ilana Mercer, Author Agreed, John Cronk. It’s just something I find tacky. What am I confronting a nice black man about? I’ll confront him if he dare to accuse me of racism b/c not as smart as I, or blame me for his lower inhibitions. I will not tell a perfectly good individual he is inferior. For one, maybe he isn’t? You interact with individuals based on their individual characteristics, not on an aggregate character of a group, valid though it is.

Ilana Mercer, Author: Kerry, I don’t ignore the rule for the exception. You treat each individual as an individual. I write copiously about race and aggregate racial differences. People here are obviously not keeping up with this work. Other than the racialists (Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor), I don’t know who has incorporated the topic more into analysis than this writer. (Colin Flaherty wisely sticks to chronicling and providing us with an enormous reservoir of data. But he’s a sweet man. I think he might agree with me about personal interactions. Ditto Jack Kerwick.) The point I am making is one of manners and courtesy to a fellow human being. ‘Tis all. We need to be virtuous, too. And anyone who suggests I am not a fierce writer, aggressive too, on the topic, hasn’t been reading. Search under Racial Issues: http://www.ilanamercer.com/…/public_article_list_list.php