Category Archives: Paleoconservatism

NEW COLUMN: Wage Walls, Not Wars

Abortion, Addiction, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West, War, War on Drugs

NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” This “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism is now on WND and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well.  Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you.  If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism? …

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” The interview is now on WND and the Unz Review. It was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018.

 

INTERVIEW: ‘Writer Ilana Mercer Takes On The Cato Institute’s ‘Left-Libertarianism’

Culture, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West

INTERVIEW: Big League Politics interviewed me on my paleolibertarianism under the headline: “Writer Ilana Mercer Takes On The Cato Institute’s ‘Left-Libertarianism.’” I didn’t think I took CATO on, but was just pointing out sharp distinctions, in reply to correspondent Seth Segal’s sharp questions. But OK. <g>

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. It’s concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. Libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarianism and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular. And this is my take. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. So, some will disagree. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. …

… Read the rest. “Writer Ilana Mercer Takes On The Cato Institute’s ‘Left-Libertarianism’” is on Big League Politics.

Now, Can America Have A Nation-State Bill Like Israel’s? Neocons Will Be 1st To Say ‘No’

Conservatism, Israel, Law, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism

Among the planks of [Israel’s controversial Nation-State] legislation:

‘Hatikva’ is Israel’s national anthem. Hebrew is its official language. Jerusalem, ‘complete and united,’ is its capital. The flag and menorah its official symbols. The Sabbath its day of rest (with non-Jews having their own days of rest). Israel is open to Jewish immigration. Above all, ‘The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’

The likes of Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D’Souza will be first to object to the US having a Nation-State Bill Like Israel’s, likely on the ground that America is somehow not like Israel.

They’ll come up with some creative cuckservative excuses, in flowery prose, for why the US has to embrace a  move toward a majority-minority “nation” united by NOTHING.

That’s how you tell—how you differentiate—an Israel Firster neocon from an authentic conservative, aka a paleoconservative or paleoliberarian.

The Tucker Carlson Show Is Meaningless Without Mr. Carlson In The Anchor’s Chair

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Media, Paleoconservatism, War

Face the facts: “Tucker” is unwatchable without Tucker Carlson, who is the only paleoconservative on Fox News. By that I mean that Tucker questions all America’s recreational wars and has a strong anti-neoconservative sensibility. He also doubts the US’s current immigration intake, legal and illegal, as is he inclined to be ethical about animals and the environment. Most Republicans have the crass, Yankee killer instinct toward the natural world.

Mostly, Tucker is more intellectually curious than any of the other showboats on Fox News. He listens to guests who’ve got something to impart.

On the other hand, did Alan Dershowitz get a chance to teach Hannity’s audience about the law, vis-a-vis the Mueller Special Counsel? Never. He can’t get a word in. Not with Sean Hannity in the anchor’s chair. Ditto the unedifying Laura Ingraham. She talks over her guests non-stop.

Nothing to learn from these noise-makers. Other than Tucker, each is an ego in an anchor’s chair.

When does Tucker get back from vacation?