Category Archives: Classical Liberalism

UPDATE II: Clueless in South Africa With Mrs. Obama (Apartheid in Black & White)

Africa, Classical Liberalism, Communism, Crime, Democracy, History, Ilana Mercer, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Racism, South-Africa

The following is excerpted from “Clueless in South Africa With Mrs. Obama”:

First Lady Michelle Obama is touring this writer’s birthplace, South Africa. “[Nelson] Mandela’s legacy in the battle for South African democracy,” wrote one rapt reporter, who followed the FLOTUS around Johannesburg, “defines much of Obama’s visit.” It was only natural that “her next stop” would be “the Apartheid Museum, which chronicles the rise and fall of white rule.”

Apartheid was a contemptible caste system. Forgotten, however, in the recriminations over apartheid are the facts as they are documented in my just-released book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

…Had the sainted Mandela ascended to power in the 1960s instead of languishing on Robben Island and in Pollsmoor Prison [Mrs. Obama’s destinations in Cape Town], he would have nationalized the South African economy and banned private enterprise.” That’s what the ANC’s Charter called for in 1955. That’s what South Africa’s black-ruled neighbors to the north did.

…While black Africa and East Europe circled the drain due to communism, South Africa was experiencing an economic explosion, courtesy of the National Party’s relatively conservative economics. An oasis in the African desert, South Africa’s then gold-backed economy grew at an annual rate of six percent during the 1960s. …

More facts the Museum of Apartheid, graced by Mrs. Obama and the first daughters, will not be releasing, but I will, in “Clueless in South Africa With Mrs. Obama.”

AND IN “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

Hard-copies are available both from Amazon and from the Publisher.

Hurry: Publisher is currently offering free shipping, including to our readers in South Africa. To purchase, click on the “Buy From StairwayPress” Button.

Please note that you can purchase the lower-cost Kindle copy of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot,” without having to own a Kindle – all you need is a PC. This hyperlink describes the free Amazon software application for the PC. So you do not require a gadget to read the book on Kindle.

UPDATE I: The online museum Mrs. Obama will not have clicked to visit: Afrikaner Genocide Museum.

My book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa,” is dedicated “To my Afrikaner brothers, betrayed.”

Will those Afrikaners stand up and support this effort on their behalf?

A note to the dessicated western academic who has no idea what living a precarious life is like: I generally don’t like to link to unauthenticated images. However, I document thousands of such grisly murders in my book. They are based on meticulously kept records, the sources for which are cited in the book. So what you see here is what’s in my book, only I appended names to each precious soul that departed in such agony.

UPDATE II (June 25): APARTHEID IN BLACK & WHITE. Derek: My book deals with the complexities of apartheid. Once you read it, your take on this aspect of my analysis would be especially edifying to Amazon review readers. It’s a complex topic and the book addresses this complexity (from the classical liberal perspective). A reader who has an interest in a particular aspect of the topic—in Derek’s case apartheid—is encouraged to read the book with a view to reviewing, on Amazon, how I dealt with a particular aspect of interest.

Don’t send reviews to me; post them to Amazon. Inside chatter does nothing to further debate or understanding.

UPDATED: Monarchy Vs. Mobocracy (“Albion’s Seed”)

Ancient History, Britain, Bush, Celebrity, Classical Liberalism, Democracy, Founding Fathers, History, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, The West

Trashing the British monarchy is an unfortunate, liberal (not in the classical tradition) impulse, prevalent in the US. Never mind that the British monarchy is purely titular. This American instinct mirrors the deracinated nature of American society, epitomized by the neoconservative creed. Strategically, Americans are taught, in state-run schools, that they form part of a propositional nation, united by abstract ideas, rather than by ties to history, heroes, language, literature, traditions.

In truth, America was founded on both. There was the Lockean philosophy of individual rights. But this philosophy, as the American Founders understood, didn’t magically materialize, or come into existence by osmosis. “Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated. Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism.”

The fathers of this nation, moreover, loved the American people; they did not delegitimize their ancestry and history by calling them eternal immigrants. John Jay conceived of Americans as “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and custom.” The very opposite of what their descendants are taught.

To denounce the monarchy, as some libertarians have done, with reference to that 18th Century Che Guevara, Thomas Paine, is radical alright, but it is also nihilistic. Paine sympathized with the Jacobins—the philosophical progenitors of today’s neoconservatives—and he lauded the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious “Revolution in France.”

Pat Buchanan, in one historically rich column, provides an interesting juxtaposition between king and a despot far worse:

“Louis XVI let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw again. When artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king’s ministers why Louis had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have replied, ‘The king of France does not use artillery on his own people.'”

In his seminal book, Democracy: the God that Failed, master of praxeology Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides ample support—historical and analytical—for his thesis which is this: If forced to choose between the mob (democracy) or the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent.

“[I]n light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly,” writes Hoppe.

“From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.”

… democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.

MORE.

[SNIP]

The democratically elected ruler has no real stake in the territory he trashes for the duration of his office. (Besides, Court Historians and assorted hagiographers will re-write history for him.) It was no mere act of symbolism for the Clintons to have trashed the White House on the eve of their departure.

The Queen of England might be a member of the much-maligned landed aristocracy, but she has acquitted herself as a natural aristocrat would—Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. (It was a sad day when she capitulated to the mob and to the cult of the Dodo Diana.) The queen has been working quietly (and apparently thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century. According to Wikipedia, Elizabeth Windsor was 13 when World War II broke out, which is when she gave her first radio broadcast to console the children who had been evacuated. Still in her teens, Elizabeth II joined the military, “where she … trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served.”

It looks as though William, her grandson, has more of a sense of duty (not my kind, but nevertheless a patriotism his countrymen may appreciate) than most members of the pampered American political dynasties. Did any one of the atrocious Bush girls do anything worthwhile over and above preach for daddy’s wars and promote Obama’s healthCare?

But to reiterate, the monarch in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. has far more powers, and uses them far more destructively, than does the monarch across the pond.

UPDATE (May 1): To the ahistoric contention below that American freedoms originate exclusively in … The Netherlands: I guess that the historian David Hackett Fischer, author of Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, got it completely wrong. Ridiculous too is the contention, moreover, made by the letter writer (I never publish untruths about my written opinions) that I was an Anglophile for stating that historic fact. There is a chapter in my forthcoming book titled “The Anglo-America Australian Axis of Evil.” Yes, that’s the writing of an incorrigible Anglophile!

UPDATE III: Libya: My First Liberal War (Bravo Bernie)

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Democracy, Drug War, Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, The State, War, War on Drugs

Obama’s war against Libya is my first liberal war as a resident of the USA; I was living in Canada during the Kosovo campaign (here). Americans may be used to waging war on the world, but this brand of Exceptionalism (here) is a shock to the sane person’s system. Most countries—I’ve lived in a few—do not go to war with the regularity the US does. As it was once noted, here, “a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

To tell you the truth, the overall zeal to attack Iraq (see “Tuned-Out, Turned-On, And Hot For War”) in 2003, was on a par with the enthusiasm currently being expressed for defending the amorphous entity we call “rebels” (whose Egyptian compatriots are now performing hymen inspections on women (here). Back then, with the exception of some, not all, libertarians and lefties, the justifications advanced by the retread liberals known as neoconservatives were wholly embraced. By popular demand, MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times (This means you, Judith Chalabi Miller, now at FoxNews) adopted a similar faux patriotism devoid of skepticism and serenely accepting of every silly White House claim.

As to the casus belli, nothing has changed. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), McMussolini, Newt Gingrich, FoxNews, Juan Williams, and others, all solemnly intone about the massacres that where in process when Obama began strafing Libya. Let us presume that it is the US’s role to stop injustice wherever it occurs and vet the world’s leaders; where’s the evidence of these killing fields? At least when President Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999, also without the formality of the comatose Congress’s approval, there were those disturbing images. Now we hear nothing but assertions and the childish terms: “the dictator” is killing “his people” repeated ad nauseam à la the slobbering over Egypt.

I suspect that the average Libyan has fewer encounters with representatives of the state than the average black man living in New York. (“According to a report in The Times last year, there were a record 580,000 stop-and-frisks in the city in 2009. Most of those stopped (55 percent) were black.” I know, harmless fun when done in a “good” country like ours.)

The American Managerial State is so much more efficient in encroaching on its citizens than are these tin-pot dictators, whom we have built-up into mega-monsters in our infantile, Disneyfied minds. In Libya, some baksheesh is likely to make a bureaucrat disappear. Given the US’s record-breaking incarceration rates, the average American is more likely to be jailed, harassed or have a threatening encounter with the state’s emissaries than your average Egyptian under Mubarak (who chased the Brotherhood, mainly).

Tell me, who killed Carol Anne Gotbaum? (or Baron “Scooter” Pikes?) Gotbaum met her demise not in a Pakistani or Saudi airport, but in Phoenix’s Sky Harbor. There are lots more like her. Let’s worry about our own tyrants.

Naturally, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, the Fox and MSNBC phalanx—all approve of Obama’s paternalistic war in Libya. The rigor mortis Right, in particular, has protested the operation not on points of principle, but on timing, strategy, mission statement and the degree of control exerted by Über America: Obama entered the fray too late, he’s relinquishing the National Greatness agenda by sharing the cockpit with the Europeans, only when the US leads the world in a military operation can any good come of it, blah, blah, blah.

UPDATE I (March 28): STRONGMAN BIDEN. I’m sure it’s a mere coincidence—a statistical anomaly, when it comes to the interface between Americans and their leaders—but in the “good country” (USA), those doing the Vice President’s bidding can lock up a reporter in a closet for hours “after he was invited to cover a Florida political fundraiser because they did not want him talking with the guests.” Onward to fix Libya!

UPDATE II: Democrat Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) adds another point to the limited litany of complaints against BHO’s war: The Great Communicator didn’t convey his (magnificent) message effectively. Repackage the message and all will be well again.

And I was worried for a moment.

No mention of America’s sink hole of a debt.

UPDATE III: BRAVO BERNIE SANDERS. The Democratic senator from Vermont, a man of the far left with whom I seldom agree, puts up an opposition to BHO’s Libya adventure, on the Dylan Ratigan Show: “We have lost thousands of lives in Afghanistan and Iraq [for naught], and trillions of dollars.”

And here’s Bernie’s pivotal point, put in precise language:

“I would hope that the president will tell us [in his address later today] that, if our friends in Europe (France ad Italy), and the UK, feel very strongly about this issue, that they will do what they want to do. But I am not enthusiastic about the US getting into yet another conflict given the other two wars and $ 14 trillion in national debt.” More or less.

Sanders went on to spoil this common sense with his usual eco-energy silliness.

UPDATED: Liberty Vs. Libertinism

Classical Liberalism, Founding Fathers, Hebrew Testament, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Morality, Political Philosophy

Is there a name for the error of viewing history through the prism of contemporary moral standards (or sub-standards)? I had hoped that John Stossel would prod his guest, the progressive historian Thaddeus Russell, with his Socratic method of questioning, to tell us why it is that he, Russell, conflates libertinisim with liberty.

Russel’s banal history-from-below has it that we owe our freedoms less to the Founders’ political philosophy, than to the “saloons and speakeasies, brothels and gambling halls, to antiheroes such as drunken workers who created the weekend; prostitutes who set the precedent for women’s liberation, madams who owned land and used guns, and provided cutting-edge of fashion, … criminals who pioneered racial integration, unassimilated immigrants who gave us birth control, and brazen homosexuals who broke open America’s sexual culture.” (HERE.)

Yes, to listen to this progressive historian, the unions, and not the Hebrews, “created” the Sabbath. Actually, the Founders had quite the affinity for the Hebrew Bible—some of them even spoke Hebrew. (Horrors, that would have required a lot of that Puritanical mindset and discipline Russell bashed as regressive on the Stossel segment—as Hebrew is HARD.) They would not have needed “drunken workers” to teach them about the spiritual and ethical significance of some sort of Sabbath.

Walter Block makes clear in “Libertarianism And Libertinism,” that “as a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, ‘Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?’ Libertarianism doesn’t have a position toward “pimping, prostituting, drugging, and other such degenerate behavior,” writes Block.

What then is the precise relationship between the libertarian, qua libertarian, and the libertine? It is simply this. The libertarian is someone who thinks that the libertine should not be incarcerated. He may bitterly oppose libertinism, he can speak out against it, he can organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of such acts. There is only one thing he cannot do, and still remain a libertarian: He cannot advocate, or participate in, the use of force against these people. Why? Because whatever one thinks of their actions, they do not initiate physical force.

Walter attests that he came to regret his earlier “enthusiasm about the virtues of these callings.” “Marriage, children, the passage of two decades, and not a little reflection,” he writes endearingly, “have dramatically changed my views on some of the troublesome issues addressed in this book. My present view with regard to ‘social and sexual perversions’ is that while none should be prohibited by law, I counsel strongly against engaging in any of them.”

Myself, I’m not so much a social conservative as my friend Prof. Block is. Rather, I believe in the paramountcy of privacy. If “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy,” in Rand’s magnificent words, then sexual exhibitionism – homosexual or heterosexual – is anathema. The heroic and creative inner struggle is what brings out the best in man. My heroes are in the Greek tradition: Silent, stoic, principled yet private. Which means the Founders, and not Russell’s philanderers.

On the Fox Business website, Stossel promised that Russell would tell him “why his beloved founders actually wanted to keep the people docile and timid,” and why “Americans owe really overdue thanks to the libertines – the prostitutes, drunkards, and musicians.” Russel failed to deliver.

It is hardly surprising, or cutting edge history, as Russell would have you believe, that the American Founding Fathers did not favor prostitution, homosexuality, and infidelity. But it is worse than stupid for this progressive historian to cast these men, with their traditional mores, as enemies of progress. It demonstrates why we are losing liberty: Most people don’t even know to what they owe the peace, plenty and prosperity this country was blessed with and now risks losing.

UPDATE (MARCH 12): Robert Glisson, as penance for wasting your money on this progressive’s piss-poor output, you will have to buy a few copies of my new book for handing out (it’s due out on May 10).