Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATE III: Magic Manhattan, Matters of the Mind (&, Yes, Manhattan’s Magnificent)

America, Ilana Mercer, Individual Rights, Intelligence, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy, Rights, South-Africa

I am back at my desk after a magnificent trip to Manhattan, where it was my distinction and delight to address the New York City Junto gathering as the featured speaker for the month of May.

The title of my address was “Natural Rights in ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot’: Abstractions or Facts of Life?”

For his generous and gracious hospitality I must thank the formidable force behind the NYC Junto forum, Victor Niederhoffer, Ph.D. Dr. Niederhoffer, with whom I enjoyed a late night snack after the lively event, is a well-known “professional investor,” trader and speculator. In other words, a man of the free, glorious, financial markets. He founded Junto in 1985, as a discussion group for people who treasure liberty (and, yes, the great Gene Epstein was present).

Dr. Niederhoffer puts NYC Junto guests up at The Harvard Club of New York, established in the late 1800s. I hope to have an image or two for you of the setting, later this week.

The turnout was good and the interactions most enjoyable.

The courteous organizers (Rudolf Hauser, Iris Bell and Linda Peterson) had prepared an introduction to this scribe and her work. It was posted at Junto.org, here. Not being a man who is easily scripted, Dr. Niederhoffer made a valiant attempt to stick to it. But after a few sentences, he gave up and said something to this effect:

“All I can tell you is that you can’t win an argument with this woman. I’ve tried and failed.”

As we say in Hebrew, “Dayenu.” Coming from Victor Niederhoffer, that’s more than enough for this woman.

At the time, when Dr. Niederhoffer and I had had the exchange to which he conceded defeat, I replied thus: “It takes a man and a gentleman to know and say what you’ve said. There are too few of those these days.”

More materially, the quality of recognizing, respecting and heeding intelligence speaks to who a man is. You cannot learn this quality. It is rare, as it demands—and coexists with—a healthy and happy ego.

Other than Dr. Niederhoffer, I have met one other man very recently who has this quality. Otherwise, not a day goes by when one is not saddled with the enormous opportunity costs, personal and professional, that accompany dealing with an ego-driven Idiocracy.

For idiots are invariably malevolent. Oscar Wilde said it best in one of his plays: “She thought that because he was stupid he would be kindly, when of course, kindliness requires imagination and intellect.”

UPDATE I: Here is a very blurred image. I have a few more, also blurred, that I will upload to the Facebook photo album, eventually.

May, 2012, Ilana @ NYC Junto:

UPDATE II: When the punishing publication process of Into the Cannibal’s Pot culminated in a book on Amazon—also The Only Shop in Town—hundreds of my readers wrote in private to share their impressions with me. I say again to all new readers and friends made what I’ve said to the aforementioned readers over the year. The conversation must take place in public, on the forums that exist for the purpose of spreading the word about—and discussing—these ideas.

Of these, Amazon is the most vital to The Cannibal’s cause. Please post your reviews to Amazon. Those who’ve done so over the last year have heard from me (and have my deepest appreciation).

Otherwise, all topics are discussed on BAB (Barely a Blog), which I personally moderate and maintain, on Facebook (ditto), Twitter, and in the Comments Sections appended to the WND and RT weekly articles.

UPDATE III (May Eighth): In reply to Sunny Black, see the new BAB post, “Manhattan Le Magnifique.”

Assange Makes Lamestream Run for Cover

libertarianism, Media, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Russia, Socialism, The State

It is no contest: RT leads the way with gritty broadcasting. RT does what a broadcaster should do; challenge the powers that be and probe every aspect of the story. Yes, the angle pursued is more often left-libertarian than paleo, but RT is also less statist than American mainstream media. (And they happen to feature my own paleolibertarian column, which takes courage too.)

As the talented Gayane Chichakyan has noted, Julian Assange’s new RT program is making the American mainstream nuttier than normal. Chichakyan has editorialized about mainstream’s protest against letting Assange loose on air—Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, Ed Schultz (who recommended death to Assange); all were apoplectic. (On The Other Channels, we’re accustomed to the wilderness of women reporters—Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Erin Burnett, Tamron Toots Hall, etc.)

Gayane hinted that the malfunctioning media’s objection to more of a variety in opinion seems to have at its goal the further closing of the already atherosclerotic American mind.

In any event, Assange is sure shaking things up, starting with an interview with Hezbollah leader Sayyid Nasrallah.

Next Assange refereed repartee between David Horowitz, whom he described as “a radical right-wing Zionist,” and “Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian sociologist, philosopher and former anti-communist dissident, who turned communist.” (Yes, “Saying ‘I’m a Socialist’ = Saying ‘I’m a Massive idiot.'”)

I was disappointed that Mr. Horowitz was described as of the “radical right wing.” He himself would cop to neoconservatism.

UPDATED: BHO’s ‘Blackism’ (& Boorishness)

Barack Obama, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism, Race, Racism

There is a “difference between learning a culture and learning the ideology that is abstracted from it,” explains Jack kerwick, with reference to what he terms Barack Obama’s Blackism. “The difference between culture and ideology is the difference between a living faith and a static creed.”

“Blackism is an ideology,” contends kerwick. “The Blackist sees the entire world, from ‘the beginning,’ so to speak, to the present, in terms of racial categories, yes, but, more importantly, from the perspective of black deprivation. Race is the organizing principle of his schemata…the ideology of Blackism is not to be confused with black culture. This, though, isn’t to suggest that there is no relationship between the two. There is: the former is a caricature or abridgment of the latter. …”

“That is, like any other ideology, the ideology of Blackism is an abstraction from a complex, concrete, historically-specific tradition. In this case, the tradition in question is that of what we call black culture.”

Blackism, like any other ideology, supplies for its adherents a method, a relatively few basic principles or rules to which any black person living in any place and at any time can subscribe. To put it more clearly, unlike so-called black culture, Blackism doesn’t require immersion in a traditional form of life. Fluency in a culture is like fluency in a language; it is a hard won achievement that can be had only after much practice and over an extended period of time. Mastery of an ideology, in glaring contrast, is something that can be gotten within no time, for the rules or principles of an ideology are propositions that readily lend themselves to memory.

Obama has embraced “Blackism” for obvious reasons. Read “Obama and the Ideology of Blackism”; it’s a most provocative and thoughtful piece.

UPDATE (April 19): I agree with George. I don’t know if Kerwick presumes intelligence, but BHO is most certainly not overly intelligent, and he is certainly no intellectual, as I tried to show in ‘You Can’t Fix Stupid.’

Whither HellCare?

Barack Obama, Constitution, Healthcare, Law, Political Philosophy, Regulation, Socialism

As freedom lovers know, the case pitting the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES against FLORIDA, ET AL is simply one more stage on the road to socializing the means of health-care production. Americans already labor under, as one wag put it, “a seeming patchwork of indemnity insurance arrangements, managed care, private payment, and charity.”

Increasing interventionism is always accompanied by the use of brute force, the legitimacy of which the nation’s Supreme Politburo Of Proctologists (the SCOTUS) is currently debating.

Not surprisingly, “the four jurists appointed by Democratic presidents — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — seemed sympathetic to the government’s defense of the [ObamaCare], at times offering Solicitor General Donald Verrilli helpful answers to their colleagues’ questions,” reports the National Journal’s Margot Sanger-Katz. “Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia — who had been considered by some Court watchers to be in play — seemed to stand firmly with the challengers.”

Equally predictable: “Chief Justice John Roberts, whose questions suggested a discomfort with the health care law, … also defended the government’s argument at times.”

Both Kennedy and Roberts will probably find a way to make ObamaCare palatable by papering over arguments against it. While they “seemed particularly concerned about the question of whether upholding this law would mean that Congress’s authority to pass regulation would be virtually unbounded, [t]hey repeatedly asked Verrilli to identify a limiting principle that would allow this mandate to go forward without opening the door to requirements to purchase other products.” [NJ]

The gist of the case being argued:

The 26 states challenging the mandate say it is an unprecedented demand, one that regulates economic “inactivity” and forces people into purchasing a product they do not want. If the government can compel the purchase of health insurance, they argue, then nearly any sort of purchase mandate could also be permitted. The administration counters that there’s basically no avoiding the health care market: Everyone needs health care at some time, often with little warning or financial preparation. Health insurance is not a standalone product, but merely a means of regulating the financing of that activity, it says

[NJ]

The elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses are unconstitutional. However, despite the fact that there is no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does, the Proctologists will find a way around what is already a dead-letter document.