Category Archives: Reason

In Praise Of The Whip: To Whip Or To Rein Is Not The Question

Argument, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Nationhood, Reason, Republicans

©2021 ILANA MERCER

What on earth is wrong with the whip? The reference is, as CNN put it, to “recent images that appear to show US Border Patrol agents on horseback confronting migrants along the Rio Grande.” So far so good.

Videos taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters appear to show law enforcement officers on horseback using aggressive tactics when confronting migrants, who are largely Haitian, to prevent them from crossing into the US.

Wonderful.

“The Biden administration is expressing horror,” promising to proceed aggressively against these poor horseback officers, who work in near-impossible conditions, without institutional support and for meager wages.

How does the Right respond? Is it a whip or is it a rein, they kibitz. Look, if it’s not a whip, it ought to have been one, and if the border patrol agent used a rein as whip—then hooray for him. The End.

That’s the Right’s problem. The anatomy of every single left-manufactured national scandal sees our side always conceding to the legitimacy of the left’s case, and then going on the defensive, instead of attacking.

In short: asinine. stupid. defeatist.

The anatomy of a good response is never, but never, to apologize and equivocate about a principled behavior, in this instance, the right of self- and national defense.

The right response: “What if US Border Patrol agents on horseback were wielding whips? Got a problem with repelling and whipping outlaws, who are charging you, your horse and into your country?”

Vice President Kamala Harris called the images “horrible” and said she supports an investigation into the matter.

Heroic, not horrible. Part of the job of the law is to round up the likes of the Haitian invaders and turn them back. If the law is not doing this—it’s because natural morality has been inverted. Good is bad and bad is good. Right is wrong and wrong is right.

What a moral inversion it is that forces US law enforcement to process and pander to outlaws; instead of arresting and expelling them IN JUST THIS MANNER.

* Image via Tracey Ann Whitehill on LinkedIn

 

NYC EMT & Fire Department Union Boss Presents Cogent, Comprehensive, Factual, Rational Argument Against Vaccines For Members

Argument, COVID-19, Critique, Ethics, Healthcare, Intelligence, Judaism & Jews, Labor, Race, Reason

I believe uber-progressive anchor Alex Witt, of MSNBC, likely went easy on Oren Barzilay because she must have believed the president of Emergency Medical Services Local 2507 of District Council 37 (President of Uniform EMTs, Paramedics & Inspectors – New York City Fire Department) to be a working-class man of an acceptably exotic ethnicity.

To me of course, the name screamed Israeli. As did the clear, comprehensive argument style, and cogent replies to everyone of the woman’s arguments for vaccine mandates.

Barzilay argued against mandates for his members. These are arguments that not one of the dimwits usually entertained on the idiot’s lantern (the TV) has proven able to rattle off.

In arguing against the mandates, Barzilay told Witt:

        1. No conclusive evidence exists to show the vaccines are not harmful. On the contrary, the CDC website reports over 12,000 deaths from these vaccines and thousands injured, or having sustained some medical issues.
        2. The vaccines are not FDA approved and clinical trials have been limited and of short duration; no longitudinal data.
        3. In reply to Witt’s idiot question—which nobody in American media seems capable of refuting, and it is, “Have you and family not received the mumps, measles, polio vaccinations, and once the vaccines move from Emergency Authorization to FDA approved status, will you instruct your guys to take it?”—Barzilay did not miss a beat. He returned to Witt’s first point, emphasizing that older vaccines (I’ve recently gotten two Shingles shots) have over a decade of data behind them. The COVID vaccines went to market and into arms after 6 months of production, and even less time devoted to data collection and analysis.
        4. He is not telling his people not to get vaccinated; all Barzilay is insisting on is choice for his members, as to what they place in their bodies until the data are in.
        5. He wants to know (asking in a cynical, rhetorical manner) if the City will cover the expenses of those who have an adverse reaction. That’s unknown, argued Barzilay. I would argue one better: When admitted into hospital following vaccination, with a plethora of symptoms, you are more often than not subjected to batteries of tests that always appear aimed at ruling-out correlation with vaccination, instead of treating what could be dangerous symptoms.
          In the zeal to avoid implicating the vaccine in a reaction—individuals who suffer a reaction in proximity to vaccination might not even receive antidotes as soon as they need them. The aim of untrustworthy medical personnel seems to be to exonerate the vaccinators rather than assume a reaction and prevent a patient from dying.
          Essentially, medical personal have lost our trust that indeed they can spring into action, in the event we suffer adverse reactions to their ill-researched vaccines.
        6. Oren disputes that all his members are, as Witt assumed, grateful for the vaccines, since some have died following vaccination. He cannot definitively prove causation, but they died shortly thereafter. Two of Oren’s Local members died within 4 days of receiving the vaccine.

       

    1. RELATED READING: “Could Vaccine Resisters Be WACO’d?”

UPDATED (6/21 FRIENDS): NEW COLUMN: Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths

Conservatism, Crime, Ilana Mercer, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Race, Racism, Reason

NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews, created by two conservative greats, Brent Bozell III and Terry Jeffrey.

Excerpt:

My 2011 book, “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” rests on two axiomatic truths, and I excerpt (pp 40-41 & 126-128, 2011):

“In all, no color should be given to the claim that race is not a factor in the incidence of crime in the US and in South Africa. The vulgar individualist will contend that such broad statements about aggregate group characteristics are collectivist, ergo false. He would be wrong.”

“Generalizations,” I continued, “provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime-riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested.” (“Into The Cannibal’s Pot,” pp 40-41)

In short, generalizations about certain group characteristics are, in aggregate, valid. These, however, do not contradict the imperative to treat each and every individual as an individual.

In his infinite wisdom, but with a different—strictly empirical approach—social scientist Charles Murray has ushered into mainstream this very same truth. In a luminous little book, “Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America,” Murray counsels precisely that:

“…when mean differences between groups are real, it is absolutely essential to resist generalization; it is essential to accept the reality of documented group differences but to insist on thinking of and treating every person as an individual.”

Next, in “Into the cannibal’s Pot,” I explained that we conservatives and libertarians who oppose affirmative action, set asides and quotas, because of our unfettered fealty for a merit-based, free-market based society are, sadly, promoting “half-truths,” as I put it. Here’s why:

“Free market economists have long since insisted that the rational, self-interest of individuals in private enterprise is always not to discriminate. ‘The market is color-blind,’ said Milton Friedman. ‘No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist; by whites or blacks.’ As Thomas Sowell put it, ‘prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.’” (ITCP pp. 126-128)

Inherent in these arguments, I had argued, in 2011, is that, while not untrue, they are incomplete, mere half-truths: …

“Arguably, however, [our] good economists … are still offering up a half-truth. Rational self-interest does indeed propel people, however prejudiced, to set aside bias and put their scarce resources to the best use. But to state simply that ‘discrimination is bad for business’ [and that a pure, free-market meritocracy would solve the problem of racial underrepresentation] is to present an incomplete picture.” …

… READ THE REST… NEW COLUMN, “Murray’s Empirical Wisdom Confirms ‘Into The Cannibal’s Pot’s’ Analytical Truths,” is currently on Townhall.com, WND.COM, The Unz Review, American Renaissance, and CNSNews

UPDATE (6/21/021): I am thankful for having quality readers. My writing has drawn wonderful people; giving, good people. Writes one such soul:

Ilana it’s a very brutal world for someone like yourself. When I said that you are alone, I didn’t mean that in the sense that you are banished to isolation or similar. I meant you are unique, you stand out, have value, yet the many are abject cretins, and will never comprehend you, couldn’t give a damn, and on account of their low level of culture will never encounter the likes of you till the end of time. This does not signify you should cease being the thinker that you are, for you must continue, whenever it occurs to you, to impart your intelligence to us. Your great worth will always find fruition somewhere with someone.

So kind and so soulful and, above all, giving. This is a giving person who really wants to impart strength, where he perceives that it’s waning. And he is not alone. “Musil Protege” is such a gem of a friend. Kerry Crowel, too, and David Vance: what a pro. Online, there are Matt Ray and Dissident Mama: good people who “drop by” to strengthen me and give of themselves.

I hope that these fine people find me as loyal a friend as I find them.

Dick Cavett And Enoch Powell: Civilized, Edifying Discussion That Would Never Take Place Today

America, Britain, IMMIGRATION, Race, Racism, Reason

“‘Racist’ is one of the modern terms of abuse,” Enoch Powell tells Dick Cavett. “The term of abuse is more effective the less defined it is. Then you can throw it at anybody and anything.”

“It all sounds reasonable,” replies Cavett, to Mr. Powell’s lucid explanation as to the question of which people belonged in England, given the British Empire’s reach and diffuse definition of citizen vs. subject.

I’ve repeatedly made the point in columns and to my friend David Vance, who lives in the UK, that all the racial nonsense the British are agonizing over is imported from America—doesn’t belong in Britain—so I love that this is Powell’s first point: The race baggage is American; not British.

Before him, explained Powell, nobody in government had cared enough to give voice to the sorrow Britons were feeling to over the possibility of losing their home, England, as they knew it. Powell was giving context to his 1968, “rivers of blood” speech.

READ more Barely-A-Blog Posts about Enoch Powell.

Link via https://britishbullybees.blogspot.com/2021/03/enoch-powell-on-being-called-racist.html