Category Archives: Paleolibertarianism

UPDATED: V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast. (‘Brutality’ Alert)

Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Liberty, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism

At EPJ, where “V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast” is now published, Lila Rajiva and myself exchange opinions about whether I was right or wrong to avoid naming the individuals discussed in the column.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I think we should be truthful. She and Tucker ARE widely published so what’s the point of saying they are non-entities?

They are not. It just makes you sound as over-emotional as they are.

That was one thing with which I disagreed in this otherwise excellent piece.

Dispassion and professional standards entail that when you read someone, you should cite them. Leave “vanishing” people to the state and to propagandists and hypesters.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Respectfully, you’re wrong. You are looking at this storm in a C-Cup from the insular world of the libertarian. My piece was written for a wider audience. Good or bad, the bigger picture is that the two alluded to are insignificant, the one more so than the other. The one has the run of a publishing house, and, unethically in my opinion (as it involves a conflict of interest), uses the imprint to publish some of his own books. Yet these books have hardly any buyers (Amazon rank #649,120). My contention that in the bigger picture these people are unknown entities is correct. The female of the duo is certainly a non-entity. Given her aptitude, no matter how well promoted she is, and no matter how much she suctions face to camera, she will never muster an opinion or an analysis that isn’t second-hander material. She’s not working with much. To properly gauge the significance of these two one has to exit the libertarian orbit. Thus, addressing non-entities by name is unnecessary in a piece meant for popular consumption. On this topic, my dear friend and mentor, the influential and talented Walter Block, demeans himself and his stature by constantly addressing nobody bloggers by name, rather than just dealing with their arguments, to the extent these sorts make these.

Reply
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM

@Hi Ilana,

I agree with you in the wider world. But, in the wider world, since they are unknown, they don’t need to be rebutted at all.

However, in terms of libertarian in-fighting, everyone knows who Tucker is…

Still, it was an excellent piece. I am sick of this waving of the V. I actually thinks it’s some kind of propaganda offensive that began in 2012 with Naomi Wolf’s book.

Get us to talk, one way or other, about genitals all the time. Mainstreams the stuff, like the Lewinsky trial did.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I see what you’re saying, Lila. As expected, we both make valid points. “Respec,” as Ali G. would say.

Ms. Rajiva is funny in the comment below. A woman with a sense of humor. Wicked (or “brutal”). Lila has to admit, though, apropos our exchange above, that the “brutal” wordplay (or swordplay) on this and other libertarian sites is an example of “inside baseball.” Everyone on here knows what is being mocked. But few outside our orbit will understand. This goes to my point about not needing to name names when addressing a wider audience.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I think it’s grossly BRUTALIST and a violation of the civil rights of Tucker, Reisenwitz & the rest
to pit one whole Mercer in full throttle against them.

It’s downright violent and violence will not be tolerated… unless we’re for it.

I call for UN sanctions, economic sanctions (no more blintzers for you, Ms. Mercer), and carpet-bombing…..

Let the humanitarianism begin…..

UPDATE: VIA FACEBOOK:

David Colpo writes:

If the names of writers obscure to the general population aren’t worth publishing, then why bother refuting their equally obscure arguments to that same audience?
59 minutes ago · Like

Ilana Mercer replies:

David Colpo, b/c I care about truth and reality. And as a libertarian I care about Mises. I care about libertarianism. I don’t care for–or about—the people who are trying to make libertarianism appealing to throngs of bimbos by lying about white, old men in order to make them palatable and politically correct. As if, there was anything wrong with Mises the way he was.

MORE Exchanges On Mark Levin

Constitution, Media, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, States' Rights

Contrary to ML, the libertarian reader who was annoyed with me for giving Mark Levin the time of the day (a premise with which I’d agree were Mr. Levin anything like the rest of the radio mouths; the tele-twits and teletwat, but he isn’t)—another reader, a fan of Mr. Levin, is angry that I dared question The Great One.

He quotes this from “Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation”:

The healthiest and most intuitive response to deep-seated, irreconcilable unhappiness – political or personal – is not to hold a constitutional convention, Mark Levin, but to leave, to exit the abusive relationship.

The reader then swats me down, as follows:

Ms. Mercer,
Have you even read The Liberty Amendments? Doesn’t appear so and it doesn’t appear that many posters on the WND website have either. Article V is pretty clear and so is the logical and rational arguments made by Mark Levin. Whose credentials, I would put up against all. Your gratuitous remarks about this “radio mouth” are vapid.

You, along with James McClellan portend there is “no mechanism to compel congress to act” (?) Wrong. Both of you need to go back and reread Article V again. It says “shall”. Not maybe, or might, or could, or probably. SHALL. There’s no gray area here and congressional involvement is limited to 1. putting the process in motion and 2. “as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed”. That’s IT. Just because the states historically, haven’t exercised this power means nothing. They certainly have the power to do so.

At the Mt. Vernon Assembly back in early December 32 states had representatives in attendance. This assembly was put in motion way before Mr. Levin ever started talking about his book. People are starting to wake up and understand the “real and present danger” this country is in. Mark Levin concisely lays out how the process would work, what the process would include and how it would be enforced. He also proposes amendments that are directly relevant to the runaway government we have today. If the convention devolved into the so called “runaway convention” enough states withdrawing from the convention to breach that 34 state threshold would end it right there. 33 States voting for “something” would mean nothing. Not to mention the 38 state threshold for ratification.

What is inexplicable Ms. Mercer is your wrongful rationale to shelve our Constitution and in turn, OUR country. Perhaps you should rethink the affinity you have for a nation that welcomed you with open arms with rights and freedoms unfamiliar to your homeland of South Africa. And while “the healthiest and most intuitive response to deep seated, irreconcilable unhappiness” may be best for personal reasons, it’s absurd to apply that rationale to this issue. The analogy is useless.

In closing, we don’t have to wait for a runaway convention. We have one NOW. A “coup d’etat”. Without one shot fired. This regime is pushing lawlessness and a quite anarchy so as to bring this nation to the breaking point. Which is exactly what they want. Don’t think for a split second that obama is not frothing at the mouth to implode this society so that he can declare Marshall Law and do away with the rest of the Bill of Rights. What other plausible explanations can there be for this man’s actions and those of his party? Our Constitution is being amended unlawfully on a daily basis and should be abundantly clear to anyone. We can do this the civil, lawful way or the uncivil way. Do you think that BO would just let us walk away? You’re not paying attention if you answered yes.

Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments provides the answer and the road map. Not the absolute anarchy that would come about from your solution.

Time constraints being what they are, here are some of the points made in my short answer (I chose to leave unchallenged the silly, quintessentially Republican notion that the unraveling began with Obama):

Dear D.,

I appreciate your passion, if not your emphasis on legalistic, positivist law, as opposed to the natural law. The first has failed us: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=743

It all began with Mr. Levin’s hero, Abe: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=586 & http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=31

MORE here.

As to your claims about secession causing “anarchy”: The only reason chaos—which is what I presume you mean by anarchy—could come about when people, peacefully, go their separate ways is because the central government would launch Total War against peaceful separatists. Consider that! You and Levin would argue that such a war is legal. Maybe so, but such a war [like the War of Northern Aggression] is never naturally licit.

The great Yorktown Patriot Dr. James McClellan has long since passed. He was easily and indisputably one of THIS country’s greatest constitutional scholars. More on McClellan’s constitutional take on secession: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=718

Mark would have to agree, however great our disagreement, that this immigrant is a patriot. He should appreciate any immigrant who has fought for the American Creed as this immigrant has for so long.

I appreciate Mark as a potentially powerful anti-establishment force (witness the fact that he is seldom asked to join the Idiocracy on TV), and as the intellectual the rest (Savage, Prager, Medved, Rush, Laura, etc.) are not.

Best,
ILANA Mercer

UPDATE III: The New Wholesome In America (Duck Dynasty & Religiosity)

Christianity, libertarianism, Morality, Paleolibertarianism, Pop-Culture, Relatives, Religion, The Zeitgeist

So the off-putting stars of the reality show Duck Dynasty are the new wholesome in America? Apparently so. Anything these vulgar, immensely popular people say or do is deemed worthy of contemplating and commenting on.

I watched 10 torturous minutes of Duck Dynasty. The participants were unsharpened pencils all–dull, not particularly witty and rather crude.

For example, his abhorrence of homosexuality, the ostensibly devout and educated (because a college graduate) Phil Robertson phrased thus:

‘It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus.
‘That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?

Yeah. both profound and refined. Yet 12 million Americans watch hours packed with dumb Duck-Dynasty vignettes.

These personalities are associated with religiosity in America! This is what being devout looks like in the USA??

From what I could see in ten minutes—which was way too much—the phoniest, most contrived character of all is Si Robertson. This lewd old man is of course a … preacher too. Lovely.

As for the Ducksters’ occupation. I’ll leave you with this from Proverbs 12:10:

Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

UPDATE I (12/24): FACEBOOK THREAD & LITE LIBERTARIANS AGAIN:

Of course I love capitalism. Once again, the reader makes the error of the “lite-libertarian” reductionism. If someone is a capitalist (good) and makes money off his fellow Americans’ uncouth stupidity (good) and voyeurism, lite libertarains think that one cannot criticize aspects of this production. Duck detritus should make money however they wish to, but do I have to like their product b/c they make money? You gotta be kidding. It’s crap.

UPDATE II: As for the claim, on Facebook, that Duck Detritus represents the best of America. I have nothing against this lot. They are, however, part of a debased culture. Duck Dynasty is the right-wing answer to Kim Kardashian—whose deformed figure, elephant man upside down—you can ogle here:

Southerners, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken, were drained of their best blood by the War of Northern Aggression. Although vestiges of good breeding, charm and civility remain in many a Southern man, the uncouth Duck hunters are not it.

UPDATE III: DUCK DYNASTY & RELIGIOSITY IN THE US. Steven LaTulippe writes:

I think you’re missing an important point, Ilana. They were selected for the show because they are how you describe them. Duck Dynasty was meant to be a redneck minstrel show. They were supposed to be objects of ridicule for cosmopolitan America. They are what blue state America imagines religiosity to be.

REPLY: Judging from my encounters with Christian America, with few exceptions, it is no longer doctrinaire or demanding. Christianity in the US is exactly what Duck Dynasty professES. This mishmash of pop-religion that is practiced in American churches is an extension of the therapeutic culture: big on feelings, mostly misdirected, light on Godly theology or knowledge of scriptures.

UPDATED: Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy

Free Markets, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Private Property, South-Africa

“Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy” is the new essay, now on WND. It tackles the “economic reductionism, typical of the impoverished analysis of South Africa, offered so authoritatively by libertarian economists stateside.” Excerpted below are two sections therefrom:

… LITE LIBERTARIANISM VS. THE RIGHT KIND

Herein lies the difference between the paleolibertarian analysis and what this column has termed the lite libertarian one, philosopher Hans-Hermann Hope being the finest example of the former. The rest fall into the latter, lite category.

A crucial difference between lite libertarians and the Right kind is that to the former, the idea of liberty is propositional–a deracinated principle, unmoored from the realities of history, hierarchy, biology, tradition, culture, values.

Conversely, the paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which we all must live, cannot endure. “The pursuit of the … paleolibertarian ideal,” explained Catholic philosopher Jack Kerwick, Ph.D., “is the pursuit of an ideal of liberty brought down from the clouds to the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.” …

… FREEDOM VS. EGALITARIANISM

Contra the economic reductionism of the lite libertarian, free-market capitalism is a necessary but insufficient condition to sustain freedom in a country of South Africa’s complexion.

The truth absent from the phantasmagorical formulations critiqued is this: Economic freedom does not necessarily reduce so-called wealth inequality. Inegalitarainism is a feature of a free economy. If history is anything to go by, certain minorities will achieve prosperity from poverty, no matter how gravely the state and society impede them. Jews did it in Europe. Levantines and Indians in Africa and the Middle-East. Chinese in southeast Asia and everywhere else they go. Europeans in South Africa.

Moreover, “While all people want safety and sustenance for themselves, not everyone is prepared to allow those whom they dislike and envy to peacefully pursue the same.” (P. 4.) Free-market capitalism is not enough to safeguard ordered liberty in racially riven societies like South Africa, where the majority will always covet the possessions of immensely wealthier minorities and associate these riches with racial privilege.

Ultimately, the rights to life, liberty and private property will forever be imperiled in a country whose constitution has a clause devoted to “Limitation of Rights,” and where redistributive “justice” is a constitutional article of faith. (P. 101)

This, paleolibertarians (all three of us) know too well.

In “The Cannibal” chapter entitled “Saving South Africans S.O.S.,” secession is explored as one solution, it being a species of the private-law society delineated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe, of course, has never been afraid to speak to the “unequal civilizing potential” (in James Burnham’s coinage) of different people and peoples. …

Read the complete essay. “Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy” is now on WND.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

UPDATE (12/22): INTERESTING DISCUSSION @ PRAGG.ORG, to which I have replied.