Category Archives: America

On Iran, Israelis Disagree With America’s Neocon Crazies

America, Iran, Israel, Neoconservatism, War

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can” (March 26, 2003).

Fully forty four percent of a militarized and manipulated American population “stated they would support bombing Iran’s nuclear installations. A total of 70% also supported increasing economic sanctions.” To Israel’s great credit, Israeli popular opinion differs from that of Americans when it comes to a strike against the Islamic Republican of Iran. Via Brookings:

…a new poll shows, even though they are not fearful of Washington’s retribution if they go against U.S. advice. [Israelis] appear less influenced by the rhetoric of U.S. politicians competing for their embrace, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the Obama administration’s reluctance to support a military strike against Iran has apparently not affected their preference for Obama as the next president. In fact, their views seem to partly reflect the White House’s assessment of the consequences of war and the problems created by military action.
Only 19 percent of Israelis polled expressed support for an attack without U.S. backing, according to a poll I conducted — fielded by Israel’s Dahaf Institute Feb. 22-26 — while 42 percent endorsed a strike only if there is at least U.S. support, and 32 percent opposed an attack regardless.

UPDATED: Russians Voted; The West Objects (The Two-Party Fraud)

America, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Republicans, Russia, The West, UN

Russians voted. International monitors approved the rambunctious process as the fairest so far. Having failed in egging on a “successful,” “color-coded or plant-based revolution” in Russia, the know-it-all, monolithic media of the West have expressed the standard contempt about Vladimir Putin’s overwhelming majority, calling the victory a “stolen election.” Way to go.

Russians, a naturally nationalistic people, like the hardcore Putin, and do not apprecaite the NATO attempt to “demote it, weaken it geopolitically or undermine its defensive potential.”

UPDATE: THE TWO-PARTY FRAUD. In “The Cannibal In Chronicles” post, I recommended Tom Fleming’s “Daily Mail Blog” (which I cannot link to directly because of some code in the “British” link that throws IlanaMercer/com’s home page). About the West vs. Russia, Fleming writes this:

Everyone knew that Putin was going to win, and even anti-Putin pollsters admitted he would get at least 60% of the vote, which would be a landslide in an American election. But, cry the pundits, Putin has the support of the peasantry. The smart people in the cities who can watch the BBC and read the New York Times–the people who really count in any country–they are holding spontaneous anti-Putin demonstrations. Pro-Putin demonstrators are either state employees doing a job or mere yokels. In other words, Russia=the USA, where only rubes and crazies would support Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.
The pundits, long in advance, were also predicting corruption and irregularities, as they always do whenever the the US regime disapproves of election results. The fall-back position is that Putin and his cronies rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. …
merican elections have never been clean. Nevertheless, the sauce for the Russian goose cannot be ladled on the American gander. This is especially clear in the case of the charge that Putin’s party rigged the election in advance by restricting the pool of candidates. Here in America, we call this manoeuvre the primary system.
In our two-party party state, ballot access for third party candidates is very restricted. After all, only Democrats and Republicans were involved in writing federal and state election laws. There is no mention political parties in the Constitution, and while two political coalitions emerged very early–the faction of Hamilton versus the faction of Jefferson–they did not function as political parties in the later sense. There were no chairmen, party lines, or caucuses to enforce discipline on independent-minded members of Congress or state legislatures.

Read on by clicking “Tom Fleming Daily Mail Blog” on Barely a Blog’s Blogroll.

UPDATED: Philosopher Jack Kerwick On the Compelling & Conflicted Cannibal (At Last, An Analytical Review Of My Book)

America, Classical Liberalism, Democracy, Ilana Mercer, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Reason, South-Africa

This dazzling review of my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is a credit more to the mind (and moral clarity) of the reviewer than the book under review. In his New-American review, Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. (more about him below), zeroes in with unusual perspicacity on the palpable tensions in the book, without losing sight of the effort as a whole. All in all, he thinks I cleared the hurdle:

Ilana Mercer’s, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is an unusual book. Yet it is unusual in the best sense of the word.

At once autobiographical and political; philosophical, historical, and practical; controversial and commonsensical, Cannibal succeeds in weaving into a seamless whole a number of distinct modes of thought. This is no mean feat. In fact, its author richly deserves to be congratulated for scoring an achievement of the highest order, for in the hands of less adept thinkers, this ensemble of voices would have fast degenerated into a cacophony. By the grace of Mercer’s pen, in stark contrast, it is transformed into a symphony. …

… Burke had famously said that the only thing that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Though Mercer is not a man, sadly, she is in much greater supply of that “manly virtue” that Burke prized than are many — even most — male writers today. Burke unabashedly identified the wickedness of the French Revolutionaries for what it was. Similarly, Mercer courageously, indignantly, exposes the evil that is the African National Congress and its collaborators. In fact, her book may perhaps have been more aptly entitled, Reflections on the Revolution in South Africa. …

…It is tragic that Ilana Mercer was all but compelled to leave the country that for much of her life was her home. Yet South Africa’s loss is America’s gain. As her work makes obvious for all with eyes to see, the richness of Mercer’s intellect is as impressive as the soundness of her character.

THE COMPLETE REVIEW is at The New American.

“Jack Kerwick graduated with a BA in religious studies and philosophy from Wingate University in Wingate, NC in 1998. He received his MA in philosophy from Baylor University in Waco, Tx., the following year, and in 2007, he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University. Kerwick specializes in ethics and political philosophy. His doctoral dissertation, ‘Toward a Conservative Liberalism,’ was a defense of the classical conservative tradition, a tradition of thought usually and widely perceived to have been fathered by Edmund Burke. Kerwick drew from Burke for inspiration, but also from David Hume and, perhaps most importantly, the twentieth century British philosopher Michael Oakeshott.” (Source: About.com)

Jack’s blogs is At the Intersection of Faith and Culture at Beliefnet.

Discovering Jack’s work (and friendship) has been a blessing. Unfortunately, Gulliver is surrounded by
pygmies.

UPDATE (March 2): AT LAST, AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW. After reading Dr. Kerwick’s review of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, which has since been published at “American Daily Herald: veritas, libertas, pax et prosperitas, as well as at “The Moral Liberal,” a new fan of Jack’s writing wrote this:

“Upon looking at some of your book’s other reviews, I couldn’t help but think that while some of what has been written is true, the forest was missed for the trees, so to speak.”

Indeed, most reviews of the book are contents-driven, strictly descriptive reviews of what is, flaws and all, essentially an analytical text. Odd that.

As Peter Brimelow noted in his exquisitely sensitive Foreword to “Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture,” “… Yet, somewhat to my surprise, it is actually quite rare for this most emotionally intense of columnists to draw on such personal experiences. What seems to motivate Ilana, ultimately, is ideas.”

UPDATED: More Reasons to Secede From The Pundit Pantheons of Fox, MSNBC and CNN

America, Israel, Journalism, Media, Pseudo-intellectualism, Russia

Guests who’ve been invited onto the typical American vanity-TV news show must invariably kiss the ring of the ego in the anchor’s chair. The grateful guest will typically offer up platitudes such as, “Only you do so and so,” “Your shows is the only show that, blah, blah,” and, “If not for you, blah, blah.” It seems to be expected—and is a good practice if a commentator seeks membership in the pundit pantheons of Fox, MSNBC and CNN.

Today, in furtherance of freedom (NOT), Freedom Watch featured the “liberventionists” Neal Boortz, who is a “a statist, not a libertarian.” Anything Boortz supports is usually an indication to the contrary. Boortz is also Sean Hannity’s favorite libertarian, a credibility that seems to stand him in good stead with Fox News’ libertarian producers.

So does Stephen Moore of the “War Street Journal” carry the Hannity stamp of approval. He too appeared in furtherance of freedom on Freedom Watch today. No wonder Moore, like Boortz, is Hannity’s in-house freedom fighter. One of Moore’s books was “Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer.” But that’s no indictment among America’s incestuous teletwits. (“Bush’s bailout society” was an instantiation of the principles upon which “Bush’s ownership society” was founded: credit for those who are not creditworthy.)

To continue the theme of “Closing The Door On Closed, Cloistered American Media,” contra American media, RT draws on a large sample of opinion for its commentary; Left, Right, libertarian; orthodox and unorthodox. It seems to achieve this by avoiding the anointing that goes on in American TV studios, where pundits are picked from among powerful, well-funded, mainstream think tanks, editorial newsrooms, Internet sites, or presidential, congressional and other government staff. The TV tarts who flock to DC or New York to hang around the major studios, and in the fullness of time inflict their insufferable stupidity on us—they have agents, no less (or Fortune 500 fathers, or both).

By embracing Skype, RT also reaches out to different, interesting individuals whose mission is not to make their home close to a major TV studio with the hope of being “discovered” by the dumbos on Fox, MSNBC or CNN.

UPDATE (Feb. 8): Sure, Myron; RT has plenty blind spots. The American moron media, by contrast, is one big, banal, unquestioning blind spot, chockablock with unrealistic rah-rah for America.

When last did you hear an interesting, original thought on MSM America? And American journalism has become mostly bad. Take, for example, the segment on Fox Business about the H1-B tiff with Obama. Not a word did the ego in the anchor’s chair devote to the debate (pro and con) surrounding the Visa. All he wanted to extract from his guest was that the Obama exchange on Google Plus was staged. That’s not journalism. It’s a partisan perversion thereof. Repulsive.

And, Myron, do follow some of the links provided, and you’ll see that RT gives voice to some fascinatingly bright Israelis (some generals) with whom you and I would not always agree. But, wow, are they brilliant, original and well-informed in their approach to the disputes and wars in which they have fought so valiantly. Click around RT’s Israel coverage, Myron, and you’ll see that, while it is much like CNN in its pro-Palestinian bent, RT showcases some magnificent Israelis who do Jews proud.

RT journos are intellectually curious—as you naturally are—as opposed their dim counterparts (can you say Dana Perrino?) in the American media.