By ilana mercer
Programed as they are in feminist myth-making, journalists, young and old, often ask incredulously, “Why would western girls travel to join ISIS fighters?” “ISIS men don’t believe in equality between the sexes.”
At heart, neither do women. Not when hormones rage.
Islamic State projects strength. Strength is an aphrodisiac. Women are biologically programmed to be attracted to powerful men. That’s one reason some girls willingly put on black nose bags and flock to become ISIS brides.
Brainwashed to think biology is incidental, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable; younger readers will likely find it harder to grasp something as primordial and important as the male-female biological category.
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed has no such problem. Speaking in a deep, sonorous voice; in what sounds like classical Arabic, this imam can be observed on YouTube delivering a sermon from East Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque. The object of Sheikh Ayed’s coruscating derision is the emasculated West. It is primed for a muscular, Muslim takeover, he argues.
Said Ayed (as translated by The Middle East Media Research Institute):
But they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in their midst. We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries—whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, oh Italians, and all those like you. Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: These are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you.
On its side, Islam has ascetic evangelists such as Ayed, who bow to no one.
On our side we have Father Michael Pfleger! He’s the too-hideous-to-behold, standard issue, Western preacher-cum-Obama idolater.
Pray tell: Who looks and sounds more impressive to the young and the impressionable? The impassioned, unapologetic, manly imam in flowing, Lawrence-of-Arabia robes, who channels the Word of his Prophet? Or, Father Pfleger, the soft face of the West’s ultra-liberal faith; a tool of liberal public administration; a man more eager to prostrate himself to Caesar than to serve a higher authority?
Pfleger’s ilk—the West’s priesthood—are in the four corners of the earth preaching hate for their own kind. Thus, in a week in which fifteen blacks wielding Kalashnikovs killed two white farmers in KwaZulu-Natal; another excuse-for-a-man—man-of-the-cloth Michael Vorster—was at a South-African pulpit puling about “the controlling ways of whiteness.”
More so than girls do boys need strong men in their lives—men who affirm their masculinity. When a vulnerable Anglo-American boy hears preachers, parents, pedagogues and politicians pounding on about our country’s Founding Fathers as the archetypal pale, patriarchal oppressors—he quickly learns to reject his country’s heritage and look elsewhere for masculine inspiration, maybe even at Muhammad. After all, American boys, K through Twelve, are mired in an estrogen-infused, cloistered world, where strong men in authority are an endangered minority.
Religious or irreligious, the generic Western guy is instructed to ooze psychological correctness, but sublimate manliness. He never takes charge; he consults and cooperates. He’s not necessarily effeminate, but he’s safely androgynous (and he’s most certainly not guy-like in the Trumpian sense). As personalities go, this Generic Guy and his wife (oops, “life partner”) are indistinguishable.
The feminization and regulation of Western society over decades has meant that life-saving manliness is confined, increasingly, to corners upon which women are less likely to encroach: the cockpit or combat.
Perhaps this blurring of biological boundaries accounts for why, in Europe, there are no men left to defend the women folk. From Cologne to Hamburg to Stuttgart, the mass molestation of German women by Muslim refugees (hashtag “RapeFugees”) elicits very little outrage from their natural protectors: the remaining fifty percent of the population.
Why, a decadent dilatant named Ralf Jaeger (interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia), even ventured that “right-wing poisoning of the climate of our society” is “at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.” Father Pfleger and the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, would concur. The last scurried to wash the feet of his Christ-like victims: the refugees, not the raped.
Although none was in attendance at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, America still has magnificent men who’re unwilling to relinquish their natural, individual right to proceed against evil.
Men like Mark Vaughan.
In September of 2014, a woman at a Vaughan Foods factory, in Moore, Oklahoma, was beheaded by one Alton Nolen, a young, hateful black man, convert to Islam, who was terrorizing co-workers into doing the same.
Another woman, poor Traci Johnson, was also doing an honest day’s work, when Nolen approached her and began sawing at her throat. Suddenly something marvelously American happened. The boss and CEO, Mr. Vaughan, stopped Nolen in his tracks with a bullet. (What a shame Vaughan didn’t stop the butcher dead in his tracks.)
Survival—of the species of the culture of the faith—has a biological dimension. What would have befallen our Hominid ancestors had they implemented gender parity in their hunter-gatherer societies—sometimes the women hunt while the men forage and mind the kids, and vice versa?
In the service of statist sameness, the male-vs.-female biological imperatives are rapidly, if reflexively, being dissolved. Dissolving “The Constitution of Man” is dangerous to civilization, for a subservient, effete civilization will not survive the onslaught of Islam.
***
Adapted from “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016) by ILANA Mercer. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer.
Couldn’t agree more. Three cheers for a great lady!
Absolutely the most prescient thing I’ve read in months… and not just on this site.
You, Ilana Mercer, are the bravest, wisest, honest, most intelligent man I know; I’d add sweetest if I knew you better. It’s a pity you’re not sufficiently wealthy to begin your own US Presidential campaign. The next US President is for certain going to make or break all our long-term futures.
Hillary’s ruthless and sufficiently crooked to win but a man’s man is needed now. The enemy holds no fear of women. The man currently running does seem clever and straight enough, I guess, but he does often think and scheme like a woman so prone to regular miscalculations.
Only the strongest of the strong are going to survive the coming and unavoidable civil and military strife. Death is fine for some it is claimed but it is certainly final for everyone – no matter their belief system. We live in scary, I mean really scary, times.
Be brave sweet lady. Carry on but stay safe if you can… please!
You’re laying it on a bit thick here, aren’t you?
I went to leave a review and the damn thing posted a ‘poor’ review while I was hovering the mouse over it. Sorry Ilana, I didn’t mean it! I tried to correct it but all I could do is leave a subsequent ‘excellent’ review to try to balance things out. Just one small correction to the article if I may – I believe you meant to say the the Sheik’s sermon was ‘excoriating’ rather than ‘coruscating’. 🙂
But what are we supposed to do? Does anyone have any idea?
It is almost illegal to express the views required to help people survive the coming demographic calamity.
Pigs. They are our salvation. The only thing these people are truly afraid of. In the days of the Barbary pirates, one enterprising American officer captured some of these miscreants. He lined ten of them up & had nine shot with bullets dipped in pigs fat. He let the tenth man go & tell his friends what fate awaited them if they got caught. No reward in Paradise for them – no 72 virgins – nothing. We should turn the tables and strike fear into their hearts for a change. I got taken to task by a friend of mine for suggesting this – she said we should treat them ‘fairly’. My position is simple – either we deal with these people in an effective manner, or we learn to live with almost daily terrorist atrocities along with the abolition of our culture and our way of life.
Might I remind you Hugo that a young English woman was recently sent to prison for placing bacon on the door handle of a Mosque. Not a pig’s head, just a slice or two of bacon. I hope it was rancid.
Our own ‘boy’s in blue’ go out of their way to support Islamists of every type. They are very clearly no longer friends of the English population. Thats for sure. It’s likely not to be the fault of the rank and file. They are carrying out orders. However, every officer currently serving will, at some point in the near future, have to decide which side they intend supporting. The religious pretence will soon have to stop and the truth must be faced no matter how dreadful.
Our new Prime Minister will I fear prove no better than Mad’m Merkel. Both are childless daughters of Vicars and most of those caved years ago. It’s the violence you see. Violence that’s taken place repeatedly for more than 1400 years will not be stopped by prayer nor gentle persuasion and they know it.
One must be careful what one writes these days so I’ll say no more – for the time being.
In answer to Tom, my advice is for you to protect yourself in the best way you can then wait until the kettle boils. If you’re without resources it’s not going to be easy no matter the when. The time is not yet here Tom when the decision to fight or take flight needs to be made. Don’t look for a UK political resolution. The miserable white cowards Ms Mercer fearlessly describes above, exist in no less numbers in London than they do in Washington.
I have to agree with you john. I hadn’t heard about the lady being sent to prison for bacon abuse. I wonder if all this is in response to the ‘Covenant of Security’, whether it is out of a misplaced desire to avoid offending anyone (Muslims at any rate), or whether it is just good old-fashioned cowardice because we think they will blow us up if we don’t bend over backwards to accommodate their every wish. I believe the effects of generations of brainwashing as described by Ilana Mercer are all too evident. I have been called all sorts of names by friends and acquaintances for merely stating the facts of what is happening in this country. I re-posted a caracature of that obnoxious loudmouth with the beard (whose name escapes me thank goodness), made up to look like a pig, and was immediately ‘unfriended’ by one person on facebook on the grounds that it was ‘racist and offensive’. Well it was meant to be offensive, to terrorists at any rate, but racist? How is that? Chowdhary, that was his name (the pig not the friend). At least the US has the First Amendment: Freedom of speech has long gone in this country and people seem to think that is a good thing. Personally, I demand the right to be offended. Not that I think I could be offended by mere words – these days people seem to take offence vicariously at things said about others. I really don’t understand that. Again, one has to wonder at the motives of those responsible for all this brainwashing, for that is what it is. Makes no sense to me. Common Purpose perhaps?
Branding things as “racist” and “offensive” is how many in our infantilised, feminised society have been conditioned to shut down debate that hurts their delicate little feelings.
Fight ok, I can do that. Although I fear, for all people talk about it, that it will never happen, and we shall instead be slowly eaten alive by Islam, all the while saying how sorry we are and that we really need to talk about it. Fighting as 1 man will not get me or my family very far. But I do at least understand what it entails, if it ever comes to that. Everyone should be doing the necessary before it gets banned.
It is flight that worries me- where to go? Is there anywhere left?
There are people who are prepared to fight, but they get very little support from those they are fighting on behalf of. To illustrate this, let’s look at the group called Britain First. This group are predictably given the usual labels by the traitorous media – ‘Racist’, ‘Extremist’, ‘Fascist’, ‘Far-Right; etc, etc. They are none of those things from what I can see – that is unless you regard someone as ‘racist’ who wants to support and protect his own people, in which case there are few decent normal people who wouldn’t/shouldn’t qualify for the label.
For an example of how much the PTB hate the people of this country, and the lengths they are prepared to go to punish those who object to their clear agenda, I suggest you look at what has happened to the leaders of this group recently. It seems that in January they held a rally in Luton, a rally which consisted of nothing more than walking around an area called Bury Park distributing leaflets while carrying posters and a cross. In the process of doing this, they were viciously attacked by the local Muslims – an attack which consisted of being spat upon, being verbally abused and being pelted by missiles. Did the police arrest the perpetrators? Of course not, they arrested the two leaders of Britain First! But they weren’t just arrested, they found themselves fully on the receiving end of the anti-British, dirty tricks, department of the Luton police. The charge? ‘Wearing a political uniform’, something that I understand that was brought in under the 1936 Public Order Act to prevent people from wearing full military style uniforms. Their ‘political uniform’ from what I understand consisted of no more than a beanie hat and a fleece with a logo on it.
As consequence of this charge, they were put on police bail for several months. One of the conditions of this ‘bail’ was that they had to present themselves at a police station in London every Saturday and sign a book. They were also banned from entering Luton. Talk about truth being stranger than fiction! The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, outflanked the police after several months of this nonsense by going before magistrates to appeal against the bail conditions and then surprised them by pleading guilty to the charge. He received a small fine – which is all the ‘misdemeanor’ warranted, despite the outrageous bail conditions. I should add that during the course of these proceedings the prosecutor acting for the police described Bury Park as an ‘Islamic Area’. Does that mean that this is now officially designated as an area where non-Muslims are not allowed to go?
His deputy, Jayda Fransen, has not got off so lightly. She now faces three equally absurd charges. One of which, causing ‘Religiously aggravated harassment, alarm and distress’, could attract a prison sentence. To the best of my knowledge none of this has appeared in the media. Clearly the PTB are so proud of what they are doing that they have ordered their co-conspirators to keep quiet about it!
Although I have no connection with Britain First, I feel so angered by this that I have made a contribution towards their legal costs, and will do so again in all probability. I urge all those who feel similarly outraged by the injustice of this to do the same.
I think it is fair to say that Britain First went to Luton in order to provoke a retaliation from the Muslims, and to a degree they succeeded. Their preferred method of dealing with the ‘Muslim menace’ is by street battles. God forgive me for saying this, but I find this less objectionable, in the absence of a legal or political solution, than watching the creeping Islamisation of our country. I am intrigued by the charge of ‘Religiously aggravated harassment, alarm and distress’ brought against Jayda Fransen. I would have thought that Muslims marching with banners calling for those who oppose Islam to be beheaded ought to face a similar charge. The fact that they appear immune, and certainly believe themselves to be immune, from any criminal action lends justification to the ‘direct action’ of Mr Golding and the other Britain First members. I never thought I would write these words.
I don’t believe that there is any evidence of Britain First engaging in ‘street battles’, or setting out the provoke a reaction, although I would be happy to see any conclusive evidence to the contrary. Even when physically attacked and pelted with missiles I don’t believe that they responded with violence – but, again, I would be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
Why on earth shouldn’t they hand leaflets out in Luton, or anywhere else for that matter? If I saw people handing out leaflets, about something I disagreed with, and I physically attacked them I’m pretty sure that I’d be the one who had his collar felt.
I believe that Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen are brave people who deserve our support.
We live in a touchy-feely police state dominated by the insane, like Ms May.
This kind of thing is blatantly unjust. The aim of course is to make people who do react to Islamisation appear to be extremists, and also to make it very hard for them to function.
It is true that demonstrating against Islam while white is a far bigger crime than demanding the death of the infidel and the institution of Sharia law. Muslim demonstrations are tolerated while the demonstrations of the British are crushed.
The powers that be are determined that the British people do not react to the Islamisation of our counry in any way. So far they have been very successful in achieving their goal, not just in terms of the disproportionate reaction that is dished out to anyone not behaving correctly, but also in terms of the propaganda campaign. Look at how terrified the average person is of being called right wing or (heaven forbid) racist. They are winning this easily.
Indeed they are, and they will continue to do so as long as they can get away with inflicting harsh punishments on individuals and small groups who stand up to be counted, while the majority just stand and watch and say nothing.
I would accuse you of stating the bleedin’ obvious, except that most of the country is in denial that it is happening. The question is why? I do not believe that the British Establishment actually desire to live in an Islamic Caliphate. Is it fear of upsetting the Covenant of Security I wonder? For the benefit of those not acquainted with it, the Covenant of Security is a deal signed by (who else!) Mr Blair, which allows the Islamists to use this country as a base for international terror, providing they don’t spill any blood on British soil. If anybody calls me a ‘racist’, I always ask them to define what they mean by the term. The usual answer is ‘you know perfectly well what it means’, which is hardly illuminating. I think that if it means anything at all, it means viewing the world through the prism of race. The irony, of course, is that the entire political Establishment is racist by my definition – to the rest of us it just doesn’t matter. Along with the vast majority of Britons, I couldn’t care less what race a person is, but if they are threatening to kill me then I do care.
Why? Oh dear, you are a naive old thing. Clue: it has nothing to do with the ‘British’ establishment – they are the controlled, not the controllers.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
If they had to offer a coherent definition of the term “racist”, they’d be made to look like fools for employing it, so I suppose that’s why.
Then I suggest that you think deeply about it and do some research. I’m certainly not going to spell it out here. Just observe who is saying what – and why. It’s not that difficult.
Why do you persist in talking in riddles? It contributes nothing to the debate.
Hugo, Charles is talking about Bilderberg.
You must have read about them. A world-wide group of extremely wealthy thugs who control the controllers. Should anyone dare to get under their skin they discredit or eliminate whatever.
Even heroic Ilana Mercer, knows better than to cross swords with them.
Ah – so are you saying that Charles is telling us, in his cryptic way, that the various people who attend the Bilderberg meetings, are pushing for Britain to become an Islamic Caliphate? I believe Margaret Thatcher attended one of their meetings. And George Soros? He’s Jewish, as are many of the other attendees I believe. So it’s a Jewish conspiracy to create an Islamic State in Britain? Is that right?
The aim is not to create an Islamic caliphate, per se, the aim is to destroy the nation state – particularly white western nations. Population replacement is the name of the game. However, as I said before, I’m not going to spell out the fine details here. You don’t need to take my word for anything, though, just observe. Once the blinkers are removed, what is happening, and why, will become abundantly clear.
We seem to be getting muddled up.
Tom Smith said “The powers that be are determined that the British people do not react to the Islamisation of our country in any way. So far they have been very successful in achieving their goal, …”
I said “The question is why? I do not believe that the British Establishment actually desire to live in an Islamic Caliphate.”
You replied “Why? Oh dear, you are a naive old thing. Clue: it has nothing to do with the ‘British’ establishment – they are the controlled, not the controllers.”
Now you say “The aim is not to create an Islamic caliphate”.
Do you see the non-sequitur?
So let me go back to square one, in the hope of getting an intelligent response this time; – WHY are the ‘powers-that-be’ promoting the Islamification of our country?
Yes we are, or rather I am. Looking back I see that I took your reply to Tom Smith as a reply to my comment below his, and things got a bit cross-purposed after that.
However, I do believe that I have given you the answer to your question – although, as I said, I don’t want to spell it out in fine detail. The Islamification thing is not entirely the point. The purpose was/is to flood this country with immigrants, replace the original population and create a melange of incompatible people who deeply dislike each other. I think it just happens that the Muslims have presented themselves as the most likely to bring that about and are, therefore, the ones being promoted. In the US it’s the Latinos, and in Australia and New Zealand there is an increasing number of people from South-East Asia. No doubt Martians would fit the bill if they exist and could get here in sufficient numbers.
What the PTB fear most is a homogeneous nation likely to think and act in concert against their plans, and that is what they have set out to destroy. Why even the four nations of these small islands are now at each other’s throats, and that certainly didn’t come about by accident. Giving them all assemblies and parliaments, while denying the same to the English, was a very cunning move which has worked very well for them.
I agree with your general sentiment, and I can see why the Establishment would want to promote the abolition of national boundaries and flood this country with disparate cultures. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is why they would promote the Islamic takeover of the country. Instead of weakening the plebs, that will strengthen them (when they are united behind Allah I mean). The politicians will certainly not be able to control murderous Muslims as easily as they can control meek and mild Christians (or atheists). The other thing I don’t understand is why you refuse to ‘spell out in fine detail’ what you actually mean. I am not very good at reading between the lines. Words of one syllable are less open to mis-interpretation. So I’m still in the dark I’m afraid.
Well I can see what you mean about what appears to be a flaw in the plan, but the destruction of white nations and people is the number one target. Once that is achieved a little tweaking here and there will probably sort out the other problems. Despite all the things that Ilana says above, the takeover will not be that simple. There will be a great deal of bloodshed and attrition on both sides before it finally happens, and the side comes out of it successfully will be very much weakened and easy to control by those who have sat the whole thing out on top of the ant hill. The politicians will be irrelevant, they are merely bought-and-paid-for tools used to facilitate the process, and will be discarded like dirty dishcloths once they have served their purpose.
No, the real controllers will probably be nowhere near the scene of the crime, the ‘murderous Muslims’ will be no threat to them in their ‘armed to the teeth’ bunkers. After all, Israel (oops!) is surrounded by ‘murderous Muslims’ but manages to survive very well.
Why won’t I spell things out in fine detail? Well, Hugo old chap, I’d be happy to give you chapter and verse if we ever had a drink together in a quiet pub somewhere, but certainly not here. It’s all very well putting your head above the parapet, but I think I’d rather keep mine a wee bit longer and get through the next battle or two.
I still don’t get all the cloak & dagger stuff. I will say that it is frustrating to have someone pussy-foot around, saying they have some important knowledge to divulge but they are not going to divulge it. Let me tiptoe around the issue a bit myself – what do you think would happen to you if you actually spoke your mind in this forum? There aren’t any axe-murderers on here, are there?
You say the takeover will not be that simple. In my view it has already happened. Unless something radical happens very soon, this country will become an Islamic state within a very few decades. I am not saying this is something that might happen, possibly, perhaps. I am saying that it WILL happen, unless things change drastically and quickly. This is not scaremongering, it is simple mathematics. Just look at the respective birth rates and, as they say in the States, do the math.
Of course Israel survives; first they acknowledge what they are up against, and second they take appropriate measures to deal with it. We do neither.
I think I’ve said as much as I want to say in this thread, except to give this link to an update on the Britain First case to those who are interested.
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1097892473689346/
Well not quite, but you’re on the right lines.
Gentlemen, Ilana Mercer said a lot more about truths and consequences than is currently being discussed here right now. She deserves a better debate.
She took the trouble to entitle the piece truthfully and brilliantly. The West is quickly becoming emasculated – just look around you! Usually, in the past, when that has happened the female population have flocked toward the the strong… the victorious. Although to be fair, it wasn’t always the biological choice. I’m sure that all too often they’d have little choice.
Ilana asserts that the time’s coming when our own women conspire to plant or see planted daggers in our kidneys. Hardly likely some might say but looking back through past civilisations, I’d say she’s correct in stating this – I agree with her, our own females will no doubt one day want stronger, quicker and certainly more shrewd stallions standing at stud.
But could that really happen – what do you think?
One of the problems with any discussion about these issues here on this blog is that it is the policy of the Libertarian Alliance that one of the major factors in Western decline is not to be mentioned. We should of course respect this policy, as the Libertarian Alliance own this website and we are only here by their good graces, but this does mean we are limited in what we can say here.
I come at this from a different direction than most so-called ‘nationalists’. Let me be blunt.
I think the starting point has to be an end to this implicit chivalrous tendency among white men and the worship of white women. Women should be respected, but not worshipped. An example of the worshipful tendency is the matter of ‘Rotherham’. Most of the so-called ‘victims’ in the Rotherham matter were not victims at all. They were just sluts. Women – including young women of sexual maturity – have agency and responsibility. And insistence on this is the first step towards Western civilisational revival, and even if it is a painful or taboo thing to acknowledge, men must start demanding that woman take responsibility for their actions, including for situations where they find themselves ‘groomed’ or ‘rape’.
White women have contributed greatly to the problems facing the West and do not deserve to be defended or put on a pedestal. I, for one, owe no obligation to any white woman anywhere, and I will not defend them. Give up my seat on a bus or train for a woman? Yes. Open a door for a woman? Yes. Usher the women and children to the lifeboats on a sinking ship? Yes. Rescue a woman from a burning house? Yes. Women are scum, but they are deserving of special consideration in everyday transactions and immediate emergencies. There are sound biological reasons for this, which I acknowledge and will enforce.
But my obligations do not go beyond that.
The author, being a woman, seems to think that the responsibility here rests on white men. No it doesn’t. It rests with everybody. To put this on men alone, which is what the author does in so many words without exactly spelling it out, is to a typical female thing to do. The author is showing us the true colours of her sex.
If the White Race is to be saved, this must change. No more candy-coated treatment of white women.
Hey sister – take some responsibility for your actions!
[…] [62]Ilana Mercer, “Emasculated West Primed For a Muscular, Muslim Takeover,” The Ludwig Von Mises Centre, Mises Institute, published 02 August 2016, https://misesuk.org/2016/08/02/emasculated-west-primed-for-a-muscular-muslim-takeover/. […]
[…] “moderate Islamists” don’t matter, which is quite Islamophobic. Her Islamophobia has resurfaced in her books and articles, with her calling burqas, “nose bags”. Furthermore, she was slated to speak alongside the likes […]
[…] “moderate Islamists” don’t matter, which is quite Islamophobic. Her Islamophobia has resurfaced in her books and articles, calling burqas, “nose bags”. Furthermore, she was slated to speak alongside the likes of […]