The continental catastrophe that has engulfed Africa may go down in history as the greatest politically motivated human calamity of all time. Hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken people are getting poorer while an ever-diminishing, tiny elite get richer and richer. Central authority in most countries is dissipating, legal strictures introduced by the colonial administrations have disintegrated, and the rule of “might of right” is back. Countries in the traditional sense of the word are ceasing to exist as borders are eviscerated by tribal allegiances trumping national identities. Warlords and tyrannical traditional leaders have assumed control over vast swathes of sub-Saharan Africa, and they rule ruthlessly. The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people, and when they do, they respond with little other than the muttering of meaningless platitudes. The damage being done to the environment through overpopulation, “slash and burn” agriculture, and uncontrolled logging—along with the decimation of wildlife—is sickening, but the “Global Warmists” are silent on this and the “bunny-hugging” so-called “environmentalists” do little other than wring their soft wet hands.

All this has its genesis in the disastrous post-WWII decision made in Europe to rapidly and, dare I say, recklessly abandon Africa, coming on the back of a massive mindset change that saw most Western Europeans suddenly deciding they hated themselves and must henceforth spend the rest of their lives paying penalties for the crime of having been born white. The liberal-socialist political leadership that took power in postwar Europe was in complete control, and the perverts, socialists, and Stalinists who seized control of the once-esteemed BBC were in full cry, leading the glorious retreat from imperium and greatness. The stage was set in 1957 for Queen Elizabeth II to lead a tumultuous welcoming of Ghana’s charismatic (but utterly clueless) Kwame Nkrumah onto the world stage as the first leader of a newly “liberated” colony; the ushering in of a golden dawn and the “de-shackling” of a country. Thus, the catastrophe began to unfold.

Underpinning the events of the next six decades, the left-wing mainstream media did a superb job of convincing the vast majority of people that Africans were only good people and Europeans were only bad people unless they were pedophile priests like the venerated Bishop Trevor Huddlestone, in which case they were modern-day saints. But if you were white and you had the temerity to suggest you were African by birthright, wanted to stay and work in your homeland, and were entitled to the same fundamental human rights as other ethnic groups, you were quickly condemned as a member of a racist, renegade white-supremacist tribe that did little other than extort and enrich itself at the expense of a benighted black populace. Under this sort of racial cover, Euro-Africans were effectively reclassified from 1957 onward as nonhuman in the sense that normal human rights such as those pertaining to property and citizenship did not apply to them. They were unwanted vagrants who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and to hell with them unless they did something wrong, in which case all the rules applied—and more. Thus, when a white riot-policeman stomped on the toe of a black woman demonstrator (Mrs. Phombeya) in soon-to-be independent Malawi, it probably elicited more angry international outrage than did the killing of almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda.

“The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people.”

The stripping of rights from Europeans has played out in some shape or form in virtually every postcolonial African country and is one of the leading causes of the political, social, and economic collapse that has characterized the “independence” era. And now maybe the final—but possibly the most horrifying and violent—chapter in this wretched saga may yet be written in South Africa with the ANC government signaling its intention to confiscate land without compensation from the white farmers who produce 85 percent of the country’s agricultural produce, much of which goes to countries north of the border. This, if it happens, will be much worse in every respect than Zimbabwe, as it will lead to the destruction of Africa’s industrial powerhouse and the second-biggest economy, leading to mass poverty, starvation, and probably a complex civil war with warring tribes vying for the last spoils of what was once a very rich and prosperous country. This will signal the return in toto of most of Africa to much the same lawless and chaotic state it was in when the colonizers arrived, as well as the squander of its riches and the condemnation of the majority to lives of almost unimaginable misery.

But there is a twist in the end of the tale with the intervention of two of the world’s most powerful men. From Russia comes the news that Vladimir Putin’s government is keen to welcome 15,000 “Boers” to farm in Georgia. Putin’s team is shrewd, and they are not blinded by the modern-day demands of political correctness; they know these are some of the finest and toughest farmers in the world, embracing a Christian ethos, and they know they will make a massive contribution to Russian agriculture. Ironic indeed, when one is reminded it was not that long ago that Russians, albeit under the banner of the USSR, were at war with the same people they now offer sanctuary to.

And in a rare break from the timidity of the past, Donald Trump has stepped into the fray with a “tweet” warning of his administration’s concern over the possibility of another Zimbabwe-style land grab and the ongoing farm murders. This has stunned the country’s leadership. Never before has a Western leader of such stature remonstrated with them in such a way, and the shock was almost palpable. While the public reaction was one of anger, defiance, and outrage, there has subsequently been a discreet but dramatic decision made to withdraw the troubling Expropriation Bill from parliament for “redrafting,” and the political narrative has morphed dramatically from one of confrontation to compromise, bringing relief, albeit temporary, to millions of South Africans. There can be little doubt President Trump will get no credit for this, but he had the courage, the power, and the political will to do something decisive, and the Trump “tweet” may yet go down in history as a seminal moment when a news flash in cyberspace saved a country from destroying itself.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the leftist “virtue signalers” are unimpressed and unamused; their aim to destroy Africa is not yet done, and to do this they must destroy Donald Trump. A Democratic Congress will probably do that in November through a process of impeachment, and the American left will thereafter do as little as possible to thwart the destructive tendencies of politicians in southern Africa who have prospered so mightily on the back of unconditional Western largesse delivered by liberal politicians who refuse to hold them to account. For those of us who still wish for a future in our African homelands, we watch Washington with trepidation and hope.

In his tearjerker Aug. 19 article in The New York Times, “How Sexism Follows Women From the Cradle to the Workplace,” Jim Tankersley provides a rich example of how fake news functions in tandem with junk science to vilify traditional gender norms, which, if only the cultural elite can have their way, shall be unthinkable for all “respectable people.” Both Tankersley himself and the scholars he cites display profound irresponsibility where epistemic rigor and contextual understanding are in order. This, of course, is only to be expected, for the primary goal here is Power—Power culminating in the road to serfdom—not excellent work.

White women born in parts of the United States where sexist attitudes are more prevalent grow up to earn less and to work less than women born elsewhere, relative to men born in those same states, new economic research shows.

That impact on career and salary continues even if those women move to less sexist areas as adults, a finding that suggests the beliefs a woman grows up with can shape her future behavior in a way that affects her career and salary.

Perhaps most strikingly, the study finds that a woman’s lifelong earnings and how much she works are influenced by the levels of sexism in the state where she was born. A woman born in the Deep South is likely to face a much wider economic gender gap than a woman born on the Pacific Coast, the research shows, even if both women move to New York as adults.

The authors of this study are economists Kerwin Kofi Charles of the University of Chicago, Jonathan Guryan of Northwestern University, and Jessica Pan of the National University of Singapore. They are, respectively, a black man, a Jewish man (like Tankersley), and an Asian woman. It would be going too far to claim that these identities are necessarily causal factors, but for any student of political psychology knowledgeable about group differences, the professors’ palpable hostility to America’s traditional white Christian culture shouldn’t be surprising.

“To make sure they were focusing only on gender, and not racial, discrimination,” Tankersley explains, “the researchers studied only white adults.” “The Effects of Sexism on American Women: The Role of Norms vs. Discrimination,” a 54-page paper, is replete with impressive-looking charts and fancy mathematical formulas. The appearance, indeed, is one of splendid intellectual sophistication. And yet, the research is fatally flawed because the premises are not established empirically, but are mere value judgments, which the authors don’t even try to justify via argument. The premises are simply assumed to be true, as if the authors’ interlocutors on the cultural-political right were obliged to accept them. It is not so, and as I shall demonstrate, the premises are not unquestionable.

“Our analysis,” writes the diverse lefty trio,

defines prevailing sexism in a market as the extent to which its residents believe that: (i) that women’s capacities are inferior to men’s; (ii) that the family unit is hurt when women focus on activities outside the home; or (iii) that men and women should occupy specific, distinct roles in society.

“After a certain period of unprecedented individual liberty, the next stage is inexorable decline.”

Let’s start with (i). On its face, it is certainly reasonable. The old prejudice that women can’t be good doctors and lawyers and engineers, like the corollary that men can’t be good schoolteachers and nurses and social workers, has been debunked by the many women who have excelled in the respective fields.

Nevertheless, it’s true independent of this that there is greater variance in male intelligence than there is in female intelligence. Therefore, while the sexes are of roughly equivalent intelligence on average, men preponderate the extremes, there being more male dunces and geniuses alike than there are women in these categories. The workplace inevitably reflects this, a disproportionate number of men struggling to make it, while a disproportionate number excel. As a group, women are less heterogeneous than men, in intelligence, that is.

Further, men (on average) are higher in motivation than women. Steven Goldberg’s thesis that this gender disparity is a function of human biology seems to me correct. More than women, men will do anything to succeed. That is Nature’s lot for them, one might say. It’s clear to anyone who looks closely at the world, surely, that the overwhelming majority of workaholics are men, a subject on which there is abundant data.

Nor is it a wonder that even left-leaning persons—Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Summers—should be moved to comment on this phenomenon, which indeed complements women’s dominance of the domestic sphere. Unlike women, men, who simply need status more than women do, are not tremendously valuable just because they exist. Women are, although in our age of status envy (which should be understood as a symptom of modernity’s metaphysical crisis), it’s this very familial-sexual power that so many professional women and tamed womanly men resent.

So, while (i) is perfectly reasonable on its face, it’s likewise reasonable to believe that, with respect to the upper echelon of a profession—whether it’s law, medicine, physics, literature, or whatever—the best people probably will be majority or mostly male. In other words, yes, at the highest level, “women’s capacities are inferior to men’s.”

While that last paragraph may offend those whose beliefs are determined by mere feelings or who are unable or unwilling to be disinterested, male dominance at the top of virtually every field is precisely what we find today as ever. This is true even though there are no legal barriers to women’s advancement, and even though, as Heather Mac Donald has long documented, universities and corporations, not really wanting the diversity they purport to value, go out of their way both to hire and to promote employees because they are women. Needless to say, that is an advantage men do not enjoy.

(ii) and (iii) may be taken together since they are closely related and vulnerable to the same objections. “The researchers,” says Tankersley,

tracked responses to eight questions about the role of women in society, including the degree to which Americans agreed that “Women should take care of running their home and leave running the country up to men” and “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and women takes care of the home and family.” The more a respondent agreed that women should not work outside the home or participate in politics, or could not effectively juggle career and family responsibilities, the more “sexist” the researchers judged the answers to be.

Levels of sexism varied widely by state. They have declined across the board over time, but the differences between states have persisted. The researchers found that sexist attitudes are most prevalent in the southeast and least prevalent on the West Coast.

To begin with, let’s grant that, even in 2018, women on the whole do still encounter a fair amount of sexism, and perhaps this happens in red states more than blue ones. After all, given human frailty, in a country of well over 300 million people, there won’t be any lack of sexism, just as with racism, xenophobia, and other evils.

That said, it won’t do to just assume that the traditional gender norms in (ii), (iii), and the researchers’ questions are always wrong, nor that they are intrinsically sexist. As we learn from Jonathan Haidt and other researchers in moral foundations theory, liberal moral psychology is pretty narrow relative to that of conservatives, because it overvalues the individual while discounting the cultural whole, a difference that the liberal Haidt himself emphasizes.

Says Clifford Geertz:

The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background, is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures.

The perspective of Charles et al. suffers from the common academic assumption that their own worldview—individualist, progressive, and 21st-century professional—is obviously right. Ironically, meanwhile, it’s their worldview that is the problem. For it represents mere individuals, rather than a culture. Although there are now many people who know of no alternative, it remains a historical anomaly. Indeed, it took all history for the liberal West to reach its present state, and after a certain period of unprecedented individual liberty, the next stage is inexorable decline.

Alas, there are good reasons to believe that in the U.S., as with the West in general, that process is very much under way. Writing in The Christian Science Monitor, Stephanie Hanes reports:

In 1950, married couples represented 78 percent of households in the United States. In 2011, the US Census Bureau reported, that percentage had dropped to 48 percent….

[In 2014], for the first time, the number of unmarried American adults outnumbered those who were married….

Meanwhile, only 30 percent of Millennials say that having a successful marriage is “one of the most important things” in life, according to the Pew Research Center, down from even the 47 percent of Generation X who said the same thing in 1997. Four in 10 Americans went ever further, telling Pew researchers in 2010 that marriage was becoming obsolete.

Nor is that all of the grim statistics. Between 40 and 45 percent of marriages end in divorce, a figure that does not account for the proportion, now larger than ever, of people who cohabitate without marrying, or for the number of cohabitating couples having children, which has increased tenfold in the past decade. Four out of ten children are illegitimate. Among blacks, the proportion is nearly three-quarters. The birth rate has fallen to a record low, and is hundreds of births short of the population replacement level. Finally, depression, loneliness, and drug abuse are national epidemics, and the young are no exception.

In view of all this, we must ask a politically incorrect question: Is the gender equality experiment sustainable? Whatever may be said against traditional gender norms, they did at least work, while the opposite is true of the dominant liberal conception of gender roles, according to current trends and data. For Charles et al., “sexist attitudes are most prevalent in the southeast and least prevalent on the West Coast.” To my mind, the actual truth is that cultural decline is far more advanced from Southern California up to Washington, even as it’s less so in the Southeast and other “deplorable” regions.

There are more problems with Charles et al.’s study, a representative example of junk science and the feminist manipulation agenda. Those problems, like the ones I’ve been examining, are very difficult and look to be with us for a long time. I shall consider them in next week’s column.

NEW YORK—I have zero tolerance for anybody who keeps saying “zero tolerance.”

You see it on signs at bars. You see it on signs at schools. You see it in press releases. I can’t even count the number of CEOs who have used it in the past few months to talk about sexual harassment in the workplace. You even hear it on occasion from a judge, the one person in society who’s expected to temper justice with mercy. (One reason the Catholics keep getting hammered on these child-abuse cases is that the archbishops refuse to say “zero tolerance,” since their whole religion is based on, you know, that pesky concept called forgiveness of sin.)

“Zero tolerance” is how we ended up with 2,654 kids forcibly separated from their parents at the Mexican border, with 528 of them still being held there in the comfy cages of the Rio Grande Valley. Somebody in the government thinks, “Here’s how we’ll stop the alien menace—zero tolerance!” and the wrong people get hurt.

“Zero tolerance” is how a 15-year-old boy gets arrested and barred from school and possibly saddled with a permanent criminal record for mouthing off on Instagram about how much he hates a particular high school.

“Zero tolerance” is how kids get suspended from school for carrying decorative pocket knives that they bought on vacation while touring the Indian reservations.

“Zero tolerance” is how CEOs get fired by the board for not realizing that an employee was beating his wife thirty years ago.

“We’ve become martinets with rule books who are frightened of human nature.”

“Zero tolerance” is how stupid jokes and clumsy attempts to get dates become demotions, suspensions without pay, and permanent ostracism.

“Zero tolerance” is how a talented film director gets fired for offhand Twitter comments he made a decade ago—and apologized for a decade ago.

“Zero tolerance” is for lazy people.

“Zero tolerance” is for people who don’t want to evaluate human behavior at all, they just want a set of marching orders that tell them exactly what to do when a certain set of words are spoken, a certain type of complaint is received, or a certain degree of social-media anger is reached.

“Zero tolerance” is for arrogant holier-than-thou moral police officers who want everyone to know how pure of heart they are.

“Zero tolerance” is especially hard on people who are autistic or who have Asperger’s syndrome because they often don’t realize the consequences of their actions or the boundaries within which they’re expected to work. But even in less extreme cases—people who just have overly emotional personalities or talk too much because they’re needy—the “zero tolerance” policy is like a cruel scythe that’s used to weed them out of acceptable society.

“Zero tolerance” gets especially weird when university professors fall in love with their graduate students and vice versa. Lots of universities call this “soliciting sexual favors” by virtue of your teaching position when, examined closely, it just might be romance.

“Zero tolerance” is not good for anything except murder. And actually, if you’re accused of murder, you have a whole array of options allowing you to prove in court that it wasn’t really murder, it was self-defense or justifiable homicide. You have tools to defend yourself that, in 99 percent of the “zero tolerance” cases, aren’t available to the person being disciplined, scolded, or shamed.

It’s not supposed to work this way. There’s supposed to be a person in the head office—an older person, a calm, wise, seasoned person—who comes downstairs in the middle of these “zero tolerance” cases to say, “This is ridiculous. This is not why the policy was created. Let this guy go.”

But the calm, wise, seasoned, older person doesn’t exist anymore. We’ve become Nazis. We’ve become commissars, Huns, Prussian drillmasters. We’ve become martinets with rule books who are frightened of human nature. We’re terrified that we might have to look into an accused person’s eyes and see mere human weakness. We’re terrified that we might see ourselves.

Apart from building the wall, President Trump’s most important act as president so far was his attack on internet censorship this week.

The left controls all the cultural institutions — the establishment media, corporate America, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, public schools and universities. The only breach in their total dominion of the flow of information is the internet.

So now they’re fixated like a laser beam on private citizens yammering to one another online.

Why can’t people accept the officially certified news as delivered by respected truth-tellers like Brian Williams, CNN and NBC — the network that censored Juanita Broaddrick and illegally leaked the “Access Hollywood” tape?

Liberals assessed the situation and correctly concluded: People are learning facts on the internet that we’ve been withholding from them, so now they don’t agree with us. We have to stop this.

The media relentlessly lied to the public about Hillary’s health, denouncing conservatives as “conspiracy theorists” for mentioning it. Then an alert citizen with an iPhone captured Hillary having to be carried to her car at the 9/11 memorial service in 2016.

“It’s not as if the left has ever shown any particular commitment to free speech.”

Mainstream media outlets painted a cherubic picture of Michael Brown after he was fatally shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. He was a “gentle giant,” gunned down like a dog as he plaintively cried, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”

HEY! Wait a second! How did that video get out of Brown manhandling a tiny Indian man while robbing a convenience store? That should have been suppressed like the Broaddrick interview!

Would we ever have known about Monica Lewinsky, but for the Drudge Report publishing the blockbuster story that Newsweek had killed?

Currently, the establishment media are in a rage that the public has found out about the modern genocide being waged against white South African farmers.

I can’t even blame them. If I were advising liberals, I’d say: You’ve got only one small breach in the wall of sound; you’ve got to ban conservative speech on the internet.

It’s not as if the left has ever shown any particular commitment to free speech. They love “transgressive” ideas and “controversial” speech — but only when they’re in the minority. As soon as they get control, no more free speech for you! Just look at the universities.

You might think that the exact same people wailing about Trump attacking the “free press” (fake news) would be too embarrassed to use their next breath to demand censorship on the internet. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.

On Sunday night, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt spent her entire interview with Facebook’s former chief information security officer Alex Stamos, demanding that Facebook go pedal-to-the-metal on censoring conservatives. It was left to defender of the reich Stamos to mumble something about not banning speech based on “content.”

Indignant that Alex Jones was allowed to “foment dissent on controversial topics online,” Kasie asked, “Did Facebook react too slowly to the Alex Jones issue? … Does Facebook have a responsibility to take on figures like this?”

Kasie then quoted Stamos back to himself, citing a memo in which he’d written: “We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.”

One “clear,” “moral,” “humanitarian issue” for Facebook — which according to Kasie isn’t doing enough censoring — is to prevent any criticism of caterwauling, protesting illegal aliens. (That sentence just violated Facebook’s Community Standards.)

Last May, I was notified by Facebook’s Julia Smekalina that “one of your posts was reported and found to be in violation of our Community Standards.”

Little Nazi block watchers are constantly reporting conservatives. They can’t just stop following people they don’t like. Liberals used to mock fundamentalist Christians, claiming they feared that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Now they’re the ones haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them.

The offending post was from January, months earlier, when I retweeted John Binder’s story on Breitbart News headlined: “Illegal aliens who say they ‘deserve’ amnesty tell pro-amnesty Sen. Thom Tillis: ‘F*ck this conservative! F*ck this person!'”

Illegals screaming obscenities at a U.S. senator does not offend Facebook community standards. It was the comment added to the story by the pro-American immigration website, Vdare: “It would be so easy to just deport these parasites @realDonaldTrump. They hate you, they hate your supporters, they hate your party, they hate our country. Why not just enforce the law and send them home?”

(The reason I’m talking about “tweets” when it was Facebook that censored me is that I detest Facebook, so the only “posts” of mine that ever showed up there were my tweets, which used to transfer automatically. Now they don’t, so I’ll never go to Facebook again.)

Here is my full and complete exchange with Smekalina, defender of “Community Standards,” illustrating what a complete joy using Facebook is.

From: Ann Coulter:

okay, you’ll have to tell me how to delete. nothing I click on offers the option of deleting. I wish you’d spend more time making facebook user friendly.

also, can you please tell me how it violates community standards to support enforcing the law? is the word “parasites” forbidden?

From: Julia Smekalina:

… yes, comparing immigrants to parasites is the specific portion in violation of our policies.

From: Ann Coulter:

it’s obviously NOT about “immigrants.” it’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. law breakers. is it a violation to call lawbreakers “parasites”?

I never heard from Julia again, but I gather she helpfully deleted the post for me. At the risk of bringing MSNBC’s hammer down on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, the tweet’s still available there.

Suddenly, President Trump’s impeachment no longer seems implausible.

The prospect for impeachment became more real this past week, after the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen revealed under oath that Trump, as a candidate, directed him to pay off a porn strumpet after she threatened to reveal a previous affair. Since the tryst money had the effect of protecting the candidate’s reputation, it’s seen as a campaign donation. And because our campaign finance laws are byzantine labyrinths of lawyerese that reflect an alternative reality, Trump broke a law by not recording the expenditure as a campaign expense.

Hence the I-word becoming the most spoken noun in Washington. The excitable Beltway reporter Mike Allen writes with palpable glee, “The writing is on the wall, top Republicans tell us: Democrats will likely win the House and undoubtedly move to impeach President Trump.” Adam Davidson of The New Yorker asserts the Cohen flip “helps build an increasingly compelling case for impeachment and removal from office.” Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican, says members will likely act if they see an opening to forced removal.

All at once, an existential crisis has beset the White House.

This was long coming. Deep Washington had its sights on the president from the beginning. From the fateful day he descended on his own escalator to declare his bid, Trump courted the disdain of the professional political class. He smashed their pieties and mocked their false propriety. It was only a matter of time before circumstances aligned to launch a White House coup.

“Democrats are on an ineluctable path to prematurely ending the Trump presidency and America with it.”

The threat shouldn’t be taken lightly. Democrat voters want Trump’s coiffed head on a pike. “Talk of impeachment sprang readily and without apology to the lips of Democratic voters in interviews this week,” reported The New York Times. A handful of elected lawmakers are pushing the impeachment line. Should the opposition party retake the House of Representatives in November, odds are impeachment proceedings will begin, with upstart members, all of the socialist bent, demanding retribution. The less strident members of the Democratic caucus may privately demur at such a perilous maneuver, but they will most certainly go along in the end. Even they see the writing on the wall: Impeachment is a winning message with liberal voters. A career will have to be destroyed to save theirs. No Senator Ross exists among their ranks.

With such darkening clouds on the horizon, should Trump spare himself the ignominy and call it quits now? Fat chance. The president is a pugilist to the end. But to win, he may have to remove some padding from his gloves.

Indulge me, dear reader, for a teensy bit of conspiracy theorizing. I’m afraid it’s the only way to illustrate my grave but necessary point.

As president, Trump has enormous declassification power, power he can wield with devastating effect. With the stroke of pen, he can release everything: files on the death of John F. Kennedy, FBI surveillance notes on Martin Luther King Jr., Vietnam War records, clandestine CIA activity, past subversion campaigns in South America, black-site prison operations. Trump could unveil every shred of paper created during the past six presidencies. The entirety of our secretive intelligence operations could be hit with a big burst of sunlight.

Just imagine the amount of disreputable behavior that could be uncovered. The Tuskegee experiment would look like a case of bad accounting by comparison. America’s prestige would be tarnished, our moral standing on the world stage diminished. The country would be left irreparably damaged.

To keep his political life, Trump will have to threaten his enemies with going full Samson, tearing the entire edifice of the U.S. government down. No other threat will ward off the forces that conspire against him. “When Trump is cornered, he is at his most dangerous,” observed Maggie Haberman, one of the reporters closest to the president. Just as Democrats won’t fight the temptation to begin impeachment proceedings once back in power, Trump will fight tooth and nail to save himself.

Of course, avoiding such a calamitous outcome is better than not. The preference applies for impeachment. Forcibly deposing Trump would send a rift through the country, rending us forever apart. Declassifying everything from the full cache of Hillary Clinton’s hidden emails to what the CIA pays for pencils would also be a fatal blow.

The contrarian columnist Matthew Walther believes the hand-wringing over impeachment is just that: unnecessary worry. The Senate will likely remain under Republican control after November. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “will not direct his caucus to vote for impeachment because he understands” Trump can still win in 2020, not Vice President Pence. Republicans will hold the line out of pure self-interest.

I’m less sanguine. The Republican establishment would love nothing more than a return to normalcy. That means ejecting Trump—whose populist predilections never meshed well with the powerful corporate wing of the party—from its head position. Trump shouldn’t rely on McConnell, Pence, et al. to be his protectors.

Our republic has lasted over two centuries because men and women put its continuity over the abstract notion of justice. Ford pardoned Nixon, the Senate didn’t impeach Clinton for lying under oath, Obama didn’t prosecute Bush administration officials for torture. Laws were broken, their violators went unpunished. Yet the country, as a place and an ideal, survives, imperfect but alive.

Democrats are on an ineluctable path to prematurely ending the Trump presidency and America with it. The impeachment cure is mutually assured destruction. Pray Trump doesn’t have to use it.

“McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began:

“The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”

Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday, leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.

No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.

And the cause he championed, compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power, appears to be a cause whose time has passed.

When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. John McCain then backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time.

McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!”

He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.

McCain’s contempt for Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.

He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.

John McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.

In 2008, when he was on the ballot, those wars helped cost him the presidency.

“John McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it.”

By 2016, the Republican majority would turn its back on McCain and his protege, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and nominate Donald Trump, who said he would seek to get along with Russia and extricate America from the wars into which McCain had helped plunge the country.

Yet, while interventionism now has no great champion and has proven unable to rally an American majority, it retains a residual momentum. This compulsion is pushing us to continue backing the Saudi war in Yemen and to seek regime change in Iran.

Yet if either of these enterprises holds any prospect of bringing about a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East, no one has made the case.

While the foreign policy that won the Cold War, containment, was articulated by George Kennan and pursued by presidents from Truman to Bush I, no grand strategy for the post-Cold War era has ever been embraced by a majority of Americans.

Bush I’s “New World Order” was rejected by Ross Perot’s economic patriots and Bill Clinton’s baby boomers who wanted to spend America’s peace dividend from our Cold War victory on America’s homefront.

As for the Bush II crusades for democracy “to end tyranny in our world,” the fruits of that Wilsonian idealism turned into ashes in our mouths.

But if the foreign policy agendas of Bush I and Bush II, along with McCain’s interventionism, have been tried and found wanting, what is America’s grand strategy?

What are the great goals of U.S. foreign policy? What are the vital interests for which all, or almost all Americans, believe we should fight?

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” said Churchill. Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role, was the crushing comment of Dean Acheson in 1962.

Both statements appear to apply to U.S. foreign policy in 2018.

We are bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, partly John McCain’s legacy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sent a virtual ultimatum to Iran. We have told North Korea, a nuclear power with the world’s fourth-largest army, either to denuclearize or the U.S. may use its military might to get the job done.

We are challenging Beijing in its claimed territorial waters of the South China Sea. From South Korea to Estonia, we are committed by solemn treaty to go to war if any one of dozens of nations is attacked.

Now one hears talk of an “Arab NATO” to confront the ayatollah’s Iran and its Shiite allies. Lest we forget, ISIS and al-Qaida are Sunni.

With all these war guarantees, the odds are excellent that one day we are going to be dragged in yet another war that the American people will sour upon soon after it begins.

Where is the American Kennan of the new century?

Have you heard about “handiblackin’”? It’s the newest craze. I normally wouldn’t lead off my column by citing a lengthy chunk of someone else’s work, but if you don’t know about handiblackin’, please learn about it from this Associated Press article:

New Fad Draws Criticism, Concerns

If you’ve noticed a flood of stories in the press recently about a new fad among black people called “handiblackin’,” you’re not alone. It’s a craze that many see as exemplifying everything that’s wrong with the black community. Handiblackin’ is when able-bodied black women feel entitled to use parking spaces reserved for the handicapped. Handiblackin’ made international news last month when a lazy black woman decided to park in a disabled space, leading to the death of her boyfriend and the arrest of a white man who was only trying to defend himself.

Stories of handiblackin’ have become so common, pundits have coined a term for the type of entitled, reckless black woman who engages in the practice: “Paquetta Parker.” And there seems to be a new Paquetta Parker story every day, like this one, and this one, and this one, which involves a Paquetta Parker who works for the VA. In this video, TWO carloads of entitled Paquettas violate disabled parking laws. And this incident led to a violent clash.

To Brian Mundesson, a white man who was paralyzed from the waist down during a stampede at a Dave Matthews Band concert in 2012, handiblackin’ is a very serious issue. “The disabled community lives in abject fear of black women taking our spaces and attacking us when we complain. Last week, I had to explain to my 6-year-old son why a simple trip to the grocery store might lead to my death. No parent should ever have to have that kind of talk with their child.”

Okay, obviously that’s not an actual AP piece. What it is is a reverse-negative replica of the hundreds of “there’s a plague of white women calling the cops on black people for doin’ nuthin’” news articles that have popped up in recent months in the mainstream press. And the funny thing is, if you were to show that phony AP story to any MSM reporter, that person would be able to instantaneously identify what makes it an example of bad journalism, even though every flaw in the piece is a mirror image of what those same reporters cram into their “cop-calling white women” fearmongering screeds.

The “AP” piece features an invented term that nobody outside the media is actually using (“handiblackin’”). The MSM pieces have something similar: “living while black.” The MSM uses the term “Becky” as a slur against white women, while I chose “Paquetta Parker” for the handiblackers (a play on words that would be really funny if anyone actually remembered 1980s social-justice mama Paquetta Palmer). The “AP” piece tars the character of an entire group based on nothing more than a few individual, isolated incidents, and it features an interview with a “victim” who spews bullshit about being “scared all the time” while offering a sentimental anecdote about “how do I explain to my child blah blah blah…”

“Shorn of context and statistics, you can’t use a few dozen incidents to prove a trend.”

And most of all, the “AP” piece offers no actual proof that the supposed fad is really a fad. Every one of the video clips I linked to is real. Yes, you can find dozens of online videos of black people parking in disabled spots. But shorn of context and statistics, you can’t use a few dozen incidents to prove a trend. What’s the total racial breakdown per month of drivers who are cited for parking in disabled spaces? How many videos exist of white drivers doing the same? If videos of blacks parking in disabled spots are more prevalent online, is it because blacks do it more, or is it because the racial conflict aspect of those videos attracts more views and shares compared with “duller” intraracial confrontations?

These are the questions most journalists would ask after reading my “handiblackin’” story. But those same journos don’t ask those questions when they’re spreading the claim that there’s a plague of cop-calling “Beckys.”

I was thinking about this last week, after the revelation that Iowa jogger Mollie Tibbetts was brutally murdered by a brown “dreamer” named Rivera. Based on what we know at the moment, and this is apparently taken from the suspect’s own testimony, Rivera was following Tibbetts, first in his car, then on foot. She confronted him, threatening to call the police if he didn’t leave her alone. What stood out to me about the story is the fact that she hadn’t called the cops once she saw that she was being followed.

Knowing, as we now do, that she leaned politically left and was one of those virtue-signaling “self-hating” whites, and assuming that she was a reader of leftist news media, and that in recent months she’d come across several of those “Beckys call the cops on people of color for no reason” articles, I’m curious if her decision to not call the cops when she had the chance was influenced by a fear of being publicly ridiculed as one of those racist Beckys. Think about it. If she’d called the cops before any actual crime had been committed, how would the media have portrayed the incident? Rivera worked as a laborer nearby. His sister had gone to school with Tibbetts. What would Rivera have told the cops? “Señor, I wuz just driveeng to work, an’ I see my seester’s friend, an’ I go to see if she want a ride. But she scream at me an’ call the poleece.”

“Hardworking immigrant father doing labor Americans won’t stops to help spoiled white woman; she calls the cops on him.” That’s how every mainstream news organization would have framed it, and Tibbetts would have been crucified. And while it can never be proved that Tibbetts was afraid of becoming the next viral “cop-calling Becky” sensation, I hope the pseudo-journalists who are behind the Becky fearmongering are plagued by nightmares for the rest of their lives over the possibility that their work influenced Tibbetts’ caution about dialing 911 (I kid; you need a conscience to be plagued by nightmares).

I started off this piece with a riff about statistics, and how the hacks who birthed the “cop-calling Becky” hysteria never present actual numbers to support the notion that this is a growing trend rather than (as in my handiblackin’ example) a manufactured crisis. So let’s talk about stats. An alt-righter might suggest that, looking at things from a statistical perspective, Beckys have a greater chance of being sexually assaulted by POCs than POCs have of being unjustly cop-called by Beckys. I mean, interracial crime figures and all, right? We’ve all seen the memes: 19,293 black-on-white rapes, zero white-on-black.

Except, no. That meme was inspired by a moron who didn’t know how to read a table. Lawrence Auster, writing for FrontPage Mag, mistook the number of white-on-black rapes reported in a very small sample group in a survey for the number of actual incidents nationwide. When called out on his error, Auster’s defense was that he didn’t inaccurately report the stats, he just misread them (as a Jew who converted to Christianity and called himself white, Auster pulled off the admirable feat of being an embarrassment to two groups at once).

As my old friend Jared Taylor told me in preparation for this piece, “I’m afraid to say there *are* no reliable stats on interracial rape. Or if there are, they are carefully hidden. Some US cities collect good racial stats on offender rates, but I have never seen even a city that matches race of rapist with race of rape victim. If you find even a small sample, let me know!”

Taylor, as usual, is absolutely right. These days, the Department of Justice refuses to release broken-down interracial sexual-assault stats. In the most recent crime-stat report (released in October 2017), “Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012–15,” sexual assault is lumped in with other violent crimes, and the race of the offender is not provided in interracial rape cases.

I wrote to Tannyr Watkins, public affairs specialist at the DOJ, and I asked her a very simple question: “Is there an authoritative source where I can see interracial rape statistics isolated and broken down by white-on-black compared to black-on-white, and Hispanic-on-non-Hispanic compared to non-Hispanic-on-Hispanic?” She responded by sending me the same report I linked to above (the one that lacks the very info I was asking her to provide).

“Please let me know if you need anything else,” she added.

Well, uh, yeah. I asked again: “Are there any current statistics in which the interracial rape/sexual assault stats are broken down by how many white-on-black, how many black-on-white, how many non-Hispanic-on-Hispanic, and how many Hispanic-on-non-Hispanic?”

A week went by with no response, so I asked yet again. She replied: “Sorry, I have been out of the office. I’m sure we can get you an answer today.” A few hours later I got this: “The most recent statistics that BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) has to share on the topic are in the ‘Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders’ report that we sent you previously.”

In other words, no. We do not keep the statistics you’re seeking.

So here’s the common thread: Journalists push a manufactured crisis (“Beckys are calling the cops on people of color in record numbers!”) without bothering to determine if there are stats to back up the claim. Meanwhile, rightists push a phony meme (“There are no white-on-black rapes”) based on the faulty work of a particularly dense Ehrenarier. And on top of everything, the DOJ flatly refuses to release statistics that could shed light on the interracial rape issue.

So basically, Beckys are publicly maligned in the press for instigating racial terror against people of color, while our government prevents anyone from knowing whether people of color are, to an equal or greater extent, terrorizing Beckys.

Personally, I’d love to know the stats in both cases. Are the instances of white women cop-calling POCs greater than the instances of white men or other POCs doing the same? And are the instances of POCs raping white women greater than the instances of white men raping POCs?

I have a hunch about the answer to both questions, and I have a good deal of confidence that the facts would prove my hunch correct. But let’s be honest, journalists have no motivation or desire to temper their anti-Becky public shame-fests with context or statistics, Republicans are not going to pressure the DOJ to release interracial rape figures (“We can’t risk losing the black votes we never get”), and rightists are never going to care about backing up their memes with facts.

So at the end of the day, who gives a shit about the numbers?

Handiblackin’. I shoulda sold that story to Breitbart and made myself a couple of bucks.

Just as there’s a tremendous difference between acting ethically and feeling the need to announce to the world that you’re an ethical person, there is also a massive distinction between being raped and feeling the need to tell the world that you were raped.

I stopped watching Hollywood movies sometime in the mid-1970s, so when the name “Asia Argento” started popping up amid the #MeToo vagina dentata feeding frenzy last fall, I needed to be informed who she was.

Born in the West, Asia—whose name is a common Italian name for girls, and is annoyingly pronounced “AH-see-ah”—is the child of wealth and privilege. Her father Dario is a famous Italian horror-movie director with an estimated net worth of $16 million, yet like many such types, poor Asia can’t seem to just appreciate being lucky and appears to feel the need to rail against “entitles [sic] westerners” as if she weren’t the very embodiment of an entitled, privileged Westerner.

Last fall, along with the obviously deranged actress Rose McGowan, Asia became one of the loudest barking poodles in the #MeToo movement, which declared that victims should always be believed and that perpetrators should always be destroyed.

As this movement grew like a tumor, countless women came forward to accuse men of raping them. They did this publicly, mind you. And they all appeared to relish the attention. Why, it was almost as if there was nothing vicious, mean, predatory, or damaging about trying to publicly destroy anyone. In an agonizingly high number of cases, hiding behind the Morality Shield seems to be a sly and dishonest way of pretending that one’s abusiveness is mere “justice” rather than malice in action.

Publicly declaring that someone found you so sexually irresistible that they couldn’t control their impulses might be a sly way of announcing to the world that you are sexually irresistible. At what point does #MeToo become #LookAtMe?

As far as I can tell from piecing together the available narratives, both Argento and McGowan claimed that Weinstein “raped” them because they faked orgasms when he was performing oral sex on them. I am aware of no accusations that he physically restrained them or threatened them in any way. But it appears that part of what has driven #MeToo is to massively expand the definition of rape to include any sexual encounter a woman might later regret. For example, in the still pending rape charge against Julian Assange, it appears that his only crime was failing to call his alleged victim the next day.

“At what point does #MeToo become #LookAtMe?”

In Argento’s case, she was apparently so appalled by Weinstein’s shoddy cunnilingual skills that she proceeded to have a sexual relationship with him that lasted four years. Maybe he gives good foot rubs—I don’t know. Or maybe she’ll try to claim that the fact she had to fake an orgasm with him left her so mentally ravaged that she couldn’t help but have sex with him for four more years.

As Americans finally started hearing the name “Asia Argento” en masse last fall, she was having a very public romantic relationship with ex-junkie and white-genocide advocate Anthony Bourdain. In the shamelessly sappy photos that Bourdain posted all over social media of himself with Argento, she maintained the same malevolent gleam in her eye while he appeared to be as pussy-whipped as a mouse impaled on a cat’s claw.

When Bourdain killed himself this June, it was immediately blamed on a fictitious medical condition called “depression,” which pill-peddlers will have you believe is a real disease that is likely entirely unrelated to depressing circumstances in one’s life.

It wasn’t until last week that I learned of the circumstances immediately preceding Bourdain’s suicide.

Three days before the 61-year-old Bourdain hanged himself in a Paris motel room, an Italian magazine published pictures of Argento and 28-year-old French writer Hugo Clement. She is shown hugging him, walking hand-in-hand with him, and giving him severe goo-goo eyes.

Mere days after Bourdain’s suicide, an Instagram account called @justicefortony appeared. What’s significant is that the account was followed by Ottavia Bourdain, who is his estranged wife, the mother of his 11-year-old daughter, and a woman who, despite his betrayals, has respectfully chosen to stay out of the spotlight and has refused to make it all about her—in stark contrast to Argento’s subsequent behavior.

According to the account:

She was a monster to him. She took an already very damaged and very sensitive man and destroyed him. His friends and coworkers tried their best to make him see what was going on, but he would just push everyone away. No one could say anything negative about Asia or Tony would try to remove them from his life….

In the end those pictures [of Argento with Clement] were too much. He must have finally realized what she was doing and his world came crushing down.

The account also says that Bourdain and Argento began fighting right after the pictures had been public. He stopped following her social media accounts.

Then on June 8, after by all accounts the couple had ceased to communicate, Argento posted a picture of herself with a T-shirt that read FUCK EVERYONE. She captioned it, “You know who you are.”

Three hours later, Bourdain killed himself.

It’s quite an accomplishment for someone to make me feel sympathy for Anthony Bourdain. It’s also a testament to Argento’s character that she subsequently posted a photo of herself with a “Suicidal Tendencies” shirt and the hashtag #stayingalive.

Even more distasteful was the fact that Argento made quite the public display of being victimized by—rather than, y’know, being a primary cause of—Bourdain’s suicide. Claiming she was too grief-stricken to even speak, she enlisted Rose McGowan’s dubious literary skills to pen an open letter for Rolling Stone on her behalf:

Sitting across from me is the remarkable human and brave survivor, Asia Argento, who has been through more than most could stand, and yet stand she does. She stood up to her monster rapist and now she has to stand up to yet another monster, suicide.

Stooping even lower, McGowan claimed that both Argento and Bourdain had both struggled with depression, but she didn’t kill herself because she was strong—and he did because he was weak. She also made a point of claiming that the pair had an “open relationship,” which was hard for Bourdain to dispute, seeing as he was dead.

Last Sunday, The New York Times published a story alleging that shortly after publicly accusing Weinstein of raping her after he’d sloppily attempted to orally pleasure her, Argento arranged a $380,000 payoff to a male actor who claims she forced herself upon him sexually in a motel room back in May 2013 when he was only two months after his 17th birthday. At the time, Argento was 37.

We’re always supposed to believe the accuser, right?

The actor, Billy Bennett, had starred as Argento’s son in the 2004 film The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things, which Argento directed. Bennett was seven at the time, and among other things, the film required him to be raped.

The pair continued a public friendship over the next ten years, frequently shouting out to one another on social media and referring to one another as “mother” and “son.”

Then, when Bennett had just turned 17, he says he and a family member visited Argento in her Marina del Rey hotel room and at some point Argento requested that the family member leave the two of them alone. He says she first performed oral sex on him and then climbed on top of him for a round of intercourse.

He claimed that the experience traumatized him and impaired his ability to work. The fact that few people will believe that a 17-year-old boy can have sex forced upon him seems barely relevant here—what’s pertinent is that he was accusing someone who says all sexual assault accusers should be believed.

She called the report “absolutely false,” claimed she “never had any sexual relationship with Bennett,” and once again managed to blame it on Bourdain, who by her account caved to the obvious extortion attempt and arranged for the payout through his lawyer.

Unfortunately for this narrative, pictures emerged of Argento and Bennett in bed together, as did alleged text messages from Argento where she flatly stated:

I had sex with him it was weird. I didn’t know he was a minor until the shakedown letter.

This, from the woman who’d known Bennett since he was seven and repeatedly referred to him as her “son.”

Then, like all suspected rapists are supposed to do, Argento blamed the victim:

The horny kid jumped me…he jumped me.

In this case I’m going to believe the accuser. Despite the way modern feminism attempts to frame the discussion as a religious narrative where women are always good and men are always bad, hard experience has taught me that the tart can be deceitful above all things.

A new, huge wave of refugees from Africa and the Middle East is rolling in. It is high time to face the uncomfortable truths.

In Africa there are 7 million more people every 100 days. If we took in one million Africans, it would make up for the population deficit in 14 days! In Nigeria alone, more children are born every year than in the whole of Europe.

In 1960 Africa had 280 million inhabitants—today it is already 1.2 billion, and by 2050 it will be 2.5 billion. Up to 66% of Africans (i.e., 790 million) want to go to Europe or the USA—a large proportion of them within the next five years.

These figures clearly show a breach in the dam. The E.U.’s open external borders are pure madness. A population explosion and economic exodus of this magnitude cannot be combated by allowing all Africans to enter Italy via the Mediterranean route, apply for asylum, and travel on to Northern Europe. “The E.U. is acting like an installer who distributes water in the home in the event of a burst pipe, instead of repairing the damage,” said France’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

“The E.U.’s open external borders are pure madness.”

Nowhere else in the world are social benefits distributed as generously as in the E.U.

Northern Europe has become a magnet for millions of immigrants, including from the Middle East. For example, in twenty years’ time Austria will be 30–40% Muslim; at least one in three Viennese will be Muslim—if immigration remains strong. Austria, a country of less than 9 million people, would then be on the way to a Muslim-majority society. Even with the complete closure of the E.U.’s external borders and “zero immigration,” the proportion of Muslims in Austria will double. The reason: Austrians are on average 41 years old—whereas Muslim immigrants are on average thirteen years younger and have a higher birth rate.

This migration of peoples is fueled by a huge “asylum industry” that makes billions in business. Taxpayers are now financing private relief services, accommodation providers, security companies, course providers, contractors, and lobbyists. NGOs are becoming shadow governments. The Italian public prosecutor’s office accuses some of them of direct cooperation with tugboats. Ideologue journalists, politically correct media professionals, and good-human politicians place anyone who criticizes these conditions “in the right corner.”

The recently deceased evolutionary biologist and behavioral researcher Professor Eibl-Eibesfeldt said the following in an interview with the German Focus:

If someone were to move the border post in Europe by only ten metres, there would be terrible noise, but the quiet conquest of immigration should be tolerated? I would suggest that Europe, including Eastern Europe, should close itself off on a large scale and gradually raise the level of the poor countries of the Third World through aid. There’s nothing else you can do about a population explosion of this magnitude, import the problem if you’re stupid at best.

The Week’s Most Informal, Abnormal, and Paranormal Headlines

Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera is a chubby, middle-aged Latina who appears to dye her hair red. She insists that when she was but a wee lass of seven, blond aliens who resembled Jesus Christ abducted her onto a spaceship and told her that a cave in Malta houses thousands of alien skulls and that “the center of the world’s energy is Africa,” which clearly proves that these aliens were either dumb or liars. She also claims that she has been telepathically communicating with aliens ever since that abduction and once witnessed a UFO at age 17.

Aguilera is a Republican candidate for a congressional house seat this November. The Miami Herald endorsed her candidacy over those of eight other GOP contenders. While acknowledging that she was “unusual,” the editors claimed that they are fond of her “boots-on-the-ground ideas and experience.”

We can only conclude that when the blond Christlike aliens transported Aguilera onto their ship, her boots remained on the ground.

Last week after viewing an episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight dealing with the new South African government policy of grabbing land from white farmers, President Trump tweeted the following:

I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.”

The mainstream press, which acts dead-certain that it is empirically impossible for white people to ever be the victims of racial hatred or violence, insisted that Trump was mindlessly parroting the baseless and widely debunked conspiracy theories of Nazi white-supremacist Alt-Right hatemongers. The very same people who insist that America is awash in white supremacist violence because one woman had a heart attack in Charlottesville after a car that was being attacked with baseball bats drove into a crowd pooh-poohed the idea that there was any looming threat to the whites who remain in South Africa.

In the rare cases where scribes didn’t entirely gaslight Trump and allowed the possibility that just maybe one or two white farmers had been murdered, they justified it by trotting out the ice-cold newspeak:

Whether or not it’s actually true is irrelevant.

“The mere fact that Al Sharpton isn’t homeless and squeegeeing commuters’ windshields outside the Lincoln Tunnel is proof that America is not a racist nation.”

Stellar point. Why should anyone care if elderly white couples are having boiling water poured on them or old white men are being burned to death or four-year-old white girls are being raped and then set on fire? The real issue is that all white people are Nazis and deserve to die.

As any man who in the throes of teenage lust while groping around for the female sexual entrance knows, vaginas are not located in the front of a woman’s body. At best, they’re due south—if the female torso were a world map, the vagina would be Antarctica.

This is why it’s so confounding that in its quest to eternally appease the perpetually bruised feelings of the fewer than one in a hundred Americans who suffer from the delusion that their genitals are lying to them, the website recently published something called the “LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide,” which included this gleaming pink nugget of queerthink gobbledygook:

For the purposes of this guide, we’ve chosen to include alternative words for readers to use for their genitals. For example, some trans men choose to use the words ‘front hole’ or ‘internal genital’ instead of ‘νagina.’ Alternatively, some trans women may say ‘strapless’ or ‘girl d***’ for penis. This usage is meant for one-on-one communication with trusted persons, such as your doctor or partner, not for broad discussion.

The guide was issued in part as the result of a study from last November which whined in the most headache-inducing way possible that “transgender men…get pregnant and give birth…[and] face discrimination.”

Funny—the verb “to discriminate” means “to tell the difference between things.” So if it’s “discrimination” to tell the difference between a man who will never be able to give birth and a woman who can, so be it. The statement continues with the holesplaining:

In the LGBTQIA Safe Sex Guide, we use both front hole and vagina. “Front hole” is one of the numerous, accepted terms for genitalia we use specifically for certain members of the trans community who identify with it. In no instance in this guide are we saying we want to replace the word vagina.

As far as we’re concerned, they can take that guide and stuff it up their internal genital.

We wrote recently about how San Francisco’s token black female mayor London Breed commented that “there is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here.” What we didn’t know at the time is that the daffy bastards who are employed to clean up the killing fields of human shit strewn throughout the streets of this insanely overpriced coastal enclave make $184,000 a year in combined salary and benefits.

The fact that San Francisco is plagued by people who are so animalistic that they squat out turd logs in public is, of course, blamed on a “lack of affordable housing” rather than the fact that some people are animals.

The Reverend Al Sharpton is perhaps best known for leaping like a predatory cockroach on race-hate hoaxes such as the Tawana Brawley debacle and the Duke Lacrosse Rape fraud.

He is also famous for referring to Greeks as “homos” and whites as “crackers” and for fanning the flames of a black/Jewish riot by referring to Jews as “diamond dealers,” but he must be some kind of genius because he’s still paid handsomely to pose as an anti-racist crusader.

Sharpton can rightly be credited as the man who lit the fire under the modern #Resistance by enjoining his TV listeners to “resist we much.”

In response to the recent death of the large black planet known as Aretha Franklin and to President Trump’s depiction of black turncoat Amarosa Marigault Newman as a “dog,” he commanded Trump to show a little “R-E-S-P-I-C-T” to his fellow human beings.

The mere fact that Sharpton isn’t homeless and squeegeeing commuters’ windshields outside the Lincoln Tunnel is proof that America is not a racist nation.

NASCAR driver Conor Daly recently had his sponsorship pulled by Lilly Diabetes—which seems like a weird sponsor for race cars, anyway—after it was revealed that back in the early 1980s his father made the mistake of using the phrase “nigger in the woodpile.”
Conor is only 26. The alleged statement was made more than a decade before he was even born.

According to a press release from Lilly—who might be better served sponsoring wheelchair races or competitions where diabetics try to touch their toes—Derek Daly’s comment distracted from their focus on Conor’s racing, which must be why they chose to completely abandon Conor’ racing and focus instead on something his dad allegedly said nearly forty years ago.

The Irish-born Derek Daly attempted to clarify what he said, not realizing that such efforts are useless in the face of stampeding herds of social-justice bison:

In the early 80’s, after I had recently relocated to the United States, I was interviewed….I responded by explaining that I was a foreign driver now in America, driving for an American team, with an American crew, and with an American sponsor – and that if things did not go well, the only ‘n’ in the wood pile” would be me. At the time, I meant that I, as the new foreigner on the team, would shoulder the blame and I would be the scapegoat. This was not in any way shape or form meant to be a racial slur. This phrase was commonly used in Ireland, Britain, and Australia.

Typical thing for a monkey-faced lowlife Mick to say.

This is David Hallquist. In 2015, the former CEO of an electrical corporation decided he was a chick and changed his name to Christine, donning a wig that sort of makes him look like a fat Corey Feldman in drag.

Early in August, Hallquist won the Democratic nomination to become the governor of Vermont, a quaint and beautiful state that used to host homespun hillbillies but has now become glutted with psychotic socialists whom we suspect fled places such as Boston and New York because they were uncomfortably diverse. (As of 2015, and despite all the lip service it pays to diversity, Vermont was still a solid 94% white.)

As Hallquist prepares to quite possibly become the first tranny governor in American history, he is claiming that he has received violent death threats, a move which may simply be a deflection tactic to engender sympathy and prevent people from wondering, “Who’s the fat dude in the wig?”

Every Monday, Jim Goad reads the previous day’s “Week That Perished” on his podcast.