Category Archives: Ethics

WATCH: It’s Biblical, Zelensky: The Little Guy Must Deal With Reality; Not Bolster Hero Bona Fides

America, Argument, Ethics, EU, Foreign Policy, Morality, Natural Law

I never though I’d say this, but, if one is wedded to reality as I am—there is a place for Benthamite utilitarianism, however much natural-rights sorts like me dislike Jeremy Bentham’s reasoning.

AT ANY RATE, A LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE YOUTUBE VIDEO I RECORDED TODAY elicited this rather utilitarian reaction from me. (I lost the letter in the posting-and-replying activity, so perhaps the viewer and writer, a critic, will be kind enough to repost it here at YouTube.)

Having covered and commented on this crisis since 2014, I will repeat the plain reality the commentary was supposed to convey and elucidate:

Ukraine is the little guy. As those Biblical examples offered were meant to vividly illustrate; the Little Weak Guy must deal with reality; not bolster his hero bona fides. For Volodymyr Zelensky, dealing with reality and discharging his duties as a leader ought to have meant engaging with Putin personally and respectfully long before the invasion.

HE CATEGORICALLY DID NOT. Instead, he played footsie with fickle America and kept baiting the Russian Bear. Now his people suffer. That’s a FAIL. The End.

WATCH THE VIDEO & SUBSCRIBE:

It’s Biblical, Zelensky: A Leader Who Fails To Negotiate For The Lives Of His People Has Failed

Columns on Ukraine:

https://www.ilanamercer.com/2022/03/true-story-russia-finds-wmd-ukraine/
https://www.ilanamercer.com/2022/03/uncle-sam-still-king-invaders-ukraine-realpolitik-wests-failure/
https://www.ilanamercer.com/2022/01/neocons-neolibs-nato-inch-us-closer-nuclear-war-russia/
https://www.ilanamercer.com/2014/02/presstitute-cultivated-ignorance-on-ukraine/

Please Subscribe to the “Hard Truth” Video Podcast, where Ukraine has been covered (and which I enjoy much more than “speaking solo to the camera“):

https://rumble.com/c/HardTruthPodcast
https://rumble.com/vx058f-true-story-russia-finds-wmd-in-ukraine.html
https://rumble.com/vw897h-russia-to-us-on-ukraine-pot.-kettle.-black..html
https://rumble.com/vtea18-neocons-neolibs-and-nato-inch-us-closer-to-nuclear-war-with-russia.html

Peace to all—especially to the poor Ukrainians, failed by the US and by their US-co-opted leaders.

Familiar Words, Familiar ‘Ethics’

America, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism

On January 29, 2022, I wrote:

US State craft is driven, first, by the arrogance of power and delusions of ideological superiority, as well as by self-serving elite concerns. The US ruling interests to prevail are those of “The Blob” (the permanent foreign policy establishment), military-industrial-complex, a media also engaged in expedient myth-making, not news reporting, crooked corporate elites, and a sanctions-giddy US Congress, in which there are currently no pro-détente thinkers (nor thinkers, for that matter).—ILANA MERCER,”Neocons, Neolibs And NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia,” January 29, 2022

On Feb 16, 2022, Richard Hanania, some young chap, wrote:

“American foreign policy is driven by a need for conflict for reasons of both ideology and the self-interest of the foreign policy establishment.”—Richard Hanania, Feb 16, 2022

RELATED:

The Moral Writer’s First Commandment: Cite Your Sources!

More about American ethics and what followed my first submission to an American libertarian magazine.

NEW COLUMN: Neocons, Neolibs And NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia

Barack Obama, Bush, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Military, Nationalism, Neoconservatism

NEW COLUMN is “Neocons, Neolibs And NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia.” It is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, The New American, and Townhall.com.

An excerpt:

… Although Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, who understood and feared nuclear weapons, thought they had ended the frightful Cold War, by the early 1990s, Bill Clinton had ignited it. It all began … with President Clinton expanding NATO and bombing a Russian ally, Serbia. Although Bush Sr. had cast Russia as a defeated power beholden to America; Clinton amplified this characterization. Russia to these leaders had become a “vassal state.” Bush II, for his part, had flooded Russia with waves of “Democracy promoting” agitators. In a word, it is the US that has meddled in Russia in an attempt to make it over in its image.

So, why is the new cold war so much more dangerous? As Stephen Cohen had explained in his voluminous work on the topic, we have been raised without nuclear war awareness. In swallowing up countries and pitting them up against Russia, NATO, moreover, has been has moved the epicenter of any putative conflict to Russian borders. Whereas proxy wars used to take pace in Africa (Angola, for instance); now these are ongoing closer to Russia—in Syria, Georgia and Ukraine, increasing the likelihood of conflict.

After the Cuban missile crisis, cooperation ensued, as the crisis awoke both sides to the dangers of a war to end all wars. Since then, however, nearly all cooperation with Russia has stopped. Talks have stalled, treaties have not been revived as they ought to have—although President Joe Biden’s administration must be commended for renewing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the US and Russia, lapsed under Trump. And both sides are developing “usable nuclear weapons,” which is Orwellian speak for working to make nuclear war more user-friendly, as though that were morally acceptable or practically possible.

Scurrilous catalysts of a Cold War redux are the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Department and the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, all proven to be malign, politicized forces in recent conflicts and wars, engaged in expedient myth-making. They cooked up the Russiagate libel, and actively crafted the “myth propagated by elements of the US intelligence community that Putin is attempting to subvert American democracy.”  “The reverence with which some liberals greet pronouncements made by today’s intelligence chiefs is in sharp contrast to their past critiques of the malevolence and misinformation spread by” the intelligence community, notes Irish historian Geoffrey Roberts.

A read through the fevered briefs produced by America’s once-venerable intelligence agencies reveals that these are artsy concoctions scribbled by girls like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, whose personal correspondence is a portmanteau of hysteria and hate: “F–k the cheating motherf—ing Russians. Bastards. I hate them.”

A not-so-silent Greek chorus are America’s media, ever tuned-out, turned-on and hot for war. Having shed all fidelity to fact and truth, media, the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, inch Russia and America ever closer to conflict by constantly lying about and libeling Russia. Rumors for which no evidence can possibly be adduced are regularly recounted as facts in newsrooms that now function as rumor mills. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN is “Neocons, Neolibs And NATO Inch Us Closer To Nuclear War With Russia.” It is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, The New American, and Townhall.com.

 

 

 

UPDATE II (6/19/022): On Being A Man. A Brave Man

Culture, Ethics, Gender, Morality, Relationships, The State

It suddenly struck me, as I was compiling old column material for a recap of Julian Assange’s travails, that most men are cowards. (The “man” noun here is used in the traditional, generic sense, as in mankind. As a woman, I am part of mankind.)  Perhaps I ought to use the word menschit means “a person of integrity and honor”—and ask: How many men have the courage and character to step up and honor the highest principles or the best of humanity when they encounter these? Too few.

Most live defensively or ignorantly, betraying the good for the bad or the mediocre, and justifying their ennui. That’s why men like Assange are impressive and important and true. They show us the principled way, at least in the political realm.

While most men live in-thrall to miserable entities or manipulative people and the bonds these impose; Assange has shown us the right way to live within our own orbits; dangerously, if you must, never on your knees; bravely seeking that which is the best and the finest, in principles and people. The finest is not the most perfect. Thus patience and tolerance, even love, is required, not rigidity and rejection in search of perfection.

Julian Assange, no doubt, was just cocky and young when he launched WikiLeaks—so confident in the liberal, tolerant polities that gave rise to his libertarian sensibility. Suddenly he found himself being martyred in a cause he thought he would simply win. Was he not sired in the Free World, a son of freedom?

That “Free World,” alas, has placed Assange in a position of giving his life in the cause of exposing global state and corporate corruption and the collusion betwixt. He should be thanked for his service, for Assange did not enlist to do The State’s bidding in futile, wicked wars in faraway lands, or in the corridors of power. Rather, he went-up against the Administrative, Warfare, Surveillance Supra-State and for The People.

An honest man asked on Twitter how to become courageous. I am hardly an authority. I try my best, in writing and in person—having never betrayed my first principles for popularity or pelf.

I have, however, known people who never step up, who live mired in cowardice, wasting their considerable mentation and manhood in a state of fear, and in the quest for equilibrium. Or, gulling themselves into believing that when they slavishly serve the unworthy, at the expense of the worthy and to the exclusion of higher quests; they are being principled—and ever-so good. Ignominy is theirs, brought on by fear and cowardice.

My humble reply, then, to the honest man aforementioned: “Within our orbits we can all try to stand up for the principles and people that are true and need our energies most. (And if you think that these people live in think tanks and political parties; appear on Fox News, work for Prager U, or have the material wherewithal to hold a conference—you are a follower; there is no hope for you.)

Oh, and brave men can FIGHT. But a man who picks fights—and feuds—with friends is never brave.

UPDATE II (6/19/022): “Man” is generic in conventional grammar. These insights apply, naturally, to women as well.

* Image credit