Mercer Memorial-Day Message Same Since 2009

America, Homeland Security, Israel, Just War, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, War

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”—ilana mercer

I have published this message every Memorial day, since 2009, softened slightly for taste.

Robert Glisson, a veteran and a longtime reader—where are you, Robert?—was once asked to write an op-ed for Barely A Blog about the “Patriot Guard Riders.” The op-ed, entitled “For The Love of A Brother-In-Arms, And ‘Big Brother’ Be Damned,” was prefaced with this comment:

“I do not identify with the military mission, but who can fault the humanity of the effort?”

It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. And it is the annual custom on Barely A Blog to extend sympathies to the Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I cannot honor that lie. I mourn for them, as I have from day one.

I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars and assorted informal attacks. My heart hurts for you, but my worshiping at Moloch’s feet will not make you feel better, deep down.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which actually fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.

I can legitimately claim to know of flesh-and-blood heroes who fought so that I could emerge from the bomb shelter (in the wars of 67 and 73) and proceed with my kid life. I always stood in their honor and wept when the sirens wailed once a year. Wherever he is, every Israeli stops on that day and stands still in remembrance. We would have been physically overrun by Arabs if not for those brave men who defended the homeland—and not some far-away imperial project—with their bodies.

But can we Americans, in 2021, make such a claim? Can we truly claim that someone killed an Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Libyan or Syrian so that we may … do what? Remind me?

What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

How fast the so-called small-government types forget that the military is government. As explained in Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program:

“When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”

Classical Liberalism And State Schemes further suggests how the military, as an arm of the state, can become antithetical to the liberty of its own citizens and the world’s citizens:

We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.
“philanthropic” wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects, if you will. The warfare state, like the welfare state, is thus inimical to the classical liberal creed. Therefore, government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. As I’ve written, “In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because free people understand that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government (‘great purposes’ in Bush Babble), the poorer and less free the people.”

While America Crumbles Into Wokeness; China Seeks Spiritual Sustenance In Confucianism

China, Communism, Culture, Education, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nationhood

As America’s youth become more un-moored from traditions, increasingly libertine, ignorant, morally loose and disrespectful, and lousy at writing, reasoning, and speaking about anything other than raaaaaacism—the Chinese are returning to classical, traditional education.

In Confucianism, the Chinese had a grand and ancient tradition before their native culture was decimated by communism. Unlike our own Traitor Class, their leaders know what strengthens the soul, and they want to infuse the nation with that cultural sustenance the better to make it stronger. Bereft of militarist, American-style multiculturalism to hobble the national spirit, and with their Muslim population heavily controlled—there is no stopping the Chinese.

“Chinese parents are keen on a more Confucian education,” explains The Economist, “so is the government, hoping it will boost patriotism and fill a moral vacuum”:

There is “a growing nationwide demand for guoxue, or ‘national studies.'”

This usually involves learning classical Chinese thought, texts and morals, especially those associated with Confucius. Children … are taught how to bow, how to greet each other politely in the street and how to sit attentively, with back straight and hands placed carefully in their laps. In one room they noisily stamp leaves onto muslin bags to learn an ancient dyeing technique. In others they recite poems, practise calligraphy, perform tea ceremonies and play Chinese chess. But, say teachers, mastering skills is secondary to building character. A child learns to “respect her rival and accept defeat” in chess; in the tea room, to “value what is fragile as you would a porcelain cup”.

After decades of worshiping foreign trends, many people are now interested in such traditions. Television shows include “Chinese Poetry Conference”, in which members of the public are quizzed on classical stanzas. Young people don traditional robes in public. At the heart of the trend is education. …

Revered for 2,500 years, Confucius was vilified during the 20th century. Guoxue fans speak of “a hundred-year gap”. In 1905 the failing Qing dynasty abolished imperial civil-service examinations based on the sishu, the four Confucian texts. Modernisers saw the beliefs as blocking progress.

The worst assaults were after the Communists came to power in 1949. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao exhorted people to smash anything old. Gangs of Red Guards swarmed Qufu, the sage’s hometown, and blew up his tomb. It was only in the mid-1980s, nearly a decade after Mao’s death, that the anniversary of Confucius’s birth could be marked once again. …

China’s return to tradition is driven in part by a sense of cultural loss. Many Chinese people are eager to rediscover their heritage, stripped away by decades of Communist rule. But it is also flourishing because it now meshes with official objectives. President Xi Jinping has done more than any other modern leader to elevate Confucian ideas. Soon after coming to power in 2013, Mr Xi visited Qufu, as emperors had done before him. He called for “new and positive roles” for Confucianism.

The ancient system of thought emphasises respect for authority, reverence for ancestors and deference to elders. Confucius taught that such values were essential to achieve moral excellence as an individual. Such upstanding citizens would form the basis for wider social harmony and political stability. Emperors used the philosophy to instill obedience. Mr Xi wants to do the same. Party leaders also approve of Confucianism because, unlike socialism, it is home-grown. It appeals to young nationalists who cheer the party’s call for wenhua zixin, or cultural self-confidence….

…The number of classical texts to be taught in schools increased from 14 to 72. In 2017 the government put out guidelines for having a comprehensive guoxue syllabus in primary and secondary schools by 2025. …

…For many Chinese, the sage’s musings hold a different appeal. In neglected Confucian morals, educators see a set of values that may be a solution to modern social ills, just as some in the West turn to traditional Christian values. Jia Hong, who set up Huaguoshan and two other guoxue pre-schools, says, “Nowadays we hear about so much bullying and brattish behaviour.” Many think a lack of good manners is to blame. Three-quarters of the 200 children at Ms Jia’s kindergartens used to attend regular ones. She says parents remark on how Confucian rituals have calmed their children and helped them focus.

The Economist, May 22, 2021.

UPDATED II (5/30): NEW COLUMN: A Whiteout Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room

Argument, Communism, Conflict, Critical Race Theory, Race, Racism, Socialism

NEW COLUMN, “A Whiteout Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room,” is on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com, Townhall.com and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

… unlike Critical Race Theory, Marxism offers a class-based analysis—it fingers social class as the primary source of conflict in society.

Critical Race Theory, conversely, focuses exclusively on race as the source of all oppression. Not on any race, mind you, but on the white race, or on “white supremacy.”

Honest demons that they are, Critical Race Theory sophisticates generally reject the term racism in favor of “white supremacy as a conceptual framework for understanding race-based oppression,” as Charles W. Mills, a CRT “scholar,” readily concedes.

It is conservatives who cling to the comfortable “racism” generality to describe the thrust of Critical Race Theory. They’re the only dazed and confused sorts to bewail CRT’s un-American, diffuse, generic racism. (The folks at Prager U, for example.)

Strictly speaking, Critical Race Theory is not even traditionally racist; it’s exclusively anti-white. It is pro all races other than white.

Unlike their feeble conservative adversaries, critical race theorists admit as much. These odious individuals use “white supremacy” to describe white existence. Irrespective of lives well-lived, to the critical race critters, whites are on the wrong side of creation.

As opposed to Marxists, then, critical race theorists identify race, the white race specifically, as the “primary contradiction in society.”

It’s Dhimmitude, Dummy

Socialism is most certainly not central in the BLM list of values; socialism hardly rates a mention in the larger scheme of priming whites for dhimmitude—reeducating, intimidating and subjugating whites qua whites.

That truth, very plainly, is the albino elephant in the room.

Critical Race Theory’s central project is to make whites accept dhimmitude, not socialism. (If the practitioners of anti-whiteness, who already practice capitalism as consumers and producers in a market economy, were converted to theoretical capitalism—would their anti-whiteness dissipate? Naturally not.)…

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “A Whiteout Of Whites: Ignoring The Albino, Dhimmi Elephant In The Room,” is on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com, Townhall.com and American Greatness.

UPDATED (5/29):

“Thank God for Ilana Mercer, one of the only clear-thinking intellectuals that really understands the point of Critical Race Theory.”

“Ignoring the Albino, Dhimmi Elephant in the Room”: Critical race theory’s central project is to make whites accept subservience, not #socialism


NEW ON YouTube: WHITEOUT FOR WHITES! The BLM Monomania With David Vance

Britain, Conservatism, Ilana Mercer, Race, Racism, Republicans, THE ELITES

NEW ON YOUTUBE: WHITEOUT FOR WHITES: The BLM Monomania.

Weekly with David Vance: A wide-ranging discussion on the cancelling of whites and the substitution of bogus socialism arguments for anti-whiteness.

For example, Nigel Farage, a very clever Briton, popped in on Laura  Ingraham, the other evening. There, on “The Ingraham Angle,” he committed a non sequitur all in the service of not mentioning “anti-whiteness.”

You might say, Mr. Farage twisted like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist to ignore anti-whiteness.

Watch:

https://youtu.be/HB5Bmo-KOwU