‘Mercer Eats Nails For Breakfast’ (Not)

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, Old Right, Pop-Culture, Reason, The Zeitgeist

In 2006, Anthony St. John posted interesting, but misguided, comments about me on the blog of Sir Peter Stothard, editor of the Times Literary Supplement, whose avid reader I am. (Their archive facility for subscribers seldom works; a big drawback.)

Sir Stothard had noted my praise for the TLS in “Excellence Vs. Offal”: “It’s always good to find a friend in blogland. So let me introduce Iana [sic] Mercer and her views about the TLS.”

Sigh.

As they say, “So long as they spell your name correctly…”

More interesting are Anthony St. John’s comments about me. A while ago, my pal Tom DiLorenzo sent me a note in which I am referred to as “one of the toughest people around.” Sean laughed a lot. (He understood that the comment was directed at my principles, not my person.) I find it puzzling, as I’m one of the softest sorts around, in demeanor too. (And a tiny person at that.)

I suspect that rationality is hard to grapple with in sentimental fin de siècle America. I don’t misplace sympathy; I always bestow it where it is absolutely deserving.

It takes a superficial sort to call me “hard.”

Has any writer written more emotionally than the one who wrote “About a Boy,” or “Betraying Brave Boys”? I doubt it. It’s just that I don’t bleed all over the floor for Oprah’s or Tyra’s archetypal “victims.”

I suspect that comments such as “[d]oes she eat nails for breakfast?” are an extension of the above, and compounded by the impersonal nature of the Internet.

In any event, St. John’s comments are interesting, as I’m not quite sure how he, being a Marxist, would like me to mellow. Or how he, being a Marxist, can even attempt to understand a woman of the Right, which I am–a woman of the Old, libertarian Right. This man has not done his homework. As for me being “crass”; a man who doesn’t recognize a lady is no gentleman at all.

Here goes:

30 June 2006
DO I HAVE TO THROW STONES AT THE MONA LISA BECAUSE IT’S CRACKING, PEELING AND FADING AWAY?
About twenty years or so ago, I (7 October 1944) stopped asking myself “Where’s this world going.” I just had given up. Nothing could surprise me from then on. So when one of my fellows, a woman, wrote back to me–after I had suggested to her to visit www.ilanamercer.com and tell me what she thought–pleading that I “blow Ilana out of the water,” I was not shocked, but I was very disappointed. I have no reason to blow Ilana out of the water. She is a stunningly beautiful woman, a very talented essayist, and I admire gutsy women (and men) who provoke us to think in these days of ambiguity and hypocrisy. A cad I am not! And Ilana offered me a chance to stroll down a Memory Lane of sorts. She reminded me of my stint as a circulation/correspondence assistant at NATIONAL REVIEW magazine in New York where I hobnobbed with those egg-headed US conservative doyens who were planting the seeds of the NeoTheoCon vogue with which we are burdened today. I broke bread with Russell Kirk, Senators Barry Goldwater and John Tower, Eddie Rickenbacher, Jr, James “The Managerial Revolution” Burnham, Robert Welch, Charles Edison, William A Rusher (WAR!), Frank Meyer and many others including, of course, the Prime Mover of the NeoTheoCon fad and the fervent Irish-American Roman Catholic who put God in the first pew of Northamerican conservative politics, William F Buckley, Jr. Ilana is made of that “conservative stuff” I tired of when I left NR in 1962 and went to university. (I am haunted, to this day, by with what my sister once told me: “You, mitigated Marxist, rocked the cradle of the NeoTheoCon movement, too!”) They are smart individuals but they stink to high heaven with their self-righteousness. I read a couple of IM’s articles and I know how her political DNA is mapped out. I could never agree with her on, say, her efforts to extol Oriana Fallaci whom I consider a racist and war-monger. (Nothing would please OF more than if British and Northamerican soldiers fought another “crusade” against the believers of the Islam religion which she, OF, detests.) But, IM is courageous enough to say those things which others might not agree with her on, and she is ready to take the consequences–something which many journalists today are not wont to do. I would like to give Ilana Mercer some advice, if I may. Ilana, you are often crass and insensitive. You also assume too much from your readers. Remember there are many people in this world who are not even interested in what the Left or Right has to offer us in these trying times. Your barbs are probably going to turn people off more than they will win friends and influence people to your side. You must enlighten and delight. Tone your voice down. You have a wonderful ability to see through to the heart of things. But, please be courteous when doing so–for your own benefit. Contain your strength and maintain a calm exterior. Remember that we are pliant. We are flexible when we are born, and we become hard when we die. You must be strong. Not hard. Being strong means you know when to be soft, when to be hard. You are too hard, Ilana. Really. Anthony “The Word Warrior” St. John…

Posted by: Anthony St. John | 30 Jun 2006 18:02:36
24 June 2006

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

Posted by: Anthony St. John | 24 Jun 2006 10:17:13

Update II: ‘Monetary Freedom and Its Opposite’

Economy, EU, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Political Economy, The State

Writes Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

“As we enter the era of decline for the dollar all sorts of reforms will be used to address this decline and the economic instability it causes. However, reforms designed on Wall Street or in Washington will not work and will amount to nothing more than rear guard action by the moneyed interests that control the government.

The only true path to reform is monetary freedom. We have gone from a situation where money was entirely free from government intervention to one that is completely dominated by government. Instead of privately minted coins made from precious metals we now have a system of government-printed paper fiat currency. We have gone from a system of private banking that provided bank notes and checks for demand deposits to one where banks are completely regulated by the central bank and a host of other regulatory bodies. The idea that our current financial mess resulted from a lack of regulation is truly laughable. Of course this process has taken centuries to complete. By giving up our monetary freedom—particularly over the last one hundred years—we have given government the ability to grow in size and scope and to achieve unthinkable levels of power. Every step forward towards government control of money has resulted in social chaos and economic destruction. The real economy only grows in the interludes when monetary mischief is at a minimum.”

[Snip]

Pay attention to the section, “What do we need to do as individuals?”

Update I: As always, Pat Buchanan delves well into the history of events–in this case The Bretton Woods Agreements, and the ongoing, current attempt to recreate a second Bretton Woods by unseating the US and its fallen currency. What I don’t get is why is Pat so confident that a “global central bank, the Fed of the world economy,” will not come to pass. He claims “Americans are not going to fund such a bank, nor cede it authority, nor abide by its dictates. We are not yet a Third World nation dependent on the IMF.”

Why Not? Whence comes the confidence? Pat’s courage and convictions are not shared in Washington and on Wall Street. (Or on “Main Street,” for that matter.)

Update II (Nov. 15): The G-20 Summit, where G stands for Golem, has concluded. Some humor has been injected into this solemn affair, as the central planners’ affirmed “their commitment to free market principles.” Another thing to tickle the funny bone: the commitment these counterfeiters made to “promoting integrity in financial markets.” Nothing about integrity in government. I guess that’s a contradiction in terms.

Updated: GOP, RIP?

Elections 2008, Ilana On Radio & TV, IMMIGRATION, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

The excerpt is from my latest WorldNetDaily column, “GOP, RIP?“:

“At bottom, what does David Brooks, the ‘Reformer,’ mean when he instructs ‘Conservatives … to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters'”?

‘Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods,’ wrote H.L. Menken. ‘If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.’

‘Appealing to,’ or ‘reaching out,’ is political prattle for promising stuff. Republicans – ‘Reformed’ and Unreformed – have taken away from their defeat that they should be flogging more stolen goods in communities where such stuff is especially coveted.

These ‘Reformers’ want to ensure that the unreformed voter knows what’s on the menu next time around.

Time magazine would agree: “Thou Shalt not Covet” is so passé. (Or “so yesterday,” as the hip would say.)”

The complete column is here.

Update (Nov. 16): I will be chatting to Jerry Hughes of the Accent Radio Network, on his show, Conceived in Liberty. The topic: my column “GOP, RIP?” The time: 11:30 until 12:00 PM, Pacific.

Updated: Pawlenty Or Ponnuru; It's All The Same

Conservatism, Elections 2008, Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Republicans

The Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has declared:

“‘Drill baby, drill’ by itself is not an energy policy. It’s not enough. We’re going to need wind and solar and bio mass.”

What Pawlenty is saying is that arguing with global warming politics is not viable. Therefore, the logic of drilling must be substituted with the illogic of expensive, and hence dirtier, sources of energy. As I wrote in “The Goods on Gas“:

“The more efficient the source of energy, the less waste and pollution are involved in its conversion into energy. Think of the totality of the production process! The fewer resources expended in bringing a fuel to market, the cleaner and cheaper is the process.”

So, Mr. Pawlenty, drilling is so an energy policy—especially if one hasn’t drilled in decades, and if oil is one of most viable sources of energy. Most Republicans have simply lost the ability to make a case, any case.

Update (Nov. 20): It’s my theory that the quest for power, among the punditocracy and the pols alike, creates a convergence toward opinions most acceptable to power brokers and voters.

To wit, in “Rebooting the Right,” Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review, ladles out the same lukewarm, happy, middle-grounds we’ve heard from most GOPers–and I surveyed in “GOP, RIP?“:

“At the GOP governors’ meeting this month, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota argued that Republicans need to stay conservative but also modernize. A revitalized conservatism would push for tax reform with an eye on middle-class families, not hedge-fund operators. It would seek solutions to global warming rather than deny that it exists. It would place a higher priority on making health care affordable than on slashing pork programs. It would promote the assimilation of Hispanics rather than regard them as a menace or a source of cheap labor.”