Category Archives: Propaganda

NEW COLUMN: Slate’s Resident Idiot Slanders Jewish Woman — Me

Argument, Judaism & Jews, Justice, Propaganda, Race, Racism, South-Africa

NEW COLUMN IS “Slate’s Resident Idiot Slanders Jewish Woman — Me.” It’s currently on WND.com and the Unz Review.

An excerpt:

When Slate magazine went after President Trump’s former speech writer, Darren Beattie, it chose to libel this writer, as well.

That’s a bully’s calculus: If you can, why not ruin the reputation of another individual, just for good measure?

Ruining reputations by labeling and libeling unpopular others is all in a day’s work for the bully, who has nothing in his authorial quiver but ad hominem attack.

The individual who penned an unsourced hit piece on me is Slate magazine’s designated “chief news blogger.”

A hit piece is “a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful.”

Our intrepid journalist does not even feign objectivity.

Indeed, nothing screams Fake News like a “newsman” engaging in sloppy slander.

Incidentally, double-barreled surnames are largely a feminist affection. “Mathis-Lilley” happens to be male. Or, rather, an excuse for a man. Real men don’t bully, berate and bitch baselessly.

That’s what my many dogged, anti-Semitic, unmanly readers do. (Yes, I’m a Jewish, independent writer, the daughter of a scholarly, penniless rabbi. Bullies invariably target the weakest.)

The Mathis-Lilley article was published on August 20, this year, in the section called “The Slatest.” (Slate does cutesy and corny quite well.)

Mathis-Lilley lies throughout the piece, starting with the title:

“White House Speechwriter Appeared on Panel With Author Who Compared Black South Africans to Cannibals.”

It didn’t happen. No such comparisons were made. Cannibalism serves merely as metaphor in my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

The origin of the title is expressly and unambiguously explained in the Introduction. “It is inspired by Ayn Rand’s wise counsel against prostrating civilization to savagery.” (p. 8)

The exact Rand quote is citation No. 15 in “Into the cannibal’s Pot.” It comes courtesy of “Robert Mayhew (ed.), Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (New York, 2005).”

Unlike Mathis-Lilley’s unsourced material in Slate, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is topped and tailed with hard evidence, and sports over 800 endnotes.

Based on the evidence presented, readers come to see “that South Africans had been tossed into the metaphorical cannibal’s pot.” (p. 9)

These are facts, not slander. Slander is Slate’s purview. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “Slate’s Resident Idiot Slanders Jewish Woman — Me,” is currently on WND.com and the Unz Review.

Google Demonizes Deplorables, Vows To Subverts Democracy. And We Worry About Russia!

Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Russia, Technology, The State

This is no laughing matter. Libertarian theory has not kept up with the rise of mini-states within The State, NAMELY Google, Facebook and the rest of Deep Tech, which, in cahoots with a wing of the duopoly, work to subvert, marginalize and besmirch tens of millions of ordinary American citizens.

This is bigger than Soros’ thoroughly American operations overseas (spreading democracy), targeting and subverting nation-states outside the US.

Google’s resolve to activate its “Google’s policy team in DC” to pass its progressive globalist causes dwarfs Russia’s puny Facebook presence.

I say this as the “independent scholar” on a paper in The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, who wrote against anti-trust and for Microsoft’s undisputed right to bundle its products.

Hi-tech or Deep Tech has come a long way since we libertarians defended their private property rights. They’ve ventured into thought control and political influence operations.

How I despise them.

See “The Microsoft Corporation In Collision With Antitrust Law.”

MORE: “It’s Official: Google Is a Democratic Party Front.”

LEAKED VIDEO: Google Leadership’s Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election.”

Apartheid In Black And White: Truth About The Afrikaner (Part 1)

Africa, America, History, Nationhood, Propaganda, Race, Racism, South-Africa

NEW COLUMN is “Apartheid In Black And White: Truth About The Afrikaner (Part 1).” It is now on Townhall.com.

An excerpt:

In a recent translation of Tacitus’ “Annals,” a question was raised as to whether “there were any ‘nations’ in antiquity other than the Jews.” Upon reflection, one suspects that the same question can be posed about the Afrikaners in the modern era.

In fact, in April of 2009, former South African President Jacob Zuma infuriated the “multicultural noise machine” the world over by stating: “Of all the white groups that are in South Africa, it is only the Afrikaners that are truly South Africans in the true sense of the word. Up to this day, they [the Afrikaners] don’t carry two passports, they carry one. They are here to stay.”

Indeed, the Afrikaners fought Africa’s first anticolonial struggles, are native to the land and not colonists in any normal sense. Yet the liberal world order has only ever singled out Afrikaners for having established apartheid, considered by the Anglo-American-European axis of interventionism to be “one of the world’s most retrogressive colonial systems.”

However, while the honing of apartheid by the Afrikaner National Party started in 1948, after Daniel Malan assumed the prime minister’s post, elements of the program were part of the policy first established in 1923 by the British-controlled government.

There was certainly nothing Mosaic about the maze of racial laws that formed the edifice of apartheid. The Population Registration Act required that all South Africans be classified by bureaucrats in accordance with race. The Group Areas Act “guaranteed absolute residential segregation.” Pass laws regulated the comings-and-goings of blacks (though not them alone), and ensured that black workers left white residential areas by nightfall.

Easily the most egregious aspect of flushing blacks out of white areas was the manner in which entire communities were uprooted and dumped in bleak, remote, officially designated settlement sites— “vast rural slums with urban population densities, but no urban amenities beyond the buses that represented their slender lifelines to the cities.”

Still, apartheid South Africa sustained far more critical scrutiny for its non-violent (if unjust) resettlement policies than did the U.S. for its equally unjust but actively violent mass resettlement agenda, say, in South Vietnam. (See Sophie Quinn-Judge, “Lawless Zones,” The Times Literary Supplement, February 26, 2010.)

Or, before that. In his magisterial “History of the American People,” historian Paul Johnson, a leading protagonist for America, details the rather energetic destruction and displacement by Andrew Jackson of the “the oldest American nations,” the Indians.

Nor should we forget subsequent American military misdeeds. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “Apartheid In Black And White: Truth About The Afrikaner (Part 1),” is now on Townhall.com, The Unz Review and WND.com.

UPDATE (7/30): What-Aboutism: A Pale, Weak Defense Of Trump’s Pro-American Tactics With Putin

China, Foreign Policy, Government, Propaganda, Reason, Russia, The State

Limited government has a constitutional obligation to secure the peace by defending and protecting its constituents—not the world. Duly, and since my values are not yours and vice versa, a limited government doesn’t enforce “our values.” 

POTUS is doing just that with Mr. Putin.

Hence this Breitbart article amounts to a bit of “What Aboutism.”

In “The President’s Controversial Policy Toward Russia: The Good Guys Risk Losing If the Bad Guys Are United — Part One,” the author seems to galvanize FDR and Churchill to argue—what exactly?—that Putin is a Stalin, with whom we have to make strategic common cause?

No idea.

What Aboutism should be added to the list of logical fallacies. It is not a substantive argument to say, “Oh, lookie, FDR did it too, Churchill did it too. You like them. Why not Trump?”

The other “argument” here is that China is worse than Russia, the premise being that we should do battle with the former but not the latter. In other words, the American government, a paragon of perfection, has enemies more worthy than Russia.

It might be that Synophobia is more justified than Russophobia, but the point remains that an American president should pursue not war, but peace and prosperity, albeit through mighty strength. Those are pursued through diplomacy.

UPDATE (7/30):