Category Archives: The West

Update 3: Will The Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up?

Africa, Barack Obama, Elections 2008, Human Accomplishment, Multiculturalism, Race, The West

“The Obama organization now claims that [Pastor Wright’s] latest attacks on Obama prove that ‘he and Mr. Obama are not that close, otherwise why would Mr. Wright do this now? Au contraire. Hell hath no fury like a radical pastor scorned. Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright had been as tight as thieves for over two decades. When Obama got religion on the presidency, he began gradually turning his back on his spiritual counselor. Being an unconventional Christian animated by anger, Wright has refused to turn the other cheek.”

“For the duration of their 23-year relationship, Obama considered Wright a mentor and a mensch. No color should be given to the claim that Obama didn’t know and love the real Wright.”

“To paraphrase the rapper Eminem’s hit song: So will the real Slim Shady and his sassy lady please stand up?”

That and more in my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “Will The Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up?

Update: CNN’s Roland S. Martin, whom I mentioned in “Will The Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up?”, has responded to the column. I am not convinced the “be blessed” sign-off is all that sincere. My reply follows. Here’s Mr. Martin’s letter:

How culturally ignorant are you?

I read your column and talk about silly.

First, I was wearing an African formal outfit, which is the same one I have on the cover of my new book. I prefer to wear those rather than tuxedos to such events. If you choose to characterize it, do it correctly. Second, it was never intended for me to go on television. I was at the event because I had hosted their town hall meeting the previous day. But I’m not at all ashamed to wear my African outfit, and plan to do so again.

Second, you owe Soledad an apology. She was wearing a white blouse and a black skirt. If you want to show your cultural ignorance by criticizing me, go right ahead. But at least have the common sense to look at a woman on television and get her clothes right. Or maybe get yourself a new TV.

Be blessed,

Roland S. Martin
www.rolandsmartin.com
Author, “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith”
Syndicated columnist, Creators Syndicate
TV One Commentator
Host, “The Roland S. Martin Show”
WVON-AM/1690, Chicago
Weekdays, 6am to 9 am CST
CNN Contributor

ILANA replies:

Dear Roland,

I appreciate the response to my WorldNetDaily column, “Will The Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up?” And I do have an old TV.

Still, you have to admit that my sartorial misreading (compounded by my old TV set) does not quite explain your lack of critical analysis of the Reverend’s performance. (The comment by Reverend Ray on my blog fills in more gaps.)

Blessings to you too,

Ilana Mercer
Columnist, WorldNetDaily.com,
Author, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash with a Corrupt Culture
Director of Development, The Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies,
Proprietor, www.ilanamercer.com

Update 2: The private conversations with Mr. Martin turned productive and even pleasant (I’m pleased to say that most of my exchanges with reasonable people end this way).

Note that I’ve never attacked Wright on the political issues he raises. I agree with very many of the things the Reverend protests against, not least the war in Iraq and our atom-bomb war crimes (which have been debated on this blog, here).

But I reject Wright’s premise: He curses and blames white people, white government, and endemic racism for all ills. His animus toward Western culture, whose avid defender I am, is what makes him so odious.

Where does Wright think the distinctly Western ideas of human rights— the dignity of the individual and the respect for diversity—come from? Africa? They are all outgrowths of the Enlightenment, uniquely western. Not African; western. As you see, my revulsion at Wright and his ilk goes much deeper than the beefs conservatives have with him—that he dared damn the US government in its thuggish ways.

What repulses me about people like Wright is the manner in which they slam the West while using its tradition. The ideas of individual rights and the dignity of mankind are the product of the fertile minds of the pale, patriarchal, penis people: white men!

Another thought occurred to me: Wright’s style is more in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets than the Christian preacher. But even that kind comparison does violence to the magnificent prophets of the Hebrew Testament. They railed against The People—the stiff-necked Hebrews. They beat on their own people mercilessly for their sins. Wright doesn’t rouse his people; he sics them on others—teaches them to hate whites and blame them for black inadequacies.

Perhaps Jews became so self-propelled because, if a Jewish boy didn’t have a Jewish mother after him nagging him to become the best peddler or Talmudist in the village, he had a fire-breathing prophet huffing down his neck, shaming him into uprightness.

Update 3 (May 4): With reference to David Szasz’ interesting (and long) post hereunder, as I pointed out earlier this year, there’s another member of the unholy trinity who even better epitomizes the Manchurian Candidate. Think a former POW who was brainwashed by communists to betray–even kill–his own? Hmmm…

Updated: Against Anarchism

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, The State, The West

At the beginning of 2004, David J. Heinrich’s responded on the Mises.org Blog to the article titled “The Criminal’s Theoretical Enabler” (WorldNetDaily, January 9). In reply, I penned the comments posted below. The links to our exchange have since expired. But readers will glean from my reply the gist of my difficulties with anarchism. Anarchism is sexy. I used to think of myself as an anarchist. But after careful consideration, I forfeited sexy for the solid position of classical liberalism.

Read “The Criminal’s Theoretical Enabler” first, and then my reply to David:

David wrote that: “What proportional restitution and punishment are would have to be up to the victim to decide, and his or her decisions would be binding…” [End quote]

I have no objections to leaving it up to the victim to forfeit—or choose his own form of—redress for certain misdemeanors. Many legal solutions are a result of mediation and other perfectly private solutions to non-violent offenses.

I object to leaving punishment for violent crime to the vicissitudes of the victim or his proxies. The possibility that a victim or her proxies choose to let a rapist/murderer go free in favor of financial restitution, for instance, is a reality David concedes (although he says it will be rare, which is not the point. It should never happen, not under the state and not under anarchy). Does the forfeiture of just retribution (which is what this arrangement amounts to, in my opinion) not imply, in the case of murder, that the right to life is a right that the victim’s proxies can choose to alienate or relinquish at will? How else does one construe this position?

The danger of reducing justice in cases of such crimes to a negotiated deal strikes me as moral relativism if not a recipe for nihilism. Again: A belief in the immutability of natural justice has prompted me to rethink the wisdom of the private production of defense.

Also ignored, as I say in the column, it that a violent offender presents a clear and present danger to others, and so his fate, at least in a civilized society, is not only the prerogative of the victim.

Libertarian anarchists, and David makes this point, will rightly argue that under a minimal state and certainly under the state today, criminals could and do get away with murder. This is because the justice system is badly broken.

This fact doesn’t strike me as a sufficient reason to support a state of affairs where, as a matter of principle, proportional, moral retribution will not necessarily be the goal of justice. (The kind of justice sought would depend on the victim, right? It is indeed unlikely that she will support unconditional love as an antidote to violent crime, but if she’s of the Left, then it’s a possibility.)

David writes: “If a woman was raped, she could demand proportional restitution (e.g., whatever fines on the criminal necessary for the emotional harm caused her, castration, and the unexpected forced rape of the criminal)”… The criminal would simply be enslaved to the victim (or her punishment agency, more likely, if she didn’t want to deal with him) until repayment had been met…if a court deems that for restitution, the rapist is to pay the victim $1million and be violently raped, and then as punishment is to be executed…” [End quote]

What if the offender dies due to the castration or the forced rape? Is that proportional justice? I don’t conceal my preference for western tradition, nor the positive view I have of the accretive genius of the common law. What David describes here is primitive victim vigilantism. Indeed personalized retaliatory ‘justice’ can and will take the form of vendetta, not justice. Civilized moral retribution should aim to avoid such barbarism. Under anarchism, David’s proposals can be adopted as a matter of principle rather than as an aberration to be rectified.

David says that “The criminal would simply be enslaved to the victim or her punishment agency…” [End quote]

Well, again 1) victims could demand disproportionate punishment, and the enforcement agency would comply. 2) Some victims will not be covered by a “punishment agency.” Who sees to it that justice is achieved in the case of those who cannot afford or don’t want to contract with a private firm? There is no incentive for an agency to pursue a dangerous offender who has not harmed a client. Do we rely on a bunch of good neighbors who will take up arms and hunt the man/woman down? Or do we as a society, through the law, make a public declaration of the few abiding and immutable values we wish to uphold (i.e., he must be brought to justice and tried in a court of law).

To the extent possible, there must be a commitment, however imperfect, to justice for all and not only for those who’ve contracted with an agency.

That’s why, while David and I agree entirely that the criminal justice system is egregious in its attitude to victims, his definition of the private production of defense as “victim-centered” is, I think, misleading.

On David’s comment about (his) anarchy vs. (my) minarchy. I started out as an anarchist. But I had certain doubts about the private production of justice. To date, they have not been addressed. The main issue, and I spoke of it first in a talk I gave to a Libertarian Party convention last year, is that fundamentally different and competing views of justice (right and wrong) will arise in anarchy. It’s inevitable. How does one reconcile this with a view of the immutability of the natural law and the emphasis on the search for truth as the ultimate value of justice? Since my understanding of justice is based on such a view (applied realistically, of course, to facts and context), I can’t accept this.

Again, that we suffer these pitfalls under the state is not a sufficient argument for making this a perfectly appropriate, ‘principled’ option, which would be the case under anarchy.

David alludes to the gap between his position and mine and puts it down to the anarchy/minarchy divide. As I look at it, better to distinguish good from bad arguments than to separate anarchist from minarchist positions. The goal should be to advance just, rights-based positions. If reality is twisted into pretzels so as to fulfill the requirement for theoretical virginity, then, while clever, the argument isn’t necessarily good. (And sometimes maybe the theory itself needs to be questioned.)

—Written by Ilana Mercer, January 10, 2004

Update (May 2, 2008): Are competition and so-called natural co-operation sufficient to keep human venality and evil in check? My experience in the world—and in a community of relatively elevated people, libertarians—would indicate not. While some anarchists are and were profound thinkers, like Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the Tannehills, the contemporary garden variety anarchist is not a serious thinker. In anarchy, many have simply adopted a rah-rah, fist-in-the-air, I’m-so-sexy stance.

Speaking of profound thinkers I’m privileged to know: Can I neglect what economist George Reisman has observed about anarchy? About “competing governments,’ or the purchase and sale of such government services as police, courts, and military in a free market,” Reisman says this:

“As the result of Ayn Rand’s criticisms, I came to the conclusion that the case was untenable, if for no other reason than that it abandoned the distinction between private action and government action and implicitly urged unregulated, uncontrolled government action, i.e., the uncontrolled, unregulated use of physical force. This was the logical implication of treating government as a free business enterprise. I had to conclude that government in the form of a highly regulated, tightly controlled legal monopoly on the use of force, was necessary after all, in order to provide an essential foundation for unregulated, uncontrolled private markets in all goods and services, which would then function totally free of the threat of physical force. This indeed represented nothing more than a return to my starting point. It was what the government established by the United States’ Constitution had represented, and which I had so much admired.”

CONSIDER 9/11. When libertarian anarchists declare that, and I quote, “the proper authority to exercise a right of self defense against an aggressor is the individual whose rights have been violated, or a designated agent,” however charitably one interprets this, the realistic translation is that innocent victims have no rights against terrorists.

Coming from libertarians, most of whom have adopted anarchism, suggestions such as these translate, in reality, as follows: In essence, the aggressor has all the rights because he places himself outside natural and positive, national and international law. The victim, being law-abiding, has no rights, because his only recourse to justice is through the state. Since the state is illegitimate, or rather, since libertarian anarchists see anything the state does as illegitimate (a logical flaw), the realistic application of this cynical sleight of hand is to wave the victim’s right to have any protection or restitution, however inefficient and insufficient. These are the implications of their words. There is no other interpretation.

Against such abstruseness, one cannot avoid wondering how over 2000 people, whose right to life was sundered, go about nominating a proxy to act on their behalf in a manner that will satisfy libertarian legalities. AND IN THIS DYSTOPIAN WORLD, NOT IN UTOPIA. Remember Ayn Rand’s warning about the “sin of abstraction.” About her beliefs, Chris Sciabarra has written: “No human value can be separated from the conditions that make its achievement possible.”

Once again, in practice, the anarchist libertarian ideas of a just war, which I would agree with in theory, ruled out any action against al Qaida after 9/11. Roy A. Childs Jr. came to the same conclusion as I have come and recanted anarchism in his last years. “It has led too many libertarians away from reality,” he wrote, “and, indeed, seen them on a collision course with it.”

This nation has the proudest of histories. America hails from classical liberalism. We need to distance the current Third-Way social democracy from the long-lost republic and, in that way, revive classical liberalism. As a strategy for going forward, I suggest we draw on this history. Right now, with the influence of anarchists, there is a kind of destructive, infantile anti-authoritarian attitude toward this history.

Many anarchists like to say that there’s nothing libertarian about the U.S. Constitution. I’ll admit to preferring the Articles of Confederation, which were usurped in favor of the Constitution at the Philadelphia convention. But I prefer to say this: To the extent that the Constitution is compatible with the natural law, it’s good; to the extent it isn’t, it’s not. There is a lot wrong with the Constitution, as Rand, a minarchist, also conceded.

Still, disparaging the greatest revolutionaries—politically and philosophically—ever, the American Revolutionaries, is yet another element of a stark, ahistoric worldview rife among many libertarians. Our hope for restoring liberty in the US rests not on obscure references to anarchy and utopia, but on the great tradition from which this nation has sprung.

Anarchists currently make their case with wacky references to examples of anarcho-capitalism in small homogeneous societies—Medieval Viking Age Iceland. Or, even less convincingly among some murderous tribes in Africa. For some loopy reason, they prefer this no-man’s la-la land to the followers of John Locke. This tendency to go off the deep end is precisely what I mean when I equate anarchism with the triumph of sexy and showy.

Zimbabwe And the Errant West

Africa, South-Africa, The West

Here we go again: Zim’s failure is being reduced by the chattering class to the shenanigans of one man. As I have written, “The peanut gallery’s messiah du jour is Morgan Tsvangirai of the Zimbabwean Opposition Party. They delude themselves that if not for the megalomania of one man—Mugabe—freedom would have flourished in Zimbabwe, as it has in the rest of Africa.”

What bunk!

What western know-nothings never contemplate is “who was the Prince among Men responsible for the good times [in Zimbabwe]? The phantom was Ian Smith, prime minister of Rhodesia, RIP. Smith was ostracized by the international community which refused to recognize his minority rule, and treated him like it treated Saddam Hussein, with boycotts and sanctions.”

“The British would not rest until Smith ceded power. When Mugabe was elected Leader for Life in 1980, he celebrated the West’s stupidity by committing his first major massacre in 1983. While Dr. Robert Mugabe was eliminating 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland, his pals in the US were busy bestowing on him honorary doctorates. By the time the Queen of England knighted Sir Robert Mugabe in 1994, he had already done his ‘best’ work.” (Excerpted from “Mugabe, Mbeki, Maliki: They’re Our Boys“)

Thus will South Africa be eulogized with reference to what Mbeki or Zuma did wrong, rather than with reference to the West—it would not relent until that country passed into the hands of a ruthless, voracious majority. No federalism was allowed. No rights for the Afrikaner and English minorities were ever considered. In fact, the US opposed those trifles and agitated for raw democracy.

Now what we have in my former homeland is African democracy as raw and as ripe as sewerage.

Dalai Lama La-La Land

Celebrity, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pseudo-intellectualism, The West, The Zeitgeist

Ask the prototypical dumb bimbo—an American beauty queen, for example—who’s her most favorite person in the whole wide world, and she’ll reply: the Dalai Lama. (And then bare that mandatory big overbite.)

The Dalai Lama is the celebrity airhead’s “intellectual” ornament, every bit as essential a fashion accessory as the rat-like pooch, or the adopted African or Asian ankle biter.

On the surface, the DL seems a sweet enough old man down to his conventional arsenal of simple truisms. He’s no Aristotle that’s for sure, although when he says things like, “Peace good; war bad,” his followers react as though he said something revolutionary. Western liberals love to patronize exotic, foreign activists.

So, as sixty thousand pitiful pinkos flooded Qwest Field stadium in Seattle to feast on the Tibetan leader’s presence (flabby arms and all), it’s worth remembering that the man, and Tibetan Buddhism, was made hip by the likes of Richard Gere, who doesn’t always know a great deal. (I’m being charitable here.)

Indeed, the Dalai Lama is Hollywood’s cause celebre. When the Beatles were young, the rich and famous flocked to India to prostrate themselves before slimy gurus, who promptly took their cash in exchange for Lama-like fortune-cookie “wisdom.” Later, many gurus were exposed for their corrupt, un-abstemious life-styles. The left-liberals lying at the feet of the Lama should know that “during the half century of living in the western world, he had embraced concepts such as human rights and religious freedom, ideas largely unknown in old Tibet.”

The Lama’s wisdom is Western.

All in all, the Dalai Lama is a bit of a liar. He certainly never reminds his acolytes that the Tibetan exile community, lazy Lama included, was funded by the CIA (and George Soros). Michael Parenti, Ph.D has deconstructed the myths of Tibetan Buddhism and history in “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth”:

“Both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that “more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.” The official 1953 census–six years before the Chinese crackdown–recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000. Other census counts put the population within Tibet at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves–of which we have no evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese force in Tibet could not have rounded up, hunted down, and exterminated that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.

Chinese authorities claim to have put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They themselves, however, have been charged with acts of brutality by exile Tibetans. The authorities do admit to “mistakes,” particularly during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution when the persecution of religious beliefs reached a high tide in both China and Tibet. After the uprising in the late 1950s, thousands of Tibetans were incarcerated. During the Great Leap Forward, forced collectivization and grain farming were imposed on the Tibetan peasantry, sometimes with disastrous effect on production. In the late 1970s, China began relaxing controls “and tried to undo some of the damage wrought during the previous two decades.”

Needless to say, the history of the region is far more nuanced than Western liberals allow. Tibet was a slave, serf-based, old feudal theocracy under the Lama, and before the Chinese. “In reality, old Tibet was not a Paradise Lost. It was a retrograde repressive theocracy of extreme privilege and poverty, a long way from Shangri-La. To denounce the Chinese occupation does not mean we have to romanticize the former feudal régime.” Or the Lama, who is a caricature, the creation of far-out left-liberals.

Bottom line, Americans should be convening to protest the Iraq war, with its 4 million refugees and tens of thousand dead. As little as they know about that recent atrocity, Americans know even less about Tibet. More material, Iraq is an American mess. Americans, most of whom cheered the war when it was launched, have an obligation to expiate and make amends for that mess. Until you’ve done that, shut the hell up about Tibet.

And do read “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth” in its entirety.