The Road from Tredegar

 The Road from Tredegar 

Leslie Jones enjoys the new biography of Aneurin Bevan, architect of the NHS

Nye: The Political Life of Aneurin Bevan, Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, I.B. Tauris, London, 2015, pp 316

According to an earlier biographer, John Campbell, Aneurin Bevan was ultimately a failure because he adhered to an “erroneous dogma”, democratic socialism that eventually was emphatically rejected by the British people. At times, Bevan himself endorsed this assessment. In 1959, he complained that the British working class had spurned a historic opportunity to abolish capitalism. The masses had evidently succumbed to vulgar materialism and the “delirium of television”. And as Bevan conceded, the left wing or “Bevanite” faction in the Labour Party never exceeded more than around sixty MPs. Labour’s would-be leader signally failed to convert the rest of the parliamentary party to socialism. But other commentators, notably Neil Kinnock in his foreword to Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds new biography, Nye: the Political Life of Aneurin Bevan, demur. Kinnock contends that Bevan’s unshakeable belief in collective action and provision is justifiable, given the latter’s experience of unemployment and poverty in Tredegar in the 1920’s. According to Thomas-Symonds, likewise, millions of people still benefit from Bevan’s “greatest achievement”, the establishment of the NHS, which embodied his conception of “democratic socialism through Parliament”. Continue reading

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Wines for the season

Grapes

Em Marshall-Luck picks some Wines for the season – and some special Smoked Foods

The rich foods that grace our tables at this time of year require bold yet sophisticated wines that will stand up to and complement their full flavours, with wine and dish drawing out nuances in a melding of harmonious complexities. For this festive period, I have one sparkling recommendation, two reds and whites, a dessert wine and a cider choice, as well as options for those who may not, do not wish to, or are not allowed to drink!

Firstly, the sparkling – a 2010 sparkling rose from the family-owned Furleigh Estate vineyard in Dorset. The wine is made from Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier grapes, using the traditional method, resulting in a most superior sparkling wine with delicate pink blush and a nose that combines citrus fruit and sweeter strawberries. The bubbles are fine: tight and small, and the wine has a crisp, refreshing and elegant taste – quite dry and with predominantly citrus fruits, but grassy tones as well; very stiff competition for champagne.

The two red wines are available from the wine club 3D wines – which not only provides interesting wine selections to its members, but goes a step further in also offering tours to wine regions and vineyards and the opportunity to meet producers. They also produce a beautifully-presented newsletter and run fabulous-sounding events, such as the forthcoming truffle hunting, wine & gourmet weekend in the Rhône Valley, which includes a visit to the producers of one of my recommendations, the Saurel family at the biodynamic vineyard, Montirius. I won’t patronise readers by explaining the principles behind biodynamically-grown products; suffice it to say that the fully organic Montirius Vacqueyras 2011 reaches your glass after a gestation in harmony with nature. It is a blend of old vine Grenache and Syrah grown on classic Garrigues, chalk and clay terroir; this is reflected in its dark and intense flavours. The colour is a deep purple, and the nose is of dark berry fruits and liquorice. Blackcurrants predominate in the taste, alongside brambles and hints of leather – a black and rich flavour with goodly quantities of spice and black pepper. With quite a dry and lingering finish of black fruits, this is a good, bold, robust wine for steak or shepherd’s pie.

The La Fagotiere Chateauneuf-du-Pape 2012 comes in a beautiful bottle embossed with “Chateauneuf-du-Pape” and cross keys – quite splendid even before one reaches the beverage itself. The wine is a combination of old vine Grenache, Syrah and Mourvedre grapes and has been produced with good husbandry – hand harvested at very low yields. It is a deep, dark burgundy colour, with a nose of dark bramble fruits and, again, a hint of liquorice. The taste is smooth, rich and dark – with blackcurrants and plums but also masses of pepper and spice, and some tar. Intriguingly, as the wine breathes, odours and flavours of dark chocolate come through as well. This is a superb wine for red meats and warming stews. With its emphasis on supporting its producers, as well as the extraordinary events and tours it offers members, 3D Wines is to be commended on its breadth of vision, as well as on its products. (Visit www.3dwines.com if you’re interested in finding out more.)

To accompany gammon or turkey, you could do worse than try a Chateau de Parenchere Bordeaux Blanc Sec – a combination of the three grape varieties of Sauvignon, Semillon and Muscadelle. Its colour is surprisingly deep for a dry white; while the nose is sharp and fruity and the taste lingering and elegant – fresh citrus fruits and apples abound. All in all, a most refreshing white. Another commendable white option would be a Semillon Sauvignon from Prestige de Calvet, Bordeaux, with its rich colour; mineral nose and taste that is a combination of fruits (including grapefruit and lemon), floral tones – especially jasmine, and minerals. This impressive wine proffers a taste that is both fragrant, yet also dry and immensely crisp at the same time.

I’ve also been impressed by Sheppy’s Mulled Cider – the perfect beverage to warm one through after a long country ramble at this time of year. The drink combines Sheppy’s cider (which they have been producing for two hundred years) with spices, including nutmeg, cinnamon and cloves, creating a drink that is warm and vibrant in colour, nose and taste. Heat well and enjoy the superb combination of honeyed cider and the spices which lend the sweet drink an enticingly exotic and intriguing twist.

Meanwhile, children, drivers and non-drinkers might like to consider one of Luscombe’s ever-burgeoning range  , such as one of their Ginger Beers or a Cranberry Crush. Luscombe drinks (from Devon) are all organic and their lists of ingredients are pleasingly natural and short. Of their two ginger beers, the Cool Ginger is a gentle and refreshing ginger beer, sweet and moreish with a little fiery kick at the aftertaste. Made with root ginger, cane sugar and Sicilian lemons, the flavour of ginger sings through loud and clear making this a wonderful non-alcoholic option. The Hot Ginger Beer effervesces enthusiastically and delivers a powerful but not overwhelming gingery hit, along with mouthfuls of sweet lemon, and lingers in the mouth as a warm glow. The Cranberry Crush is made with cranberry juice, sparkling spring water, damascena rose water and Madagascan vanilla, resulting in a sweet and rich drink with strong cranberry flavour but with additional tastes kicking in from the rosewater and vanilla. Children will adore it – as will those adults with a slightly sweeter tooth – though with its sophisticated twists, it’s far from a saccharine option.

To accompany the pudding? Easy – a Chateau Filhot Sauternes. Appearance, nose and taste all come together in this rich, honeyed wine, with its aromas and flavours of sweet, sun-heated apricots, golden syrup and plump, golden raisins. Although sweet, it isn’t cloying, and its honeyed element has an elegance that dances in the mouth. This wine complements desserts without either overpowering them or being shouted out by them. What better way to conclude a festive meal?

The Black Mountains Smokery, www.smoked-foods.co.uk situated in the Brecon Beacons, offers excellent products which make superb gifts or indulgent treats for yourself alongside your festive wines. They produce a range of hampers, selections and even subscription gifts. I tried their Taste for Two hamper box, with its Welsh smoked salmon, smoked chicken and duck breasts and smoked salmon fillet – and was hugely impressed, especially by the smoked chicken. I am extremely partial to this and tend to opt for it whenever I see it on offer but can honestly say that this was probably the best I’ve ever had – ever so succulent, moist and tender; with a nice smoky flavour that was prominent but not overwhelming. The Welsh Smoked Salmon had a texture that was quite chewy – almost crunchy – though not unpleasantly so. The flavour was full and wonderfully woody and smoky, though not overpowering; a rich and luxurious product. The duck was also good – dark and quite dense; although I found it less impressive than the other products. The smoked salmon fillet, however, was again superb – tender and moist, with a delicate smoky flavour to add an extra and welcome dimension to the fish. I roasted it gently it with tarragon and a little hollandaise sauce, which worked well. The accompanying condiments are from Trackelments – cranberry and dill sauces. The latter was full-flavoured (so one only needed a little with the Welsh smoked salmon), and was nicely balanced in terms of sweetness, acidity and saltiness. On the whole, both sauces worked extremely well – bold accompaniments, but ones that complemented the smoked products perfectly.

Although the duck, darker and more robust than the smoked chicken or salmon, would prefer a light red (perhaps a pinot noir) or a more spicy white, such as a Gewürztraminer, the fish and chicken would all go superbly well with the Prestige de Calvet Semillon Sauvignon, or you could even try the salmons with the Furleigh Estate for a truly luxurious and sumptuous pairing.

Em Marshall-Luck is QR’s food and wine critic

Posted in QR Home | Leave a comment

A Christmas Story

Christmas Story

A Christmas Story

Ilana Mercer Talks Turkey

Described by a critic as “one of those rare movies you can say is perfect in every way,” “A Christmas Story,” directed by Bob Clark, debuted in 1983. Set in the 1940s, the film depicts a series of family vignettes through the eyes of 9-year-old Ralphie Parker, who yearns for that gift of all gifts: the Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

This was boyhood before “bang-bang you’re dead” was banned; family life prior to “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads,” and Christmas before Saint Nicholas was denounced for his whiteness and “merry Christmas” condemned for its exclusiveness.

If children could choose the family into which they were born, most would opt for the kind depicted in “A Christmas Story,” where mom is a happy homemaker, dad a devoted working stiff, and between them, they have zero repertoire of progressive psychobabble to rub together.

Although clearly adored, Ralphie is not encouraged to share his feelings at every turn. Nor is he, in the spirit of gender-neutral parenting, circa 2014, urged to act out like a girl if he’s feeling … girlie. Instead, Ralphie is taught restraint and self-control. And horrors: the little boy even has his mouth washed out with soap and water for uttering the “F” expletive. “My personal preference was for Lux,” reveals Ralphie, “but I found Palmolive had a nice piquant after-dinner flavor—heady but with just a touch of mellow smoothness.” Ralphie is, of course, guilt-tripped with stories about starving Biafrans when he refuses to finish his food.

The parenting practiced so successfully by Mr. and Mrs. Parker fails every progressive commandment. By today’s standards, the delightful, un-precocious protagonist of “A Christmas Story” would be doomed to a lifetime on the therapist’s chaise lounge—and certainly to daily doses of Ritalin, as punishment for unbridled boyishness and daydreaming in class. Yet despite his therapeutically challenged upbringing, Ralphie is a happy little boy. For progressives—for whom it has long been axiomatic that the traditional family is the source of oppression for women and children—this is inexplicable.

Perhaps the first to have conflated the values of the bourgeois family with pathological authoritarianism was philosopher Theodor Adorno. Adorno’s formulations on authoritarianism have informed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In general, the consensus among these rights’ advocates has been that the traditional family’s hierarchical structure disempowers children. The solution: let the State destabilize the parent-child relationship via policies that would define and limit the power of the parent, while increasing the power of child and political proxies.

While America’s founders intended for the family to be left untouched as “the major source of an orderly and free society”—Dr. Allan Carlson’s words—politicians and jurists have decided to the contrary. What was once the economic and social backbone of American society has been inestimably weakened by both the Welfare State and the Supreme Court—what with the latter’s redefinition of family and marriage, and the former’s incremental steps to trounce parents as the child’s primary socialization agent.

Culturally, the family has been demoted to what Charles Sykes once termed a “Therapeutic Family.” Having “adjusted itself to the new demands of the social contract with the Self,” wrote Sykes in “A Nation of Victims,” “the modern family has ceased to inculcate values.” Instead, it exists exclusively for the ostensible unleashing of “self-expression and creativity” in its members.

Progressives have triumphed. Very little remains of the unit that was once a vector for the transmission of values in American society. Women and children are less likely than ever to have to endure the confines of this bête noire of a family, with its typically “oppressed” mother, old-fashioned father and contained kids. Nowadays, women are more likely to be divorced, never married, or to bear children out of wedlock.

Unencumbered by marriage, women are also more prone to poverty, addictions and sexually transmitted diseases. Their children, a third of whom are being raised in households headed by a mother only, are paying the price in a greater propensity for poverty, and higher dropout, addiction and crime rates. Witness the black family. Having survived the perils of slavery, it was still intact until the 1930s, when the dead hand of the Welfare State finished it off. As a social unit, the black American family is near extinct.

Contemporary America’s familial fragmentation—sky-high divorce rates and illegitimacy—has translated into juvenile crime, drug abuse and illiteracy. Yet despite all the State has done to “liberate” children from the strictures of the traditional family, ask any “emancipated” child and he’ll tell you: more than anything, he yearns for a mom and dad like Ralphie’s.

Indeed, lucky is the little boy who has such a family. Luckier still is the lad who has both such a family and … a BB gun.

Like the family depicted in his charming Christmas film, Bob Clark and his own son are dead and buried—killed by a big beneficiary of Uncle Sam, the criminal alien.

ILANA MERCER is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing column, “Return to Reason” and is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is a Quarterly Review Contributing Editor. Ilana’s latest book is Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Dormy House

EpiQR

Epicurean Expeditions with

Em Marshall-Luck

Dormy House

Willersley Hill, Broadway, WR12 7LF

Dormy House frontage-1

Situated just outside the quintessential-Cotswolds market town of Broadway and conveniently sited for walking the glorious countryside all around, Dormy House Hotel was formerly a farmhouse (it must have been a pretty impressive one!), dating from the seventeenth century. It retains many original features, including its wonderful golden-coloured stone (a prominent feature both inside and out); magnificent stone fireplaces – with open fires blazing away on this damp November evening – and oak panelling, with beautiful carved detail. There are three lounges to choose from, whither diners are ushered for pre-prandial drinks on elegant sofas and comfortable armchairs. Each room has its own decor and feel – one is more contemporary, with clean lines, bold colouring and contemporary furniture and mirrors; one features a stone wall as well as the great, original, main fireplace; and the one we settled in has more of a library feel with the wooden panelled walls painted a dark green-y blue. Plants – both live and pressed – are a predominant feature of this room, from pot plants to floral arrangements. Atmospheric lighting is provided by candles and lamps; hessian carpets are overlaid with rugs and – pleasingly – board games are also provided for guests to enjoy.

The staff at once impressed with their professional and polished but nevertheless very friendly manner (they were especially kind to baby Tristan). All were immaculately dressed and attentive – top marks here.

Our drinks, once ordered, soon arrived, along with delicately flavoured – and rather moreish by husband’s reaction – vegetable crisps. My kir royale was rich and crisp with a rich and sweet bite; my husband’s “dry sherry” was actually rather too sweet for him – more of a pale cream than a fino, but was refreshing nevertheless. The only source of irritation was the music – it wasn’t too loud but the pop-y beats intruded on what would otherwise have been a relaxed atmosphere. One fears that the choice of music may be to cater to the tastes of the generally young and trendy clientele (none of whom, we noted, was suitably attired, my husband being the only guest actually wearing a tie). One would really have hoped for classical music or light jazz or even easy listening in a country house hotel atmosphere – something a little more refined at least!

The hotel has two restaurants, both under head chef John Ingram: the formal Garden Room and the rather more relaxed Potting Shed. We were seated in the Garden Room – a reasonably large room overlooking the gardens, appropriately enough. This room also has a contemporary air, with modern floral fabric wallpaper – a bold but basic design in several shades of green; green velvet banquettes; simple wooden tables; modern grey chairs. There is no table linen, but simply a tealight candle in an ornate glass and fresh flowers on each table. Centrally placed is a vibrant display of flowers, while Art Deco-inspired wooden screening separates sections of the restaurant. The flooring is also wooden, and the only wall adornment are simple mirrors and slightly bizarre wall lights sporting hundreds of cream grassy spines.

Wine first – we chose a relatively dry Gewürztraminer. With its classic nose of lychee, very delicate flavour (lychee predominating here too), a foretaste of mint and bite of darkness – black pepper and even a slightly unusual hint of tar underlying the lychee and peach – it was quite extraordinary and really rather good.

Bread was brought almost at once, with a choice of three types – black olive, white semolina and granary rolls. All were excellent; served warm and clearly freshly baked, with superb flavours and full-flavoured butter, too.

We were not brought any amuse-bouches, which slightly surprised me. My husband rather uncharitably surmised that this might be because the clientele might not be aware of dining etiquettes and the proffering of an extra, unchosen course, might even engender an embarrassing confusion in them.

The starters were fairly small in terms of size, yet very good nevertheless: my smoked duck breast along with roast peaches was excellent, with an appropriately subtle smoked flavour, and Mr Marshall-Luck’s venison was delicately flavoured, albeit very peppery, and more of a Carpaccio than the pastrami denoted. The accompanying salad was an interesting combination of flavours and textures which complemented the venison well. My husband’s only regret was that there was not slightly more in the helping – he found it one of those servings that looks rather deserted and forlorn on the plate.

The main courses were also extremely good – the rabbit was wonderfully flavoured, and not at all ‘gamey’; a very light meat which was, nevertheless, immensely satisfying. It came served on a bed of spinach with fondant potatoes and roast carrots, all of which were equally excellent, the servings being well proportioned and no flavour overly intruding, although there was a definite and fitting accent on the meat. I’m afraid that my husband wasn’t allowed to enjoy the best bit of this, his meal – the filo pastry rabbit parcel (tender and flavoursome shreds of rabbit meat in a crisp and crunchy parcel), as I snaffled it as soon his plate arrived!

My pheasant was also superbly flavoured and featured a well-chosen variety of textures, with its complementing vegetables and also a rather interesting dried fruit puree (possibly strawberry). Improbable as it sounds, this worked excellently with the meat, bringing out the flavours and adding a new and unexpected dimension. As well as wedges of roast pheasant, there was also braised meat mixed with a sliced brassica which worked extremely well – very flavoursome and well-offset by the shredded, dark-tasting cabbage.

The final course of the meal also did not disappoint, as my husband’s apple soufflé was absolutely outstanding in every way. A deliciously light (feather-light, one might almost say) soufflé, infused with apple and with a pool of apple puree at its base, it came with warming and delicately flavoured cinnamon custard, of which there was enough to allow generous pourings into the basin containing the soufflé. A richly flavoured vanilla ice-cream complemented the dish beautifully.

I opted for the cheese course – one is offered a choice of five out of eight cheeses – I was particularly impressed with my Lord of London, Cremet and Smoked Cherry Wood, but all the cheeses (which, incidentally, were served with de-stringed celery, grapes and Fudges biscuits) were very individual, characterful and idiosyncratic – yet I would nonetheless have preferred a full cheese trolley. I indulged in a dessert wine with the cheese – a Noble Late Harvest. It was golden in colour and with a nose of intense mint and fat, juicy, honeyed sultanas. The flavour was deep and intensely-honeyed – but a darker honey, such as manuka. There was also spice – quite a bite of white pepper and even chilli alongside the searing sweetness of the sun-drenched raisins. Interesting blend of sweetness and spice.

We had tea and coffee sent up to our room afterwards – the tea was very good; the coffee reasonable (though not strong enough for my husband as usual), and a trio each of very sweet petit fours was a pleasant addition.

Our suite – The Snug – was a slight surprise after the rather traditional and gloriously old-fashioned entrance hall, being contemporary in style and decor, with a colour scheme of grey and cream – the sofa, bed, carpets, walls and curtains all following similar shades. The plus side of this meant a superb bathroom – with an utterly fabulous huge, deep metal bath which filled, it seemed, in almost seconds, and a monsoon shower. It also meant a Nespresso machine (much to Mr Marshall-Luck’s delight), whilst I was particularly impressed by the top-quality tea pyramid nets with a choice of Darjeeling, Jasmine and English Breakfast, and the rather nice crunchy oat biscuits, too. The downside was the large television screen in the sitting area (which had room enough for a sofa, chairs and desk) – but, again, these contraptions would no doubt be screamed for by clientele should they not be provided. And, actually, I must say that the i-pad thing with a button to press to request fresh milk was rather nifty…. I also rather liked the owl theme – on placemats; doorstops; little recycled owl ornaments, and suchlike (the owl also makes an appearance on the hotel’s logo). Although the three elements of the suite were slightly on the smallish side it was, nevertheless, fairly cosy and snug, especially when lit by the numerous lamps provided. Furthermore, it was all very comfortable, with everything provided one might wish for (including a generous number of shampoos, conditioners, body creams, slippers and bathgowns). It was a rare example of everything being pristine too – no exposed pipework or fraying carpets here – all clean and crisp – and a huge and deep bed to induce Morpheus….

Breakfast the next morning was back down in the Garden Room. A fine spread; and I was particularly impressed by the help-yourself-to-Bloody-Mary-or-Bucks-Fizz counter, and gladly indulged in the former. There were also buffet tables of cereals, juices (in little bottles to be taken back to the table), and cheeses and hams – these were excellent and constituted a good selection. Tea and coffee was brought to the table – nice tea, although my husband found the coffee a little on the weak side (catering for British rather than Continental tastes, unfortunately.) There was also a good choice of hot options which were served at the table (at which point in time my husband started muttering about chafing dishes and the fact that a gentleman shouldn’t be served at breakfast). The smoked salmon and scrambled eggs on brioche were wonderfully light (albeit still filling); and the full Dormy very satisfying: the quality of the sausage and bacon was excellent; the fried bread was indulgent without being over-greasy; and there were nicely-flavoured sautéed potatoes. The toast was also excellent; home-baked bread, evidently, and brought in an insulated bag which added a nice touch of rusticity.

After a hearty breakfast we retired to the spa, where there is a further eatery. The spa is an entire separate wing, and includes a lounge area and restaurant, the central feature of which is a circular fireplace, blazing away, with electrically operated circulater glass which descends to allow one to top up with wood – very clever. The seating here is on chaise longues, sofas and arm chairs with low tables, but there is also extensive decking area outside with wicker sofas and sun chairs and tables. The palate is greys, greens and blues. Downstairs one finds the pool area, which also encompasses a series of saunas and hammams, and a very smart shower that emulates Caribbean storms (great fun). There is also a gym, and a series of treatments rooms where I enjoyed a deep tissue back massage in which restful and relaxing surroundings the masseuse applied some stringent force to unknot congested and tense muscles, as requested. The spa restaurant serves sandwiches, drinks – specialising in both soft and alcoholic smoothies, and a salad buffet lunch, with a variety of different salads, a bake, lots of different nuts and seeds and condiments, and dessert. I took advantage of the buffet lunch and found it all very delicious as well as admirably healthy. The atmosphere in the spa restaurant / lounge is so relaxing that one could conceivably spend an entire day here, pottering between pool and lounge with a book and a long lazy lunch. We certainly found it immensely difficult to summon up the will to drag ourselves away from what had been an extremely enjoyable, hospitable and tranquil stay. With excellent food, kind and attentive staff and smart surroundings, one was able to forget the worldly pressures for an all-too-brief time.

Em Marshall-Luck

Posted in QR Home | 1 Comment

Innocent Actor in Sovereign’s Snuff Film

Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer, author of The Man versus the State

Innocent Actor in Sovereign’s Snuff Film

The Garner Affair – Ilana Mercer rests her case

Despite its elegant simplicity, the libertarian law is difficult to grasp. This I realized pursuant to the publication of “Eric Garner: 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law.” Some of the smartest, polymathic readers a writer could hope for were easily bullied into believing that by failing, first, to submit to the sovereign and question Him later—Eric Garner had undermined some sacred social compact.

A small-time peddler is killed-by-cop for selling single smokes on a New York street corner. Yet so befuddled were readers over the application of libertarian natural law to the Garner case that they insisted against all evidence that Garner’s was an understandable death by “civil disobedience.”

“I certainly would applaud those who resist truly immoral laws (like ordering someone to commit torture),” equivocated one writer, “but I am leery to suggest massive civil disobedience of petty regulations which may, in fact, just give rise to more oppressive government to ‘restore law and order.’”

Yes, the poor sod who dared to purchase and dispose of a couple of loose smokes had committed “massive civil disobedience.” Fearing the Sovereign’s vengeance, some of his fellow citizens felt obliged to calibrate just how daringly Garner should have deviated. Did he raise his voice excessively? Did he wave his arms too energetically? Yet these are all utilitarian, not principled, considerations.

Other readers beat on breast. They were hopelessly “torn” between my verdict—Garner was an innocent actor in the sovereign’s snuff film—and the proposition that Garner had an obligation to prostrate himself before the law to his overlord’s exacting specifications. By failing to do so, Garner had somehow invited his fate.

“Torn” is a word that better comports with images of Gloria Swanson or Marlene Dietrich in mid-swoon. What in bloody blue blazes is there to be “torn” over, the right of a man to stand on the curb with a few “loosies” in-hand, and stay alive?

In claiming that Garner was innocent in natural law, I was—or so I was informed—guilty of implying that he had no moral obligation to obey state-enacted positive law. Woe is me—and woe betides that rascal who counselled that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Here’s the rub about the rudiments of libertarian law. While we all have ideas about what is moral and what’s immoral, libertarianism doesn’t! It has nothing whatsoever to say about morality per se. When libertarians say this or the other is wrong in libertarian law, they mean the following and the following only: unprovoked, an initiated aggression against B or his “legitimately owned” property – that’s it!

Libertarianism is thus concerned with the ethics of the use of force. This and this alone is the ambit of libertarian law.

The foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom. “The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism,” explains Walter Block:

It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

The concept was unremarkable among 19th century classical liberals, who were Russell Kirk conservatives by any other name. Nowhere was the self-evident nature of natural law more evident than in the matter of Eric Garner. According to a “nationwide USA TODAY/Pew Research Center poll,” “Americans by nearly 3-1” agree the police officer was responsible for the death of Eric Garner.

What is immoral is not necessary illegal and vice versa. It is, arguably, immoral to legislate preferences in employment for certain employees, based on the concentration of melanin in their skin. Yet racial set-asides are perfectly legal in some precincts around the country. Conversely, it is utterly moral to sell an item that belongs to you, as Garner did. However, it was illegal for Garner to sell said items, even though he was in his moral right to trade.

Naturally, there are very many difficult moral issues over which natural-rights libertarians—as opposed to Benthamite, utilitarian libertarians—will argue. Abortion is an example. Based on the non-aggression law, some libertarians hold that abortion is legal in libertarian law, because a woman owns herself and may evict anything from her body. To punish her for exercising dominion over her own body, they claim, would be wrong—even if we think abortion immoral. Other natural-rights libertarians disagree with this position. They say that abortion is aggression against a living, non-aggressive, sentient being.

The debate is mired in morality. But it always returns to what should be legal or illegal in a truly free society: based on the non-aggression law, should we or should we not proceed with force—for that is what law is—against a woman for what she does to her body.

Law is force. Every time our overlords in DC legislate (unconstitutionally, for the most), they grant their gendarmes permission to aggress against an innocent citizen who’s been criminalized. Every new law and regulation licenses law enforcement to initiate mostly unjust, unprovoked force against an innocent, sovereign individual and/or his lawful property—an individual who has done harm to nobody.

Competition in a free society is not aggression. “Eric Garner was not violating anyone’s rights or harming anyone by standing on a street corner and peddling his wares.” The shopkeeper who sicced the cops on Garner had the right to pursue profits. He has no right to the profits he had before the competition arrived on the scene, not in a free-market.

Ultimately, libertarianism’s elegant minimalism as to what is lawful and what’s unlawful comports with the American idea of individual sovereignty, subject to limited, legitimate authority.

ILANA MERCER is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing column, “Return to Reason” and is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is a Quarterly Review Contributing Editor. Ilana’s latest book is Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Eric Garner 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law

Herbert Spencer, author of The Man versus the State

Herbert Spencer, author of The Man versus the State

Eric Garner 100% Innocent under Libertarian Law

Ilana Mercer laments another death by cop

Eric Garner was doing nothing naturally illicit when he was tackled and placed in the chokehold that killed him. It can be argued, if anything, that Garner was being entrepreneurial. He had been trading untaxed cigarettes in defiance of the state’s “slave patrol” and “Comrade” Andrew Cuomo’s “Cigarette Strike Force,” in the words of liberty’s Don Quixote, William Norman Grigg.

Had Garner’s naturally licit trade not been criminalized by today’s Tammany Hall, he’d still be alive.

“Garner,” wrote Grigg, “had suffered years of pointless and unnecessary harassment by the costumed predators employed by the New York Police Department,” when he declared, minutes before he was killed: “Every time you see me, you want to mess with me! I’m tired of it! It stops today!”

Noted Grigg: Eric Garner’s exasperated proclamation ‘It stops today!’ is cognate with ‘Don’t tread on me.’

The killing of Eric Garner was caught on camera and uploaded to YouTube. A grand jury, however, failed to see what was as plain as day to everyone else as well as to the city medical examiner. An autopsy revealed that the Garner death was a homicide, brought on, July 17, by “compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner’s positioning on the ground while being restrained by police.”

The footage also shows that the cops who jumped on Eric Garner with such enthusiasm were oblivious to his repeated pleas for air. Neither was an attempt at resuscitation commenced once they realized Garner was unresponsive. Instead, the cops panicked, barking orders at observers to disperse.

Garner’s manner of death conjures the manner in which Carol Anne Gotbaum met her untimely demise, in 2008. Gotbaum, a petite, 45-year-old slip of a woman—she weighed 105 pounds—was likely asphyxiated in Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport by some corpulent cops. She had become distraught—not dangerous—after she was detained at the airport and not permitted to proceed to her destination. Unhinged, Gotbaum took off down the concourse hollering. She was quickly scrummed by meaty policemen, tackled to the ground, a colossal knee jabbed into her skinny spine. Gotbaum was then thrown in a holding cell, where she was shackled and chained to a bench. Minutes later Gotbaum was dead.

Her bruised body was autopsied. As inevitably as water spiraling down a plughole, the police were exonerated. Famous forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden said: “… the most likely cause of death has to do with asphyxia and could be a result of too much pressure on her chest when they were putting on the handcuffs and the shackles.”

Carol Anne Gotbaum was white. Cops are equal-opportunity offenders. Factoring into account the disproportionate representation of blacks among the population of law-breakers, cops aggress against whites and blacks more or less equally. In contemporary America, whites are less likely to riot than blacks.

Not to be conflated are the cases of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, of Ferguson fame. While the evidence of police wrongdoing in Garner’s death is incontrovertible, the reverse is true in Brown versus Officer Darren Wilson.

As the evidence shows, Michael Brown initiated aggression. He had aggressed against the store keeper and the policeman, who protected himself from this rushing mountain of flesh. In libertarian law, the individual may defend himself against initiated aggression. He may not initiate aggression against a non-aggressor.

Eric Garner, on the other hand, had aggressed against nobody. Whereas Brown was stealing cigarillos; Garner was selling his own cigarettes. The “law” he violated was one that violated Garner’s individual, natural right to dispose of his own property—“loosies”—at will.

In libertarian law, Garner is thus 100 percent innocent. For the good libertarian abides by the axiom of non-aggression. When enforcers of the shakedown syndicate came around to bust him, Garner raised his voice, gestured and turned to walk away from his harassers. He did not aggress against or hurt anyone of the goons.

To plagiarize myself in “Tasers ‘R’ Us,” “Liberty is a simple thing. It’s the unassailable right to shout, flail your arms, even verbally provoke a politician [or policeman] unmolested. Tyranny is when those small things can get you assaulted, incarcerated, injured, even killed.”

Again: Garner had obeyed the libertarian, natural law absolutely. He was trading peacefully. In the same spirit, he turned to walk away from a confrontation. Befitting this pacific pattern, Garner had broken up a street fight prior to his murder.

The government has a monopoly over making and enforcing law— it decides what is legal and what isn’t. Thus it behooves thinking people to question the monopolist and his laws. After all, cautioned the great Southern constitutional scholar James McClellan, “What is legally just, may not be what is naturally just.” “Statutory man-made law” is not necessarily just law.

Unlike the positive law, which is state-created, natural law in not enacted. Rather, it is a higher law—a system of ethics—knowable through reason, revelation and experience. “By natural law,” propounded McClellan in “Liberty, Order, And Justice,” “we mean those principles which are inherent in man’s nature as a rational, moral, and social being, and which cannot be casually ignored.”

Eric Garner was on “public” property. Had he been trespassing on private property, the proprietor would have been in his right to remove him. However, Garner was not violating anyone’s rights or harming anyone by standing on a street corner and peddling his wares—that is unless the malevolent competition which sicced the cops on him has a property right in their prior profits. They don’t.

ILANA MERCER is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing column, “Return to Reason” and is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is a Quarterly Review Contributing Editor. Ilana’s latest book is Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com

 

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond Multiculturalism

Australian citizens and flag

Beyond Multiculturalism

John Press proposes a new paradigm

CULTURISM AND CULTURISTS

‘Culturism’ is the opposite of multiculturalism. Whereas multiculturalists believe we should celebrate our national diversity, culturists, (those who advocate culturism), believe that we should seek unity by assimilating citizens into our traditional majority culture.

Multiculturalists do not believe America has a traditional majority culture. For them, Muslim history is just as American as European history. Furthermore, if culturists assert that America is not a Muslim nation, multiculturalists call them ‘racist.’ Culturists believe America has a unique traditional culture, as well as a right to protect and promote it.

As such, using the word ‘culturism,’ (positing an alternative to multiculturalism), and identifying oneself as a ‘culturist’ are political acts. Culturists hope that these words will spread, counter multiculturalists’ abuse of the epitaph ‘racist,’ and reframe political debate within the West. Continue reading

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Fight the Classroom Idiocracy with the Literary Canon

book_for_book_lovers_by_mabelpines13-d5aa50t

Fight the Classroom Idiocracy with the Literary Canon

Ilana Mercer educates her masters

The fraught relationship between state and society carries over into classroom and town hall. Something of a commonplace in police state USA is the scene in which a citizen is arrested for speaking his mind to a public official, pedagogue or politician.

Our story begins with a dad, William Baer, a lawyer, I believe, who resides in New Hampshire, the state whose motto is “Live Free or Die.” For speaking out of turn at a school board meeting, Baer was cuffed and carted out of a forum of educrats and obedient parents, herded together at the Gilford high school. An arrest and a charge of disorderly conduct followed—Baer, after all, had exceeded the talk time allotted to him.

“It was basically, you make a statement, say what you want and sit down,” the dad told a local television station. “‘Sit down and shut up’ … [is] not how you interact with adults.”

In the background to the online YouTube clip of the event one can hear the dulcet voice of a female emcee, delighting in the petty abuse of power over a powerless parent.

Mr. Baer was protesting a novel which was required reading in his 14-year-old daughter’s English class: “Nineteen Minutes” by home girl Jodi Picoult. (One of Australia’s finest writers, also the copy editor of Into-the-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-for-America-from-Post-Apartheid-South-Africa, this writer’s last book, relates that every time he gets on a train or a bus, there seems to be some female or three reading a Jodi P. “masterpiece.”).

Easily more offensive than the salacious sex scene on page 313 of Picoult’s novel is the rotten writing throughout:

“‘Relax,’ Matt murmured, and then he sank his teeth into her shoulder. He pinned her hands over her head and ground his hips against hers. She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach. ”

… She couldn’t remember ever feeling so heavy, as if her heart were beating between her legs. She clawed at Matt’s back to bring him closer. “‘Yeah,’ he groaned, and he pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs.

… (H)e clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder and harder until Josie felt him come.

“Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her.”

The book’s titillating topics—bullying, school shootings, teen sex and pregnancy—verge on the political. Inculcating kids early on with these cumbersome, constricted constructs serves to stunt young minds. The young reader is intellectually disemboweled, as he is steered into thinking along certain narrow, politically pleasing lines.

Look, the value each one of us places on consumer goods and cultural products in the marketplace is subjective. This Subjective Theory of Value, so central to the excellent Austrian School of Economics (my own school of thought), however, should not be confused with the objective standards that determine the quality of a cultural product.

You might prefer to purchase one of Toni Morrison’s God-awful tomes, but the objective fact is that she’s no match for Shakespeare and never will be. Likewise, based on complexity, skill, mastery and intricacy—it is immutably true that B.B. King is no match for Johann Sebastian Bach.

Irrespective of popular preference, there are objective, universal criteria that make some cultural products superior to others.

The ignoramuses present at the school board meeting are beyond help. Not so the fine Mr. Baer’s daughter.

Schools will puff their reading lists with substandard titles of mass appeal. Parents need not do the same. This list is for William Baer—and all parents who wish to feed young minds with richly textured, inspiring, gripping, superbly-written works that will forever after remain unmatched*:

  • “Ivanhoe” by Sir Walter Scott
  • “The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas
  • “Robinson Crusoe” by Daniel Defoe
  • “Treasure Island” by Robert Louis Stevenson
  • “Arabian Nights” by many Arabic geniuses
  • “A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens
  • “David Copperfield” by Charles Dickens
  • “Oliver Twist” by the same genius
  • “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” by Mark Twain
  • “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain
  • “Tom’s Midnight Garden” by Philippa Pearce
  • “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” by C. S. Lewis
  • “The Last of the Mohicans” by James Fenimore Cooper
  • “Les Misérables” by Victor Hugo
  • “Around the World in Eighty Days” by Jules Verne
  • “The Black Stallion” by Walter Farley
  • “Wuthering Heights” by Emily Brontë
  • “Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Brontë
  • “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen
  • “Sense and Sensibility” by Jane Austen
  • “Mansfield Park” (ditto)
  • “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding
  • “Middlemarch” by George Eliot
  • “Silas Marner” by George Eliot
  • “Daniel Deronda” by George Eliot
  • “How Green Was My Valley” by Richard Llewellyn
  • “The Good Earth” by Pearl Buck
  • “1984,” by George Orwell
  • “Animal Farm” by George Orwell

To spice things up for the precocious young reader, do add Edgar Allan Poe, Roald Dahl’s “Kiss Kiss” and “The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole.”

Without the literary canon, young minds are doomed to become as dim and sclerotic as those of the educators who assign them the second rate reading material aforementioned.

The literary canon is the best antidote to the educational Idiocracy.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: Ilana Mercer has asked me to add the complete works of Balzac, Flaubert, Melville, Shakespeare and Tolstoy to this edifying list

ILANA MERCER is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing column, “Return to Reason” and is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is a Quarterly Review Contributing Editor. Ilana’s latest book is Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Two poems by Marcus Bales

mid-life crisis

SUDDENLY

Suddenly the kids, the car,

the house, the spouse, the local bar,

the work, have made you what you are.

What doesn’t chill you makes you fonder.

 –

Should you stay or should you go?

The thrill you’re looking for, you know,

could be right here at home, although

What doesn’t thrill you makes you wander.

If, avoiding common truth,

you dye your hair and act uncouth,

will you find your misplaced youth —

really, will you if you’re blonder?

 –

It doesn’t matter if you’re strong

or if you sing a pretty song,

something, and it won’t be long,

will come to kill you, here or yonder.

You’re human in the human fray,

and choose between the shades of grey.

No matter if you go or stay

 –

what might fulfil you makes you ponder.

……………………………..

……………….

Girl Reading Charles_Edward_Perugini_ak1

VILLANELLE: I LIKE YOU THE BEST

Of all my readers I like you the best.

You’re sexily well-read, and very smart —

Oh, you’re the one; the rest are just the rest.

Though most of them will think I speak in jest,

It’s you, you know, who’s read into my heart:

Of all my readers I like you the best.

I’m feeling better now that I’ve confessed

That it’s for you I struggle with my art.

You are the one — the rest are just the rest.

I see by your reaction you had guessed

I liked you more, and liked you from the start;

Of all my readers, I like you the best.

You get me — and I like how you’re impressed

That I know Horace comes before Descartes;

Ah, you’re the one. The rest are just the rest.

I like you very much — I’d be distressed

At anything that kept us two apart.

Of all my readers I like you the best;

Yes, you’re the one: the rest are just the rest.

Marcus Bales lives and works in Cleveland, Ohio

Posted in QR Home | Leave a comment

Ferguson: thankful for the Founding Fathers’ legal legacy

Golden Lady Justice, Bruges, Belgium

Ferguson: thankful for the Founding Fathers’ legal legacy

The American race riots – Ilana Mercer gets real

Grand-jury deliberations were conducted behind closed doors. The decision was announced at night. It was too dark. Jurors were given too much information to absorb. The St. Louis County prosecuting attorney was not sufficiently involved in the proceedings. The latter, Bob McCulloch, was too “cold” in sharing the hard facts of the case with the public. His remarks were excessively long or redundant all. The police were too passive in their response to the pillage that followed the unpopular decision.

These are a few of the complaints voiced by the “Racism Industrial Complex (RIC)” against a grand-jury decision in the shooting death of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. A quorum of ordinary Americans has determined that Officer Darren Wilson was not “the initial aggressor,” that the officer “acted in self-defense”; that he “was authorized to use deadly force,” in a situation in which he found himself being punched—and then bull-rushed by a demonic-looking mountain of flesh, Michael Brown.

Brown’s interactions with Officer Wilson would have been fueled by a consciousness of guilt which likely amplified the young man’s aggression. For prior to being shot, a surveillance video had surfaced of Brown roughing up and robbing a shopkeeper. The “Big Kid” was no gentle giant; he was a brute. At the time of their fateful encounter, Officer Wilson suspected Brown of robbing a convenience store.

“The Racism Industrial Complex (RIC),” explains the term’s originator Jack Kerwick, “include the majority of journalists and commentators in corporate media; most academics in the liberal arts and humanities departments of America’s colleges and universities; entertainers; and politicians. In concert, they labor fast and furiously to ensconce within the American consciousness the idea that blacks and other racial minorities are perpetual victims of ‘white racism.’”

Commensurate with the “RIC” narrative, Michael Brown’s blackness is mentioned always in mitigation; Wilson’s whiteness as an aggravating condition.

Right away, the governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, promised “a vigorous prosecution.” Feeling the heat from the head honchoes of the “Racism Industrial Complex” (Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama), Nixon had sought to indict the white officer as a gesture to the Brown family. It is alleged, moreover, that Missouri’s governor and the DC “RIC” are behind the meek response to the November riots, underway across the country.

I hate to say it, but these riots are an object lesson as to what transpires in certain chaotic communities when the police practice peaceful resistance.

Let’s face it: had St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, a Democrat, opted for an open, probable-cause hearing before a judge, as opposed to convening a grand jury, the “Racism Industrial Complex”—forced to face a decision not to its liking—would be decrying the despotism of this single judge. They’d be calling for a jury of the people’s representatives, as bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, in the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The grand jury institution, as legal analyst Paul Callan has explained, “was actually created by the Founders to provide a wall of citizen protection against overzealous prosecutors.”

Had the decision been revealed in the AM, the RIC herd would have argued for a night-time reveal.

Had Mr. McCulloch meddled with the jury, he’d still be accused of rigging the outcome against Brown.

Had McCulloch hand-picked the evidence for the grand jury, instead of providing the 12 jurors with access to all of it—a “document dump,” brayed Big Media—he’d have been accused of concealing information.

Had the cops moved to curtail the crowds from “venting” over “legitimate issues,” caused by “the legacy of racial discrimination”—they’d have been convicted of police brutality.

As to the affective dimension, McCulloch’s alleged frigid demeanor: a silent majority whose “culture” is being crowded out still finds such WASPY mannerisms comforting and familiar; a sign of professionalism, dignity, decorum and rationality. Profoundly alien and disturbing was the wretched excesses of Michael Brown’s mother (Lesley McSpadden) and her new husband (Louis Head)—both of whom have had brushes with the law—howling “Burn This Bitch Down.”

Regrettably, at the time of the shooting, this libertarian column had expressed the opinion that Brown was the victim of murder-by-cop http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=783. I was wrong. Far from the militarized mob, a remarkable process has unfolded in Ferguson. Praise for it belongs to Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and a grand jury selected by a judge, in May of 2014, long before the shooting occurred.

McCulloch’s remarks were impressive. They revealed the exhaustive scope of the search for truth undertaken by a grand jury that was left to its own devices. Since the text of the statement has not been disseminated, I’ve summarized some of it for interested Americans. Particularly brilliant is the manner in which McCulloch co-opted the DC “RIC” in support of the rule of law, in Ferguson, Missouri:

St. Louis county police conducted an extensive investigation at the crime scene together with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder. Together they sought out witnesses and gathered additional information over a period of three months, beginning on the day of the shooting death of Michael Brown. Fully aware of the growing concerns in parts of the community that the investigation and review of the death would not be full and fair, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch decided to hand over to a grand jury all physical evidence related to the case, all individuals claiming to have witnessed any aspect of the events and any and all related matters. The grand jury comprised of 12 members of the community.

Federal investigators worked closely with local law enforcement, with the St. Louis county police and persecutor and Attorney General Holder and his department vowing to follow where the evidence led. These federal investigators shared information with St. Louis county investigator and vice versa. In addition, the Department of Justice conducted its own investigation and performed its own autopsy. Yet another autopsy was carried out by the Brown family and all information was shared and collated. All testimony before the grand jury was immediate forwarded to the DOJ. Eyewitness accounts were compared with the physical evidence. Many witnesses contradicted their own statements and the physical evidence.

As an example of witness testimony that contradicted the physical evidence McCulloch offered numerous statements that claimed to have seen Officer Wilson stand above Michael Brown and fire many rounds into his back. Others claimed that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown in the back as he was running away. Once the autopsy was released showing that the deceased did not sustain injuries to his back, statements to that effect were retracted. Others admitted they had, in fact, not witnessed the shooting.

All statements were recorded and presented to the grand jury before the autopsy results were released. There was no “document dump,” as some media claimed. Two of Bob McCulloch’s assistants presented the information to the jury in an organized, systematic manner. All jurors heard every word of testimony and examined every item of evidence presented. McCulloch described a proactive and engaged group working since August 9th to do their due diligence. In the course of 25 days, the jury dissected over 70 hours of testimony and listened to 60 witnesses. They heard from three medical examiners and many other DNA and forensic experts. They examined hundreds of photographs and looked at various pieces of physical evidence. They were instructed in the law and presented with five possible indictments. Their burden was to determine, based on all the evidence, if probable cause existed to determine that a crime was committed and Daren Wilson committed that crime. There is no question that Officer Wilson caused the death of Michael Brown by shooting him. However the law authorizes an officer of the law, and all people, to use deadly force to defend themselves in certain situations. The grand jury considered whether Officer Wilson was the initial aggressor, or whether he was authorized to use deadly force in the situation and acted in self-defense.

They were the only people who examined every piece of evidence and heard every witness. They debated among themselves. After an exhaustive review of the evidence the grand jury deliberated further over two days to arrive at their final decision. And it is that no probable cause exists to file any charges against Officer Darren Wilson. They returned a “No True” bill on each of the five indictments. All the evidence, witness statements included, was made public.

Not even the unethical, ongoing, subversive interventions from the attorney general of black America and the president of black America, on the side of the Brown family, swayed a grand jury guided by the search for truth. For fact-finding is the essence of the law—the law is not an abstract idea of imaged social justice that exists in the arid minds of the perpetually aggrieved.

Unfortunately, “the Racism Industrial Complex” (RIC), also sees law as a weapon, to be co-opted to its ends.

We should give thanks for a prosecuting attorney and grand jury who grasped the evidently archaic idea of ordered liberty. This is a good outcome for American justice.

ILANA MERCER is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing column, “Return to Reason” and is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is a Quarterly Review Contributing Editor. Ilana’s latest book is Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com

Posted in QR Home | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment