Category Archives: Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

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).

Not A Dime for NPR From This Little Piggy

Constitution, Ilana On Radio & TV, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Regulation, Taxation, The State

The following is from my new, WND.COM column, “Not a Dime From NPR From This Little Piggy”:

“A classmate of mine, an Israeli Arab, taught me a phrase I will paraphrase here, as it was indelicate in the original: There is nothing wrong with carving a little something for yourself out of the hind end of a pig. Translated: If you hold the person you’re scheming on robbing in contempt — by all means, rob him blind. (My friend was the recipient of a scholarship courtesy of the Israeli taxpayer whom he despised — you can see where our disagreement lay.)

For today’s purposes, the justified robber is the Public Broadcaster in all its offshoots — NPR (National Public Radio), PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), and, in my case, ‘KCTS 9 Connects,’ of Washington State. The hind end belongs to the American taxpayer. The propagandists hate their meal ticket, but feed off its flesh all the same.

To his credit, the recently fired Ron Schiller, President of the NPR Foundation and Senior VP for Development at NPR, has agreed with fiscal conservatives on the need to eliminate federal funding for his organization, which gets $90 million annually off the backs of some “seriously racist, racist” taxpayers.” (Schiller’s words.) Scrap that: doing away with taxpayer subsidies for public broadcasting was a point of agreement between this NPR functionary and a few fictitious Muslim philanthropists.

Members of the so-called Muslim Education Action Center Trust had lured Schiller to lunch. Amir Malik and Ibrahim Kasaam were really associates of gonzo journalist James O’Keefe, who played the pimp in the ACORN undercover operation. The luncheon was a trap. The bait: breaking bread with two blokes who boasted about their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. … Boy, does O’Keefe know how to whet appetites at NPR!” ….

The complete column is “Not a Dime From NPR From This Little Piggy,” now on WND.COM.

Subscribe to my newsletter, HERE.

Befriend me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/IlanaMercer

UPDATED: Wonder Woman In The Work Force (Beware The WASPs)

Affirmative Action, Feminism, Gender, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Race, Racism

Distaff America’s claims of disadvantage can be easily dispelled: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that the wily entrepreneur doesn’t ditch men in favor of women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.” [“Barack Against The Boys“] Yet the White House has preferred to perpetrate the myth, starting with a pay equity act the president signed at the beginning of his interminable term, and now with a new report affirming that “the earnings gap between men and women” is a result of all sorts of discrimination. HERE.

Scholarly reams have been written disputing this phony calculus, as it omits vital variables: How long the woman has been in the work force, her age, experience and education; or whether her career has been put on hold to marry and mother. Just as women are more likely than men to have had an interrupted career trajectory, so too are they more inclined to enter lower-paying professions: education instead of engineering, for example.

UPDATE: BEWARE THE WASPS. It was interesting to observe the neoconservative programmed response to the news about a “Texas college scholarship that targets only white male students.” I am referring to the obligatory PC huffing and puffing of Greg Gutfeld and his crew, last night, as to the “low-life racists” who would dare dream-up such a scheme.

Tucker Carlson, a kind of paleoconservative, chimed in with a full-throated denunciation, but, at least, pointed out the obvious: how is this scholarship different to the affirmative action programs that have infested every nook and cranny of the American labor force, public and private, for decades?

The thing that makes these gilded, neocon elites mere retread left-liberals is the fact that they mock the brute fact that poor white men are extremely marginalized in the workforce. The data abound. They ignore the Frank Riccis of the country. In my forthcoming book, I cite, among other sources, sociologist Frederick R. Lynch’s “Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action”(1991).

But in case you need a reminder of the jeering contempt the neoconservative faction of the left-liberal establishment has for the plight of white (poor) males in American society, watch last night’s “Red Eye” segment (it’s generally very amusing, by the way).

Naturally, this element of the establishment has never bothered to expose Saint Bill Gates’ “No-WASP Scholarship” fund.

Nullifying Brimelow’s Seminal Work On Unions?

Education, Film, Hollywood, Intelligence, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Race

Steve Sailer has an interesting take on “the media-celebrated documentary ‘Waiting for ‘Superman,'” and by extension, on the “Public Enemy No. 1: Government Unions” (the title of my new, WND column). “Davis Guggenheim, white liberal dad, winner of an Oscar for the Al Gore documentary,” writes Sailer, “drives past three public schools in Venice every morning to get to a private school in Santa Monica. He muses on the narration that he felt he was ‘betraying the ideals I thought I lived by.'”

Why, then, doesn’t he send them to public school? Well, the obvious reason is because public schools in Venice are full of Hispanics and blacks (one of them is 95 percent Non-Asian Minority), and, privately, Guggenheim doesn’t think his kids will get as good an education in a classroom that has to cater to NAM needs. But, no way no how is he ever going to say that in public. He’d never get another Oscar.

[Read “Hoist By Their Own Petard In Wisconsin”]

Is Steve implying that the thesis of “The Worm in the Apple: How the Teacher Unions Are Destroying American Education,” a pathbreaking book by VDARE.COM editor Peter Brimelow, no longer obtains? In “The Worm,” Brimelow mounted a devastating case against the monopolistic nature of public education as the root of most of this system’s evils. He did so by analyzing “the efficiency of the education system, as expressed in its output and input.”

I would say that both the liberal director of “Waiting for Superman” and Steve Sailer are resorting to reductionism. There is more to the colossal failure of American schooling than the aggregate racial achievement gap in schools that are increasingly dominated by minorities. Conversely, government unions are not the whole story.

From my perspective, the film “Idiocracy” offered the most multifaceted treatment of creeping cretinism in America. The best of social science (kidding, of course).