Category Archives: Ilana Mercer

Should A Vocal, Veteran Critic Of Islam ‘Conference’ In Turkey?

Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Ilana Mercer, Islam, libertarianism, Liberty, Private Property

First, in order of importance, forgive the verbing of the noun “conference.” Bad form.

Next: Young Keir Martland, of The Libertarian Alliance (my British home, and where you can find my weekly column), describes an exhilarating conference at the Property & Freedom Society, hosted by the fabulous Hans-Hermann Hoppe whom I know and admire, and his wife, Dr. Guelcin Imre Hoppe.

Place: The majestic Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum, Turkey.

In the past, Dr. Hoppe had graciously extended an invitation to me. But let’s be frank. Turkey is not safe for anyone with a long and known record as a vocal critic of the religion of peace—and I here finesse my stance on Islam. Nor have I been a wallflower about the campaign waged by the Turkish government against Kurdish separatists. I don’t see how libertarians can countenance the Turks in this dispute.

It’s true that the US is also unsafe for critics of Islam (read my analysis of the attempt on the life of free-speech Jewish activist Pamela Geller), but Turkey even less so. The last is not a point of debate. “Bad things could happen anywhere, these days” won’t wash to dismiss the illiberal political and religious direction taken by the Turkish State.

In the US, we still have more rights to defend our prime real estate—OURSELVES—than elsewhere in the world (although I’m eyeing Hungary and Poland, which don’t admit refugees). The rest of the world is slowly becoming Dar al-Islam (House of Islam). In other words, it’s being made safe for Islam, but not its critics.

A whimsical, “Oh, plenty Jews attended and were safe at the Property & Freedom Society is also bogus, as none, as far as I know, has beat up on Islam systematically, in writing, for a very long time.

If anything, “Those Cartoons: A Reply To Walter Block,” critiqued attendee Dr. Block for asserting, in 2006, “under the rubric of a libertarian analysis, that libertarians would view [Muhammad-mocking] cartoons as immoral and that ‘from the libertarian perspective, both sets of acts—’drawing [forbidden] pictures of Muhammad’ and offending ‘western sensibilities’—are ‘improper.” I wrote:

… If a radical proponent of freedom such as Dr. Block can dub mild satire immoral, inadvertently tainting innocent, non-aggressive satirists, then it’s imperative to address the substance of the speech being debated, lest innocent polemicists and illustrators be maligned. What is Dr. Block’s premise for asserting these things are immoral? Other than that they offend Muslims, I see none. And to give offense is not always immoral. It is certainly not immoral to lampoon the connection between Muhammad, author of Islam, and the savagery and atavism that grip the Muslim world today. …

Nah. I don’t think Turkey is the place for my opinion, although Dr. Block is safe with his.

Dr. Block’s original article was removed. In a corrected version of “Those Cartoons: A Libertarian Analysis linked here, Walter said he offered some correction to his original apologia. I couldn’t see it (which could be my shortfall).

In any event, my point obtains. As a longtime, public critic of Islam, I would not “conference” in Turkey, not even for Hans Hoppe.

Perhaps I should have titled the post, “The Islam In the Room.”

Turkey:

 

In Which I Show My Inner ‘Illuminati’ To Some Zombie Readers

Anti-Semitism, Etiquette, Gender, Ilana Mercer

About Comments to “Trump’s Not Yet President, But Nieto Is Already Saying, ‘Si Se Puede,’” on The Unz Review:

Read them. Some are pretty disgusting. No matter. I usually ignore them, but sometimes you have to whack a worm or two. No problem. Anti-Semitism, small-man syndrome, and the impulse to belittle me qua woman—this has been part of the territory for as long as I remember. It’s all in a day’s work. (Written in 2006, “How Sexist Are Libertarian Men?” attests to this.)

I appreciate Dr. Ralph Raico’s valiant defense. You won’t get that from most other libertarians.

Ralph Raico says:
September 2, 2016 at 4:26 pm GMT • 200 Words

@Tobo

I, too, am amazed that some readers have inserted Israel into the discussion of Ilana’s excellent article. The next president of the United States will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (if her precarious health doesn’t collapse). If you’re worried about the one-sided American support for the Zionist state, then again Trump is your candidate. No one has been a more slavish excuser and enabler of Israeli misdeeds than Hillary, probably a major cause of the millions pouring into her campaign from Hollywood and Wall Street. But all that is besides the point. The election of Hillary would be a catastrophe for our country. Her appointment of two or three new Supreme Court justices, gutting the First and Second Amendments; her intensification of the surveillance state to a hardly imaginable degree; and, in her arrogance and recklessness, Hillary even risking a nuclear confrontation with Russia and World War III–these are the reasons to hope and pray that the Queen of Chaos never becomes president.

Since The Unz Review Comments are not working, I’ve posted a reply here to Ralph Raico’s comment, in which, among other things, he expresses amazement “that some readers have inserted Israel into the discussion of Ilana’s excellent article.”

Dear Ralph Raico,

Whenever readers at the Unz Review see my name, like zombies tied to a psychiatric chaise longue they blurt out, “Israel, Zionist,” and worse. It’s not their fault. The Jews made them congenitally stupid.

Published by the Illuminati, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” recounts how Trump was “subjected to loud booing when he told a Jewish-Republican crowd he couldn’t be bought. If anything, Trump’s promise to be a ‘neutral guy’ in attempting to broker an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement [had] given ‘hawkish candidates room to pounce,'” during the primaries.

Best regards,
ilana

The Libertarian Book Of TRUMP Doesn’t Depend On Trump Behaving

Donald Trump, Ilana Mercer, Paleolibertarianism

On the other hand, fellow Trumpsters, this writer’s Trump book does not depend on Donald Trump behaving, being the leader his supporters so crave, because “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” doesn’t crave leadership; it asks only that Trump continue to BREAK STUFF that needs breaking—RNC, GOP, NATO, NRO—that he flout political correctness and cultural Marxism, and counter Obama and Bush laws by nullifying tons of them. For this reason, TTR won’t date; it’s why libertarianism conceived properly doesn’t date.

MORE.

My Family Would’ve Been Barred From The US Without Mega Skills

Donald Trump, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Labor, South-Africa, Welfare

My Family would’ve not been allowed to immigrate to the US had we met Donald Trump’s new immigration criteria. These are:

* Establish reality on the ground (gritty, man!), illegally until amnestied.
* Obey all the other laws, except immigration and labor laws.
* Get a low-skills job, commensurate with meager abilities.
* Receive more in government reimbursements than you contribute to the economy over a lifetime—someone with few skills might work hard, but overall, his existence is subsidized by taxpayers throughout his lifetime.

No! If the principal in our family had been without that Extraordinary Abilities 0-1 Visa and had been unable to prove—via patents, work record and testimonials vetted à la the First World—that he had skills unique and needed in the US—we would not be here. We left so many good people behind, in South Africa, who’ll never be allowed to so much as farm (for example) in the US, because white, poor, Christian and without desirable college degrees. I know South Africans who’d gladly sell their farms in SA and come and work on farms in the US. They’re far more culturally compatible, but they’re not as politically cuddly as the cohort Trump is told to court. You know why.

Media are referencing a townhall with Sean Hannity to accuse Mr. Trump of pivoting in a new direction on immigration. Media might have a case. Via TIME:

… asked whether Trump would support changing the law to “accommodate those people that contribute to society, have been law-abiding, have kids here,” Trump replied in the affirmative.

“There certainly can be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” Trump said. “We want people—we have some great people in this country.”

Trump, who has previously called for a “deportation force,” suggested he would not try to toughen the existing immigration statutes, calling the lawmaking process “brutal.”

“We want to follow the laws, you know, we have very strong laws in this country,” Trump said. “And you know Bush, and even Obama, sends people back. Now we can be more aggressive on that but we want to follow the laws. If you start going around trying to make new laws in this country it’s a process that’s brutal. We want to follow the laws of this country, and if we follow the laws we can do what we have to do.”

Trump’s new position appears to be an embrace of the status quo, in which those in the U.S. illegally with criminal histories are prioritized for deportation, but no action is taken to push forward with comprehensive reform. …