Category Archives: Morality

UPDATE II (6/19): Republicans STILL Stupidly Stoic After Attempted Murder By Left

Conservatism, Democrats, Donald Trump, GUNS, Morality

Congressmen and their staff were shot at “as they were practicing for tomorrow’s annual charity baseball game. Congressman Steve Scalise, a member of House leadership, was shot and badly wounded.” Which prompted President Trump to go into Democrat-appeasing moral relativism mode. Hear Trump:

We may have our differences, but we do well, in times like these, to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country.
We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans, that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace, and that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.
Please take a moment today to cherish those you love, and always remember those who serve and keep us safe. God bless them all, God bless you, and God Bless America.

Or was this Ivanka the president was channeling? Moral clarity was needed. But any moral clarity displayed by the president during the campaign has evaporated, in favor of obsequious pandering. Not to mention breaking of promises: Libertarian Gabb Sean says that “Ever since Trumps was elected, it’s been a matter of what promises he’ll break this week.”

All in all, Democrats are running rings round Trump. If he doesn’t act, Democrats will take the House and Trump will be impeached.

On TV, Conservatives ponderously warned about the perils of “political violence,” all as their ranks are shot at and their spokespersons prevented from speaking. An alt-leftist tries to kill Republicans and this signals to the “stupid party” (M. Stanton Evans’ coinage for Republicans) that it’s time to suck-up to the “evil party” (Democrats). As we speak, the Antifa sick fucks have even stabbed a police horse.

After the Alexandria shooting, politicians consider armed security for THEMSELVES, but not a Wall or a Muslim moratorium for The People.

Bernie Sanders, Huffington Post and other alt-leftist outfits and detritus deny that violence is in their blood; that their brethren encouraged violence. Just the other day did Bernie Sanders roar in his sub-intelligent, foreboding manner that Christian doctrine has to be made to accept that the faithful can be saved through Mohammad, Jehovah, Buddha, etc. Force Christianity to be more inclusive?

Did you know that “more than 12,000 tweets have called for Trump’s assassination since the inauguration”?

The operative word in the Left’s worldview is “force.”

UPDATE I (6/17/017):

Stupid and evil combine forces; Republicans are desperate to retain membership in the DC “smart” set.

Republicans reach out to Democrats in unity after their pals were almost killed. When’s the Republican apology tour?

UPDATE II (6/19/017): Republicans continue to collaborate in the “Problem Solvers Caucus,” following the ATTEMPTED MURDER OF REPUBLICANS, last weeks. Well of course.

What stupid, stupid losers.

Fear not, founders Republican Tom Reed (NY-23) and Democrat Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5). You’ll be invited to all the good parties; you’ll get book deals (to write sub-intelligent drivel about so-called non-partisanship); and you’ll be interviewed by press popinjays.

The Inevitability And Irreversibility Of Government-Sponsored Health Care

Christianity, Conservatism, Healthcare, Morality, Political Economy, Socialism, The State, Welfare

Unz Review columnist Dr. Boyd D. Cathey muses about another government power-grab called Trump Care. Naturally, he hopes it’ll be slightly better than the one to precede it. Dr. Cathey hearkens back to a different, inegalitarian time when the principle of noblesse oblige drove the faithful and the wealthy to take care of the needy. With the triumph of 19th century liberalism and the fanaticism of progress, the quest to level society saw the Church robbed of its lands and traditional role. Conditions soon arose that predisposed the downtrodden to Socialism, Communism and the modern welfare state.

Long, sad story; the end of history, but in a bad way.

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey:

“A large portion of ‘news talk’ yesterday and this morning has been about the repeal of Obamacare and its replacement by a Republican-sponsored medical program. The one thing that is crystal clear is this: whenever a new entitlement is enacted by Congress, whatever it may be, it is almost impossible to completely undo or repeal it.”

“If we consider, beginning at least a century and a half ago, the history of legislative initiatives—and not just in what is called euphemistically ‘welfare,’ but also in such areas as ‘voting rights’ and, generally, ‘civil rights’—passage of legislation, even if stoutly opposed and unpopular at the beginning, usually stands. I can think of only one major piece of social or political legislation, actually an amendment to the Constitution—the 18th Amendment, or “Prohibition Amendment”—that was ever repealed.”

“So, it should not surprise us that the Republican majority, especially in the Senate, will probably end up tinkering with rather than completely undoing the massive power grab by the Federal government known as Obamacare. Even in the House of Representatives many ‘moderate’ and establishment GOP solons fear an active backlash from frenzied Leftist demonstrators and, even more, negative characterizations and attacks by the Mainstream Media [MSM].”

“We shall be fortunate, in these circumstances, to get a modified bill out of the House, and who knows what the pusillanimous scaredy-cats in the Senate will do.”

“Right now, to listen to various pundits, it is the pre-existing conditions question that appears to be the sticking point. That is a central feature of Obamacare: that those already sick and already with an illness would be covered by healthy participants. But then, as anyone can see, this is not insurance we are talking about, but, rather, just another form of taxing the healthy to pay for the sick.

“The present Republican plan appears to separate those two groups of people, sets up a separate special fund for the pre-existing ill, with the hope that then the healthy folks remaining in the program can get much cheaper rates. State waiver permission would be given for those states that wish to operate the program differently.”

“It remains to be seen whether this approach will get through the layers of lobbyists influencing Congress and the abject fear that too many Republicans have of the MSM.” …

“… In any case, government-sponsored health care in one form or another is probably here to stay. And therein lies a long history of modern society that affects us all every day. …”

“IN CENTURIES PAST, it was institutions like the Church or local familial communities (especially here in the US) who were responsible for caring for the sick. My friend, the late Spanish scholar Rafael Gambra once prepared an extensive study of the Spanish Pyrenees commune of Roncal. For nearly 1000 years Roncal was almost a self-contained and self-governing entity, owing allegiance to the Kings of Navarra, but administering most of its local services by itself. The Church possessed about a third of the land, the municipality owned about one-third, and the rest was in private hands. Those families without a freehold had the right to graze their stock on both Church and municipal land. The Church, as part of its mission, maintained a kind of primitive medical facility, with both religious sisters and doctors who looked after the inhabitants. Payment was most often in goods, and, for the poor, the Church did not charge. That system was destroyed by the triumph of 19th century liberalism (in 1839) that expropriated all Church lands and municipal lands, then selling them to Madrileno capitalists. The result was that thousands of the poor, who had once had a stake in places like Roncal, were displaced and forced to migrate to industrial cities like Barcelona, where they found harsh impersonal jobs in factories at dirt level wages. And from that condition arose the eventual appeals of Socialism and Communism—and the modern welfare state–to the downtrodden.”

ObamaCare Lite:

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

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

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

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

On the Facebook thread, our reader made this point:

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

My reply:

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

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

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

UPDATED: FACEBOOK THREAD:

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

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

Is GOP Base Celebrating A Victory For The Team, Or A Blow To Ideas That Got Trump Nominated?

Donald Trump, Elections, Foreign Policy, Morality, Republicans

Everyone is agreed. VP candidate Mike Pence won the debate at Longwood University on October 4, 2016 in Farmville, Virginia. But what exactly is the GOP base celebrating about this somewhat pyrrhic victory over the very silly Tim Kaine? Since his victory, Pence has been mouthing non-stop about foreign policy positions in opposition to those of Donald Trump. America will take her lead in the world again, Pence keeps on repeating. We need to be in Syria, in Russia’s face, blah, blah. As I predicted, not a word about the theme of the Trump campaign: America First!

So what’s the GOP base celebrating? A victory for the team? Or a blow to the ideas that got Trump the nomination?

RELATED:
“How Pence upstaged Kaine … and his boss, too.”
“2016 VP Debate: Prepare To Be Bored, Uninspired & Pelted By Political Correctness.”