Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATE III: Beck Revised (Who Eats Nails? Spencer Or Mercer?)

Conservatism, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck, History, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Race, Republicans

I’ve followed Glenn Beck closely and have concluded that overall, flaws and all, he is a force for liberty. One such example was when “Beck Broke From The Pack” to denounce perpetual war as the health of the state. Let us not forget how polluted are the waters in which conservatives swim. Glenn has changed that somewhat. Not for nothing does Sean Hannity keep his distance from Beck.

“Beck, Wilders, and His Boosters’ Blind Spot” discusses some mindless Beck missteps, such as mistaking “Geert Wilders, an influential Dutch parliamentarian working against the spread of Islam in his country, as a man of the fascist, far-right.” Unforgivable.

IMMIGRATION IGNORANCE:

Glenn also vastly overestimates the virtues of the “American People,” and underestimates the forces (state-managed mass immigration) that are dissolving what remains of that people and busily electing another. (Glenn: Once the country is 50 percent Third World, you might as well be talking to the hand.)

Nevertheless, I revised the “blithering idiot” verdict I passed some years back.

Richard Spencer has not. Glenn “going-to-school-with-each-new-show” has earned the contempt of the editor of AltRight.com.

The funny thing is that I second Richard’s analysis, as I have made the same points myself about Beck’s ridiculous fetishes (stop waxing fat about “Faith, Hope, and Charity”; build on life, liberty, and property, I wrote).

Beck’s (Harry) Jaffarsonian civil rights preoccupation and racial revisionism—sad to say, there were no black Founding Fathers!—are contemptible. But, what do you know?, I have been more forgiving of Glenn than Richard Spencer. Having been characterized as someone who eats nails for breakfast, I’m pleased when along comes a young man who is more uncompromising than myself, even if this guarantees he will not be playing footsie with this conservative tootsie (“intellectual windsock”) on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel, a forum of and for the Idiocracy.

Read Richard’s superb analysis, “The Glenn Beck Deception: Inside the PC Lunatic Fringe.”

UPDATED I (June 22): I have been extremely careful to separate Beck from James Huggins’ Republican “freedom fighters” (see comment hereunder). Without much success. If you are convinced by Huggins’ GOP loyalism—and Mr. H has stuck to his guns, insisting these hacks stand for liberty—your learning curve is, well, wobbly.

UPDATE II: Here’s the “‘Mercer Eats Nails For Breakfast’ (Not)” accusation:

I’ve been called THE WORD WARRIOR…but I would run for my life if I saw Ilana Mercer coming my way! Does she eat nails for breakfast?— Anthony St. John

UPDATE III: Who Eat Nails for Breakfast, Spencer Or Mercer? Probably both, but Spencer wins out this time, I’m pleased to say. In case you think (sorry Huggs) that every tough-talking toots on Hannity’s “Great American Panel” can eat nails or swallow flames: tough, here, implies an ability to reason, and an uncompromising fealty to first principles. These must draw on fact and on history. To reason in the arid arena of pure thought is not what Richard (or myself, for that matter) does. Most libertarians, however, do so err.

When Palin Agrees With Olbermann

Barack Obama, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Private Property, Regulation, Republicans, Sarah Palin, The State

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “When Palin Agrees With Olbermann”:

“Republican reaction to the president’s reaction to the crude gushing in the Gulf of Mexico is a measure of how serious the GOP is about checking the spread of big government.

Every time I turn around, there’s a Republican insisting that Big “O” take over where Big Oil has (allegedly) left off. This, Sarah Palin has been demanding as loudly as James Carville; Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as urgently as clown Keith Olbermann. The consensus on both sides of the political aisle seems to be that where British Petroleum has failed to stop the spread of the oil slick, the president will prevail.

If I didn’t know Republicans better, I’d think they were making political hay out of the Deepwater Horizon leak, now in its fifty second day. …

So what does the idolatrous Idiocracy want from its Golden Calf?

The Oprah faction confuses righteous indignation with righteousness; it wants Obama to come unhinged. The Disneyland division is hoping that off-shore oil explorer, acclaimed scientist and inventor James Cameron, who “has worked extensively with robot submarines,” will help the film directors of BP to plug the oil plume. Cameron’s plan includes that liquid metal robot from “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Obama must realize that there is no way such a plan could fail.”…

What do I recommend? For the root of the environmental despoliation of the ocean and other state-controlled expanses of water—and the ultimate solution to it—read on. The column is “When Palin Agrees With Olbermann.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update II: The Palin Premise

Ann Coulter, Crime, GUNS, Hollywood, Political Philosophy, Reason, Republicans, Sarah Palin

WHAT STRIKES ME again and again about what goes for conservatism these days is the feeble arguments used to make a case—they’re so, well, liberal in their illogic.

Via the Charlotte Observer: “Sarah Palin headlined the NRA convention in uptown Charlotte Friday afternoon, speaking to a crowd of 9,000 gun rights supports at Time Warner Cable Arena.”

MSNBC TV has just reported (falsely, I hope) that Palin went on to call on Hollywood to clean up its violence-glorifying, crime-impacting ways before demanding that law-abiding citizens give up their guns.

First, implicit in this stupid exhortation is the unfounded notion that graphic visuals cause violence. How like Tipper! In their censuring attempts, conservatives like Palin remind me of Democrat Tipper Gore and her comical attempt in the 1980s to censor rock lyrics.

Also following from the Palin premise is that, should Hollywood clean up its act, so to speak, we gun owners will indeed consider giving up the right to protect sacred life and property.

Can’t this woman ask my girl, Michelle Bachmann, to help her formulate a logical thought!

Update I (May 15): Thanks to Jack Slater (Letter of the Week) for putting things into perspective as to Palin. I ask Myron to repeat some of his classic observations about the woman. No one is listening; you have to repeat ad nauseam.

(Incidentally, the only individual on the NRA Invited Speakers list who deserves accolades for his efforts on behalf of liberty is … the Democrat (once Reagan appointee), Jim Webb.)

With few exceptions, no amount of analysis I’ve provided on this blog has moved the Republicans who read it (and yes, that was a pejorative) any closer to the truth. Coulter, Palin; Limbaugh, Hannity—they can rest assured. Their futures and fortunes are guaranteed by a blind following as ignorant as it is loyal. All you puppies want is to wag your tails for your masters or mistresses, and forget their hypocrisy and intellectual corruption over the years. I won’t even advise that you read my Palin archives (avoid it) on the main site and on the blog; I know you are more comfortable with feeling warm and fuzzy than following the facts and the principles.

Palin is wrong on almost everything except on energy. On energy and environmental issues she is indeed an ace. That’s all.

Coulter recently appeared on CNN together with some actress, Aisha Tyler, an avowed Obamaite (Tavis Smiley was excellent compared to… Anderson Cooper). The lefty was better than the conservative Queen Bee who could muster only a few silly, spiteful quips in support of freedom.

If you believe these characters are the republic’s last hope, then you deserve their brand of freedom (although Iraqis don’t). They and the wars they’ve whored for are, by and large, what got us into this financial morass.

Update II (April 16): McCain supports Gov. Brewer. Palin is worse than useless on immigration. Anyone who cares about what Peter Brimelow calls the “National Question” will apprise himself of Palin’s hollow, “we-are-a-nation-of-immigrants” positions. She motivates her support for protecting the border with reference, mainly, to national security—not crime, sovereignty, the transformation of the country’s character.

The other characters for whom everyone goes to bat aim to bring the country back to Bush and Laura’s party (Laura approves of BHO’s Kagan appointment). It’s curious that readers would see this as serving to awaken Boobus Americanus.

The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back.”

And their supporters play musical chairs along with them.

Palin's Polite Politics

Elections, John McCain, Political Philosophy, Sarah Palin

What is National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre doing with the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid? More importantly, what is Sarah Palin doing campaigning for Sen. John McCain? How like a people-pleasing woman! Isn’t it time Palin stuck to a principled set of political prescriptions, and got over her gratitude to McCain for supposedly turning her into a supernova?

Palin rushed to McMussolini’s rescue in Tuscon, Arizona, mouthing the offal she repeated on their first campaign trail: “‘Before there were protests on Main Street and marches on Capitol Hill, there was the maverick of the Senate, fighting for us.'”

On the other hand, McCain’s primary challenger, J.D. Hayworth, is a run-of-the-mill Republican, only slightly better than McCain is some respects, and worse in others.

Perhaps because there is not much of a philosophical divide between the man she supposedly owes and his challenger that Palin is doing the friendly thing for a friend. Still, the effect of endorsing Rand Paul this year, Doug Hoffman last year, and now McCain again—makes Palin seem a little flaky.

The media loves McCain (and his mindless daughter) too much to fault Palin for stumping for him.