The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Conservative Kids Must Learn Before They Lead
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

To judge by their writing, the youngsters who’ve been given the run of the conservative op-ed pages, pixelated and printed, know little about how socialism differs from capitalism.

To their credit, they’ve chosen a side—the right side—but are incapable of arguing the morality of capitalism and its efficacy (which stems from its morality).

Discredited are their employers for failing to demand that their young, conservative charges methodically and creatively motivate for the right—and the Right—side.

Endeavoring to explain the oft-repeated banality that, “Colleges are turning young people [into] socialists,” one such prototypical writer says this in her dog’s breakfast of a column, for the Washington Examiner:

“Students are gullible and moldable because they have little conviction and no foundation. Too often, public universities teach students to accept basic, shallow ‘knowledge’ at face value. They are not trained to ask why this knowledge matters or how it influences the rest of their education or how it relates to higher principles.”

The writer at once, and incoherently, condemns “shallow knowledge” (whatever that is), yet laments that students are not taught to relate “shallow knowledge” to higher principles. What does this even mean?!

Such bafflegab is published absent the telltale signs of editorial oversight. Or, perhaps the editors of the Examiner and publications like it think that voicing an opinion is the same as advancing an argument.

However, meandering assertions, circular arguments, non sequiturs and assorted banal utterances don’t belong on editorial pages. Agile argument does.

The piece continues in this puerile vain, conjuring the catchphrase that currently precedes every sentence spoken by a millennial: “I feel like.”

“I feel like” columns and essays are a dime a dozen; their purveyors having procured plum positions in the conservative press.

That “students are not learning” in schools and are thus gravitating to socialism is beyond trite—it’s also a non sequitur. For one would have to argue that lack of learning leads to socialism, and not merely assert it.

In showcasing amateurish, intern-quality material in national forums, conservatives are letting the liberal credo guide them. Leftists live by the folly that kids must be allowed to carry forth, talent and scholarship be damned. Lefties reject the hierarchical notion that youngsters must bide their time and learn from their betters before spouting off.

Young conservative columnists, by-and-large, are a product of this same mindset. Remember: Conservative kids are being subjected to the same system of miseducation they single out in their socialist peers.

Indeed, to go by their impoverished field of reference, too many conservative young “writers” know close to nothing and can barely formulate a coherent thought in writing. After all, they, too, are a product of the very same pedagogic system that has, ostensibly, mired their leftist peers in the sludge of socialism. (Watching Fox News doesn’t count as “learning.”)

In their low-watt rambling one can find no evidence that young conservatives have imbibed foundational literature that might equip them to write rationally and inspiringly about capitalism—and freedom.

ORDER IT NOW

Ayn Rand or Mencken, Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick; Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek; Frederic Bastiat, Frank Chodorov, John Flynn, Felix Morley, Lysander Spooner, and Garet Garrett: Nothing in the pablum disgorged by these young, cocky scribblers would indicate that they’ve assimilated these and other towering texts, like those of the brilliant Russell Kirk.

Worse: If they’ve read classical works, the young conservatives loosed upon the public, over commentary pages, show no evidence that the good stuff has stuck.

Again, the only difference between the conservative youth who’ve been given the run of conservative editorial pages and their socialist peers is that conservative kids are on the right side. They mean well; they simply can’t get it out. And that won’t do in desperate times.

Superficial, cliched, barely grammatical, largely irrational utterances do not cut it in defending capitalism—a defense that demands the power and the passion to reason for freedom.

The point was underscored by economist Milton Friedman in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”: “The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

As epistolary arrows, “subtle, sophisticated and rational” are not carried in the quivers of up-and-coming young conservatives.

The hallmark of the ignorance here decried is to settle the question of socialism with crass pragmatism: “Socialism doesn’t work,” these poor youngsters are wont to parrot (much like their elders, actually, who’re often unequal to the job).

The rights-violating underpinnings of socialism are what makes socialism and its attendant political platform both an economic wrecking ball and plain wicked.

To confine the argument against socialism to a utilitarian assertion—for “it doesn’t work” is not an argument—is, moreover, to imply that if socialism’s command economy worked, it would be worth considering.

What a dreadful deduction! Nevertheless, a dreadful deduction that follows logically from a dreadful “argument.”

So, dismissing socialism as no more than unworkable is worse than useless, even wicked. Young conservative columnists must learn how to inveigh against socialism as a rights-infringing, tyrannical, aberrant ideology that subjugates individual to state.

Before they can lead, the kids must learn. What a revolutionary concept in the Age of the Idiot.

Conservatives are supposed to be principled defenders of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. Alas, we’ve left the kids in charge. And they’re as untutored as their socialist contemporaries, except that the latter have easier arguments to make: simple, false, and emotional, to paraphrase Dr. Friedman.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.”

 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. But learn what?

    In Jewish-controlled globo-homo culture, kids are taught that homos and trannies are angels.

    It won’t be long before ‘anal sex’ is called ‘angel sex’.

  2. Rich says:

    I suspect those who choose the young “conservatives” writers to represent the right, are very careful to purposely select those who can’t explain why collectivism is unworkable and why communism is an evil ideology.

  3. Anonymous[223] • Disclaimer says:

    Most conservativism inc’s youngsters had sheltered lives and thus have no leadership ability.

    I am not saying that college liberals or socialist also are not sheltered, but the ones from poor backgrounds definitely know something about struggle.

    I am also not saying there are not conservative poor youngsters, but those types are usually working blue-collar jobs and not writing for conservatism inc’s youth outreach wing.

    That is not to say that liberalism inc’s youth outreach wing is populated by poor youngsters either.

    The deeper issue is that the elites(right and left), including the mercers have no real legitimacy based on leadership. Having wealth does imply leadership skills. That is a conflation born from the wealthy elite’s delusions of all around greatness. The result of an era in which everything is measured in money and the things it buys.

    Never before has a culture mistakenly believed in a correlation between moral courage and shrewdness with money. And it is an obvious mistake to correlate the two.

    • Agree: Realist
  4. Eric135 says:

    Jewish capitalism and Jewish communism/socialism have never been opposed to each other. The apparent opposition has always been a kind of Kabuki theater. Jewish bankers financed the Bolshevik Revolution and the leaders of capitalist America handed Eastern Europe, Cuba and China over to the communists.

    Just look at the end game: capitalism and communism are both globalist systems that concentrate power in the hands of Jews and their lackeys and enslave the rest of us. It hardly matters whether the goal is achieved through capitalism or communism. With capitalism, it just takes a bit longer.

    Why anyone would defend free market capitalism is beyond me. It requires inflation, usury, national debt, personal debt, devalued currency, downward pressure on wages, discouraging savings, breaking up families and communities, the virtual elimination of national boundaries and distinct cultures, mass immigration and “multiculturalism”, offshoring of jobs, periodic financial crashes, low quality products and services, planned obsolescence, waste, and it always involves cronyism in which politicians are bought and paid for and the “free market” is rigged to favor the few.

    It’s also no accident that capitalism requires perpetual war.

    Neither capitalism nor communism — in spite of their rhetoric — has any regard for the well being of the people. And no government is legitimate that fails to make that its first priority:

    Salus populi lex suprema esto. Hitler understood that — which is why they attacked him.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @PhysicistDave
  5. Realist says:
    @Eric135

    Neither capitalism nor communism — in spite of their rhetoric — has any regard for the well being of the people.

    That is absolutely true. Both are designed to make the elite rich.

  6. Realist says:

    Unfettered capitalism is an abomination. That is essentially what we have know…and the greedy flourish, while the productive flounder. The Deep State/elite/greedy live to obtain immense wealth and power…most of the middle class live to advance humanity. Those that work to advance humanity and science are seldom even moderately rich. Communism is just a different approach for the greedy to reach the same goal.

    • Replies: @Realist
  7. Levtraro says:

    The point was underscored by economist Milton Friedman in the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”: “The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”

    Exactly. The argument for individualism is so subtle and sophisticated that even Mercer and Friedman fail to grasp it. True individualism is incompatible with real-world capitalism (and socialism too of course). Capitalism as it had been realized is collectivist as it requires adherence to large hierarchies, particularly to the State, to which adherence is mandatory, but also to non-State groups, to which adherence is encouraged in order to get ahead in wealth accumulation.

  8. G. Poulin says:

    We are long past the point where making good arguments will make a bit of difference. We are in a civil war, not a session of the high school debating club. The outcome will be determined by force, not persuasion.

  9. nickels says:

    Socialism vs. Capitalism, goy.

    • Agree: Svevlad
  10. Ironically Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and many of the early Bolsheviks grew up absorbing Western canonical literature, art and music. Marx could read classical Greek fluently as an adult, for example, and he could quote from memory passages from Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe. Even Che Guevara, from a later generation, came from an educated family with a personal library, and he read voraciously while keeping notebooks about the ideas he encountered in his reading.

    A grounding in Western culture doesn’t necessarily protect you from the influence of bad ideas, in other words. Something else has to come into play.

  11. Ayn Rand’s alternative humanism doesn’t quite work. In its favor it encourages young men to develop bourgeois habits of a low time preference, personal development, career success, saving and investing money and building wealth. But it promotes these constructive behaviors as the foundation for a life of sterile sexual hedonism. (In a way, Objectivism resembles the broadcaster Tom Leykis’s philosophy of Leykis 101.) You just don’t find in Rand’s philosophy the idea that you produce wealth as the means for starting and supporting a family. Instead Rand’s novels show family life in a very negative way.

  12. Young conservative columnists, by-and-large, are a product of this same mindset.

    No, they are the product of US humanities field which is trash both on the left and on the nominal right, because neither side operates with facts, let alone knows modern history. As such, they are as ignorant as their “lefty” counterparts and no less indoctrinated in the laissez-faire dogma then their opposites are indoctrinated in the BS which goes in the West under the title of “Marxism”. In general, the problem is that both “sides” are, pardon my French, dumb as fvck and are white board doctrine-mongers with zero background in things that matter. Intellectual level of modern Western “elites” as “columnists” on the left and the nominal right demonstrated has fallen well below L.A. sewer, so nothing could be changed.

  13. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    Hear hear!
    Excellent piece. I have no criticism of it.

  14. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    Comment #8 is also correct.

    And then as usual we have the barely disguised nasty remarks comments about ‘all things Jewish’.

    Which Ilana also has responsibility for by her gratuitous past mentions of her self-concept.

    This invidious, misleading and unnecessary way of separating people from one another is not good.

  15. As if insanely free-market USA isn’t run on a “a rights-infringing, tyrannical, aberrant ideology that subjugates individual to state.” You know nothing. You live in an ivory-tower, pie-in-the-sky Cloud-Cuckoo Land of “ideologies” and other non-existent abstractions. “Free market capitalism” just means the rich get to do absolutely anything they want, even sell your grandmother for dinner. “Socialism” just means they get to do anything they want, but not absolutely. It is a subtle distinction.

  16. Thank you Ms. Mercer for your correct and insightful observations about today’s conservative pseudo-intellectuals. I see such ignorance all around and not only among the young: “Free market economists” who cannot explain why Trump’s tarriffs necessarily destroy productivity, because they do not understand the law of comparative advantage elucidated by Smith and Ricardo, Reisman and Rothbard; Republican cheerleadeers who brag about what they imagine to be a vibrant economy and the soaring stockmarket, spin meisters who support endless money printing if it fattens them.

    On Fox a few days ago, a Texas Republican congressman deplored Warren’s promise of free “higher education” and proposed “a free market solution”: creating an “educational fund” to pay for “higher edeucation”. Who would fund the Fund, asked the bewildered interviewer, prospective employers? That appeared to put the Republican “free marketeer” off balance momentarily, because he looked stricken. “Yes, maybe employeers, but especially foundations and wealthy donors who want to ensue the best and brightest”… blah blah blah.

    The facile Republican understood nothing, other than that he needed a “free market” alternative to Warren’s promise of “free higher education”. He could not challenge the proposition of the moral value of “higher education” that consists of largely junk curriculum an left wing propaganda: that would be controversial. He could not fathom that free markets cannot fund massive edu-crat bureaucracies that feast on massive tax dollar funding. And he cannot imagine a world without college sports.

    I marveled at this cheese-head’s stupidty for a while and decided the battle is probably lost, since he is characteristic of a large portion of the philosophical opposition to socialism in the USSA. It’s like when Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium and announced to the West, “We will bury you”. Stalwart defenders of freedom answered with denunciations of the atheism of communists.

    I shudder when I read most of the comments in this thread.

  17. Svevlad says:

    Thesis – antithesis – synthesis, therefore national socialism. Rights, but only for the based. Why would anyone in their right mind allow just any schmuck to decide politics?

  18. Ilana suggested kids read:

    Ayn Rand or Mencken, Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick; Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek; Frederic Bastiat, Frank Chodorov, John Flynn, Felix Morley, Lysander Spooner, and Garet Garrett…

    We homeschooled our kids, so I did have them read a couple books by Rothbard, as well as Rand, and Garrett’s The People’s Pottage.

    I would add to this the third edition of Alchian and Allen’s University Economics, which our kids also worked through. Murray described this as the best undergrad econ text ever written, although he added sadly that it was beyond most American students.

    The kids also actually enjoyed Lawrence White’s The Clash of Economic Idea : The Great Policy Debates and Experiments of the Last Hundred Years, which is informative and well-written (notwithstanding the well-known conflict between Murray and White).

    I’d also add that kids need a very solid background in science and math, regardless of their long-term career path. Learning science and math means really living the fact that there are right and wrong answers: the universe is not subjective. A good example of a great science text is the Campbell/Reece Biology.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  19. @Eric135

    Eric135 wrote:

    It’s also no accident that capitalism requires perpetual war

    Most businessmen do not like war: it is bad for business in pretty obvious ways — higher taxes, drafting of workers, dislocation of the economy, etc. Not to mention what happens if the war actually occurs on your own territory!

    Yes, some privileged businessmen can make out like bandits in wartime. But war destroys resources (most prominently human livers). Not generally good for business at all.

    • Replies: @Exile
    , @Realist
    , @dfordoom
  20. Exile says:
    @PhysicistDave

    There is a legitimate subset of businessmen who still fit this description but they do not have a significant voice in American socio-politics. Business lobbying is done by rent-seekers and corrupt cronyists who shape most policy and profit is a secondary motive. Mercer’s defense of a more innocent kind of market capitalism is sadly counter-productive in the present context because taking her advice would only create more effective advocacy for vulture capitalism. In Randian terms, she’s Rearden & Taggart refusing to let the system fall. The present system and the parasites it feeds have to pass before something better will have room to grow.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  21. Realist says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Most businessmen do not like war:

    Not when it’s another country.

    But war destroys resources (most prominently human livers).

    Not to mention hearts, lungs, kidneys and all other body parts. Are you an illegal human organ purveyor?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  22. Realist says:
    @Realist

    That is essentially what we have know.

    Should read: That is essentially what we have now.

  23. @Realist

    Realist wrote to me:

    Not to mention hearts, lungs, kidneys and all other body parts. Are you an illegal human organ purveyor?

    Oops! Gotta proofread better when I post late at night.

    Yes, I meant “lives” of course.

    • Replies: @Realist
  24. @Exile

    Exile wrote:

    Mercer’s defense of a more innocent kind of market capitalism is sadly counter-productive in the present context because taking her advice would only create more effective advocacy for vulture capitalism.

    It is of course an uphill battle to explain the difference between “crony capitalism” and free markets. But I see no way to avoid that battle.

    The only way to have a decent and humane society is to have free-market capitalism. “Crony capitalism” squashes ordinary decent people for the benefit of rapacious corrupt criminals.

    We have to make the distinction.

    Exile also wrote:

    In Randian terms, [Ilana is] Rearden & Taggart refusing to let the system fall. The present system and the parasites it feeds have to pass before something better will have room to grow.

    Perhaps. But the point of Atlas Shrugged was that the intellectual groundwork has to be laid so that a decent world can be created out of the rubble of the old. The “collapse of the system” can, you know, lead to the Dark Ages rather than to a new Renaissance.

    Progress does not automatically follow collapse.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  25. GrayCat says:

    The issue isn’t really that the young “conservatives” can’t think logically or make a cogent argument. Of course they can’t, given the overtly socialist “education” they’ve been indoctrinated with, supported by their equally ignorant and socialist parents’ taxes and votes; their parents’ equal ignorance, complacency and compliance with the status quo.

    Almost all of the posters here have also never read any of the authors mentioned in the article. Almost all of them cannot themselves make logical, rational, cogent arguments against socialism and for true capitalism, let alone rights and freedoms, private property, and why it all matters. None has even cited all the real, real-time horrors committed by actually practiced Marxist socialism, and why it was horrific, why it necessitated the horrors, why, even then, they failed, and why yet still it appeals to people.

    You cannot give what you do not have: you cannot educate and train better people if you yourself are not properly educated and trained, if you yourself do not know and understand real history outside of official government indoctrination in the “schools” and propaganda in the media. You cannot argue and pass on proper morals and ethics if you yourself do not first understand them and why they matter. You cannot teach truth if you yourself do not understand it and know it – and live it, without compromise, in defiance of social and government indoctrination and expectations. Children learn what they live.

    Someone has said that real math and science matter, because they deal in truth and reality. And everything good and right depends on that base. Because the universe is not subjective.

    The issue is the near-universal deterioration of parental education and responsibility to educate their own children. The state actively works to eliminate and prohibit this, in fact. And we believe in government so completely that we continue to pay taxes and vote for the very people eradicating our long- and hard-won cultural standards and norms.

    The issue is the deliberate and insidious encroachment of Marxism since the Enlightenment. The issue is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity because it just isn’t fashionable any longer; the twisting of Christ’s Scriptures and teachings, of Christianity, so unrecognizably we do not know enough about Him, His Word, and our old Truthful Faith, to know how badly and wickedly they have been twisted, how badly and wickedly we have been twisted against them. Doesn’t matter that He and what He offered and our forefathers built through Him is precisely what we now delude ourselves to believe we are too intellectually advanced to need any longer.

    And here we are.

    In all the world, in all of history, only with the advent of Christianity in the Western European world, however flawed the execution in some times and places, has civilization come to the place where it is so spoiled, so sophisticated, so established in its learning and physical achievements, that our enemy Hubris was handed over the reins and we are arrogantly riding inside the coach pulled by powerful run-away horses whipped to frenzy, curtains drawn over the windows while we play games, hurtling over the cliff of self-destruction and self-immolation, choosing to blame everyone and everything else rather than our own grandiose pride while we plunge over the edge – if we even choose to recognize what is too rapidly happening to us, let alone to our children and theirs in perpetuity.

    Will the landing be soft? Will we survive? Will we take responsibility for choosing to ride in this coach with its crazy driver when we’re crashed on the rocks below, and everything we held dear is bashed to bits?

    Or, before the inevitable end awaiting us for taking the nicer, newer coach and faster, fine horses, will we rather choose to travel in a slower and less fancy wagon, and take the reins and drive the old and sure routes, knowing our precious cargo will be safe and arrive intact, and we and our children with it? Is it too late, or do we still have time to make the necessary choice, transfer the cargo, and safeguard it while transporting it to our solid old home?

    Socialism promises social and economic egalitarianism and stability under wise rule (even Lenin recognized that “Someone has to be in control”). Socialism promises that conformity is the way to freedom, that “the greater good” is the greatest good, and therefore the highest goal of a good society. And in order to attain, sustain and maintain that goal, no deviation may be tolerated.

    There is no such thing in this world, since at least 1913, that can possibly be identified as “capitalism,” let alone laissez faire or free market. There is corporatism, crony-caplitalism, wherein the “too-big-to-fail” banks, financial institutions, and big corporations partner with government to ensure “the market” behaves to their advantage and control. Not ours. We are not customers, but “consumers” permitted only to support them, whatever it ultimately costs us and our children and theirs. This is Marxist socialism, regardless of what the propagandists insist.

    If it were correctly identified, and how it really works, how many of those who think they’re against socialism would understand it and their willing participation in it through bad “education” and blind political party loyalty, and perpetuation of it? And if they did, still continue to support – pay taxes and vote for – the system and the people perpetuating this system? Would you?

    Do you know you can learn the truth about these things, outside of – and even in contradiction to – the “two-party” political system? That the truth is, neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party is capitalistic and for our God-given, natural, un/inalienable rights, freedoms, and liberties?

    The issue is, are you motivated enough by current social conditions and the deliberate and accelerating destruction of your heritage, to learn these truths and publish them, teach them to your children, and defy and deny the Marxism that is destroying all of us? Or do you think that by trusting our glorious electoral system – over and over again, ignoring the only-worsening and ever more expensive and violent outcomes – this can all eventually be resolved, that things are not really all that dire, and despite appearances, things have overall been good and beneficial to society as a whole?

  26. Realist says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Yes, I meant “lives” of course.

    Just teasing.

  27. dfordoom says: • Website
    @PhysicistDave

    Yes, some privileged businessmen can make out like bandits in wartime. But war destroys resources (most prominently human livers). Not generally good for business at all.

    Privileged businessmen in America like war because it makes them rich while destroying resources and human lives in other people’s countries. The destruction of entire nations and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives is a small price to pay for higher corporate profits.

    Not to mention what happens if the war actually occurs on your own territory!

    That’s not a problem for American businessmen. The US fights its wars in other people’s countries.

    Not liking war is un-American.

  28. dfordoom says: • Website

    Somebody who considers Ayn Rand’s works to be “towering texts” is scarcely to be taken seriously.

    Mercer’s argument seems to be that socialism is bad because it’s wicked and it’s wicked because she says so. And she’s mocking intellectual shallowness in others.

    Libertarians, like children, believe the darndest things.

  29. dfordoom says: • Website
    @PhysicistDave

    The only way to have a decent and humane society is to have free-market capitalism. “Crony capitalism” squashes ordinary decent people for the benefit of rapacious corrupt criminals.

    So how exactly do you prevent pure moral virtuous free-market capitalism from morphing into crony capitalism? Are we going to hear the argument that the trouble with capitalism is that it just hasn’t been done properly? That all the horrible examples of capitalism were not “real” capitalism?

    The “collapse of the system” can, you know, lead to the Dark Ages rather than to a new Renaissance. Progress does not automatically follow collapse.

    Indeed. Collapse is usually followed by chaos and misery and more collapse. But the good news is that the Dark Ages only lasted for a few centuries. Half a millennium of chaos and misery is no big deal.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  30. @dfordoom

    Somebody who considers Ayn Rand’s works to be “towering texts” is scarcely to be taken seriously.

    Agree 100%. This is not to mention that Rand’s “objectivism” is nothing more than perverted Marxist idea of objective historic processes and objective reality, which is in the foundation of social science promoted by Marxists. How she arrived from objectivism to tedious, nauseating, hollow and shallow libertarian manifestos is another matter altogether.

  31. @dfordoom

    dfordoom asked me:

    So how exactly do you prevent pure moral virtuous free-market capitalism from morphing into crony capitalism? Are we going to hear the argument that the trouble with capitalism is that it just hasn’t been done properly? That all the horrible examples of capitalism were not “real” capitalism?

    Well, if you have a state apparatus, it will be captured by people who want to use the state to pillage their fellow citizens: the rapacious crooks have a greater incentive to seize political power than ordinary honorable citizens do.

    And, once they have seized state power, they have every incentive to expand the power of the state that they now control: paper “checks and balances” are going to be of little value against actual established political power.

    Anyone of any political persuasion who is familiar with US history knows that this is what has happened during the last two-and-a-half centuries (of course, some historians exult in this process).

    But it is not just the US: this is what “civilized” (i.e., state-based) history has been for the last five thousand years: see, e.g.,, the brilliant little classic essay by one of the deans of world history studies — W. H. McNeill’s The Human Condition..

    So, what can be done? It’s similar to how an alcoholic has to deal with booze.

    Step One for alcoholics: Admit you are an alcoholic and cannot handle booze.

    Step One to deal with state corruption: Admit that all states exist to steal from the productive majority to benefit the ruling class and that no Constitution or “checks and balances” can really prevent this over the long term.

    Step Two for alcoholics: Accept that alcohol does not have to be part of your life and therefore swear off booze. Completely.

    Step Two to deal with societal corruption: Recognize that in the life of the human species the state is a recent human “invention” and that human societies do not need to have states controlling them. Abolish the state and avoid creating states as you would avoid the Ebola virus. (By the way, McNeill’s essay consists of showing the analogy between infectious diseases and the state.)

    (I know that AA has twelve steps, but I think I have condensed it down to the two most important points.)

    Now, of course, I know that most alcoholics will not immediately follow this advice and become sober before midnight tonight! And, similarly, I am aware that, even if I could get this little note published on the front page of the NYT, humanity would not immediately abolish the state.

    But, everything has to start somewhere.

    States are actually fairly fragile entities: all states rest on lies and delusions. They can and do collapse with stunning rapidity when their subjects see the truth.

    The regime created by Progressives in the last hundred years is unstable: the rate of parasitism is steadily rising and is overcoming society’s productive power. We’re seeing this everywhere from the college-admissions scandals to the failure of Obamacare to the SJW idiocy that Sailer documents so thoroughly.

    We need to make clear that the whole Progressive regime is unnecessary: the banking cartel, the government-university complex, the public-school scam, the regime-change wars, the cartelizerd and over-regulated “health-care system,” the unstable monetary system, the welfare state — all of it.

    It’s tottering; we need to help give it a push by encouraging people to think of the whole system not as a well-intentioned system that is working badly, but as a system that is doing exactly what it is designed to do — empower the ruling class at the expense of the productive members of society.

    Trump is just one small part of unmasking the monster for what it is. We need to hasten the day when most decent people see the broader picture and, in H. L. Mencken’s words, acknowledge, “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”

    Nothing lasts forever. We need to give the Progressive state a good strong shove, now that it is weakening, and send it to its grave. And never, ever again create a state that has any chance of being expanded into the monster we face today.

  32. Eric135 says:

    Wars are much more profitable than not. Yes, property and businesses are destroyed, but then you get to rebuild them! Great for business! Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan….just think of all the money, the contracts, the kickbacks, the deals to be made.

    Then there’s the whole arms trade and related industries — metals, chemicals, etc.

    Just add in the fact that corporations are allowed to buy our politicians and the fact that cronyism and corruption are never punished or stopped, and you can no longer pretend that war is not essential to capitalism.

    It is, just like cheap labor, depressed wages, offshoring of jobs to low-wage countries, and mass immigration are essential to the growth of corporate and banking profits.

    Capitalism enslaves the ordinary person, mainly by underpaying him, letting inflation eat away at his savings, and turning him into a slave to usurers. It’s just a bit more subtle than what communism does. The truth is, neither system is acceptable.

  33. @dfordoom

    There’s always been something perverse, something quite beyond the Pale, about those who think in the weird, blinkered terms of that Ukrainian escapee.

  34. Calvin says:

    Same thing at The American Conservative

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS