Ilana Mercer, part 2: Lady Paleolibertarian

So we got to know Ilana Mercer a bit in part 1. Now, the paleolibertarian wordsmith takes full command of her keyboard and her craft, and takes no prisoners in this explosive followup. Simply put, she ain’t skeered.

Even though I’m a recovering mainstream journalist by trade, I’ve only been at dissident blogging a few months shy of four years. And here’s my big takeaway: there is no point to alternative political writing and cultural criticism unless you’re willing to ruffle tail feathers and call a spade a spade. Anything less than connecting the dots, calling out your conclusions (no matter how socially unacceptable), and vehemently smashing sacred cows is just rhetorical masturbation.

Forgive my colorful language, but really, time is of the essence, and if truth is not your game but caring about fashionable opinion is, well, I’d personally rather watch paint dry. THAT is why I admire Ilana Mercer. She writes with bang, not a whimper. She’s my kinda lady.

“A very prolific commentator …
[Mercer] is to libertarianism what Ann Coulter is to conservatism.”

— Walter Block, Austrian School economist

DISSIDENT MAMA: How did you become acquainted with historian and historian Clyde Wilson? How does a woman like you become sympathetic to the Southern tradition, calling the Radical Republicans, the Antifa of 1865?

ILANA MERCER: First, to correct myself: The Radical Republicans were far more vicious and barbaric than are the Antifa punks and thugs. After all, these Republicans supervised the genocide of some 60,000 Plains Indians from 1865 to 1890, led by General Sherman himself.

Clyde and I have a natural affinity. I believe we share a worldview of how decency and justice ought to look. Clyde is a genuine Southern gentleman, one of the last. I had always loved his work for a very particular reason: In addition to an analytical mind, Professor Wilson, who certainly has The Fire, doesn’t write dry, desiccated history; he tells history like a Southerner, he brings it to life in the writing tradition of Thomas Babington Macaulay. 

The first time I had reached out to Clyde was to fact-check the 2004 column, “Hollywood’s Hateful Hooey About The South.” Sadly, we’ve never met. But we became firm friends when he was among the very few in our fractious ideological tribe to shoot back admiring and encouraging nods to my weekly column, now in its twentieth year. He also reviewed my books. He and Jack Kerwick.

Clyde, moreover, would always zero-in analytically on how this writer’s work differed from the standard libertarian line, from legal anarchism to trade deficits, to immigration, to certain logical issues (“from the fact that many libertarians believe that the state has no legitimacy, many arrive at the position that anything the state does is illegitimate”), to a form of determinism, whereby the state is blamed for the sins of man.

As to a “woman like me” and the Southern tradition: Justice is a theme in my work. My father, an old-school liberal, was a great influence vis-à-vis justice. I recall his fist coming down on the table after Waco: “They, the US federal government, murdered those people,” he bellowed, enraged. A man like dad, who abhors slavery, also abhorred Lincoln equally for his biblical blood lust.

“Gone With The Wind” I read at age 12, in Hebrew, the language in which I was educated. As a reclusive intellectual, I’m drawn to an earlier time when women like me would feel at home: when men behaved like gentlemen, and intelligent, cultured women were cherished, treated like ladies, not as rivals and enemies. I mean, even Dr. Johnson (no friend of the South’s secession), was deferential to the few heavy-hitter women of his day. I guess I just don’t much enjoy the trashy Yankee manners and mannerisms that have come to define America.

As Ashley Wilkes, Margaret Mitchell’s fictional character, put it, there was a certain symmetry and grace to life in the South. By liking that genteel aspect of the South, I do not mean to detract from the suffering of slaves. Again, I’d just be happier in, say, a 19th Century salon, with individual liberty for all and the accoutrements of modern life. LOL.

I would also call myself a Southern agrarian on many issues of philosophy. 

DM: You live in Washington State. Are you near the “Soweto-style” city of Seattle? And how are things out there politically?

IM: We are in the suburbs, a small town, which is, alas, getting bigger by the day. Progress, right? (Wrong!) But I am fully aware the barbarians could advance on us, thanks to the central planners and the technocrats who run and set the libertine, lawless tone for the place. We’ll be ready. Those who are conscious ought to live with the realization that the police might not pitch up. We also know that should we defend ourselves in the USA today, we risk being destroyed by the law, by which I mean not the U.S. Constitution. That thing has long since been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.

Long since underway is a drive to invert and eviscerate bourgeoisie morality. The suburbs are an instantiation of that way of life. Coming to all our neighborhoods is what Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, initiated when he sued “Huntington Beach, a coastal city in Orange County, for failing to comply with the state’s housing-supply law.” The code Kamala and Joe use is “housing for all incomes.” In your suburbs, not theirs.

DM: It seems to me the biggest character assassins of the right are supposed “conservatives,” who are subversives using the “logic” of the left and actively working against populist/conservative/paleolibertarian/trad-Southern coalition building. What say you?

IM: This has been covered. A lot of what you say has become cool, somewhat hollow, phraseology in our largely flaccid, self-cannibalizing, philosophical camp. I say this as someone who has been anatomizing, analyzing and eviscerating the prevailing neoconservative orthodoxy since 1999, and whose newspaper syndication was terminated when I came out, in Sept 19, 2002, against Bush’s war.

Since then, this column has burned as hot as a Babylonian kiln against every tenet of what friend and commentator Jack Kerwick calls the “Big Con.” Since the work is analytical, there are nooks and crannies of conservatism that I’ve exposed. Most recently it has been this camp’s congenital inability to cop to the dangerously anti-white tenor of American politics.

You ask nobly about “bridge building, strengthening alliances, creating parallel institutions, boycotting.” Well, here’s my own reality:

I’ve written a paleolibertarian weekly column for two decades, in which firmly held first principles and a reality based analysis have combined to yield a predictive bit of writing (fun, too) on the most controversial and pressing issues of the day. From race to trade deficits to anarchism to immigration to populism, as a valued reader put it, “We’ve learned to trust you.”

The latest major effort is deconstruction of the racism construct, real analytical arrows in our camp’s quiver, against the leftist proponents of racial subjugation.

‘Systemic Racism’ Or Systemic Rubbish?
Was The Cop’s Knee On George Floyd’s Neck ‘Racism’? No!
Ethnocidal ‘Critical Race Theory’ Is Upon Us Like White On Rice
Racist Theory Robs And Rapes Reality

Yet, my most radical of tracts have found homes with outfits which the paleo community routinely disparages as “Straussian” and “Big Con”; but not with a single publication claiming my own ideological affiliation. For these publications, excommunication, and the intellectual ossification that comes with it, are de rigueur.

The intellectual oligarchs of the Old Right think that their publications create stars. Not so. The paleo publications must either reflect the reality of the writing landscape as it is, or, if they are not, they are creating a parallel universe for themselves. 

My weekly column is not published and has never been regularly featured by a single paleo publication. Oh, they publish the usual syndicated material appearing in hundreds of other “Big Con” newspapers in the country, but not my high-minded, labor-intense, woefully underexposed, original column. 

Some of the people the paleos disparage as “Big Con,” or “Straussians” – they, however, publish this radical column quite regularly. In doing so, this odd amalgam, among whom are very fine people (such as my editors), are publishing one of the most potent antidotes to America’s most pernicious shibboleths.

So, who, from my vantage point, shows more philosophical leadership and intellectual honesty? That was rhetorical.

Oh, occasionally a column of mine has been posted on this or the other paleo site, but that’s not the same as letting the strongest fire power we have reach our young readers week in and week out. They don’t. The paleo community huddles in atrophying intellectual attics, praising itself, hiring mediocrities that hog the space with their own meandering milquetoast output, as they disparage the Big Con using hackneyed, recycled argument. 

The biggest enemies of the paleo faction are its own, not Big Con, which is defeatable with potent epistolary fire power.

You asked about cancel culture and the SPLC. Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center has me and others in our camp on its hit list and has forced at least one D.C. outfit to expunge my column from its pixelated pages. But at least the Daily Caller had deigned to feature my column regularly before they ran scared from the SPLC. Our side, the paleo community, has not needed the SPLC to prompt it into a fright and flight response with respect to my work. It has long-since de facto canceled me. What “leadership”! Marginalizing leaders in your movement!  

DM: Would you be a proponent of repealing the 19th Amendment, and are Karens (Yankee women) the problem like always?

IM: I’m on record saying, in 2005, that I’d give up my vote if all women were denied the vote. A fact recollected here in 2012

As always, women voted with their wombs, although married sisters were less wild for big daddy O. (Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to “give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.”)

“To the pox of the 19th Amendment – it granted women the vote – add the 26th Amendment. Smuggled into the Constitution by statute, it artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters by millions of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. While they don’t work for a living, the vote grants youngsters a claim on the livelihood of those who do.”

DM: Any parting advice for us “newbies”?

IM: Use your given, real name, young lady. Go by your name. I believe you are named for a wonderful Hebrew matriarch. I say this for obvious reasons: You are so much more than a mother. (And kids are overrated. Humor alert.)

In addition to Mercer’s weekly columns and “Barely a Blog” essays at found at her website, she’s also the author of three books: “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” and “”Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture.” You can follow Mercer on Gab, YouTube, Twitter and LinkedIn, but not on Facebook, since the keepers of acceptable opinion have banned her, which means if you want to pursue truth, you should definitely read what Mercer has to say. Censors be damned!

Postscript: Not many of you know, but I got doxxed earlier this year by an "Internet hate expert" and then was subsequently Twitter stalked by a few of her jack-booted evangeleftist bullies, who think it's a Christian virtue to try to ruin people's lives through "cancel culture." It was pretty rough at first, having idiots who for some reason have all the power act morally superior to you and get their rocks off threatening everything you hold dear. Honestly, it died down fairly quickly, probably because I'm such small potatoes. (If I ever get in the SPLC's cross hairs like Mercer, I suppose I'll know I've "made it" at that point.)

But with the expert and loving advice of a few of my wise mentors and caring compatriots, I decided not to publish the blog post I wrote about the dox, even though that was, of course, my first impulse. In fact, I didn't acknowledge or react to it at all (publicly), and instead embraced the out, quietly added my real name to my DM "about" page, and haven't looked back since. Sit and spin, haters!

Yours truly, Rebecca Dillingham, a.k.a. Dissident Mama

Source: Dissident Mama – Ilana Mercer, part 2: Lady Paleolibertarian

Episode 200 – The Godfather, Part II (1:19:30)

Just when we thought we were out, we get pulled back in to continue our discussion on The Godfather with the great Keith Knight of Don’t Tread on Anyone.

Our previous episode on the Godfather only began to scratch the surface of all the many facets and intricacies going on in this epic film series. This time we are going to talk about some of the international scenes such as in Italy and in Cuba, and also go wherever else our guest wants to go.

The Godfather is an American film series that consists of three crime films directed by Francis Ford Coppola inspired by the 1969 novel of the same name by Italian American author Mario Puzo.

We’ll end with our summary and review and ratings for the movies, which we didn’t have time for on the previous episode.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 200 – The Godfather, Part II (1:19:30)”

Corona Virus Lockdown Truth Bombs

1) The simple fact is that if you want stuff – i.e. wealth rather than poverty… people have to actually Make the stuff. It doesn’t come out of thin air. 

2) It’s nice to think that with a magic wand all we have to do is appropriate the wealth of “the greedy rich” and redistribute it, but the fact is almost all the money they have is invested in the machines and factories that make a modern standard of living possible, and the technology that promises to improve it in the future. Moving it from capital investment to consumption will make everyone poor not rich. They will go out to the shops and spend it, the price of goods and services will shoot through the roof, and we will be worse off. 

3) Spending does not create wealth saving does.

4) If you stop people working for the best part of a year don’t be surprised when everyone is poor in the future. It’s going to take years for people to recover from the poverty, possibly decades.

5) If people blame the on eeeevil capitalism they will end up killing the goose that laid the golden eggs that bought all the privileges they are lamenting having lost from shutting the economy down. 

6) It may be nice to fantasize that some benign gods will come along to take over and run everything in the interests of “the people” (whatever that means) – but we are infinitely more likely to end up looking like Venezuela or Cuba. 

7) If you’re not scared of this outcome you should be. 

Source: Seeing Not Seen – Corona Virus Lockdown Truth Bombs

Ilana Mercer, part 1: Roots, writing, & resistance

The tagline at Ilana Mercer’s website is “Verbal swordplay for civilization.” Ain’t that the truth. The self-described paleolibertarian has been wielding words and fighting the good fight since well before I even thought about fleeing the clutches of feminism-atheism-socialism. She’s both provocative and poignant – a difficult thing to pull off anytime, much less in our postmodern dystopia.

I remember first stumbling upon Mercer at World Net Daily back in my neocon “daze” in the early 2000s. I recall being moved by not only her tenacity, but her cerebral style. Being such a prolific essayist, I then found her articles during my libertarian/ancap phase. And again, her writing spoke to me. Now, I’m what you’d call a paleoconservative/Southern traditionalist, and yet, there she is again: writing articles that say things we all want to say but don’t know how, or planting seeds for new thinking.

Now, I don’t always agree with Mercer. I’d say she speaks my language on most matters, but that’s really not what draws me to her work. When you read Mercer, you know that she’s coming to her conclusions through principled inquiry, deep research, a passion for justice, and an impatience with the insanity. In other words, she’s rational but on fire!

And Mercer can see through so many of the charades. Perhaps this is due to her years of experience or because, as Jack Kerwick says, “Ilana is in much greater supply of that ‘manly virtue’ than are most male writers today.”

As Southern stalwart Dr. Clyde Wilson explains of Mercer, “This is one libertarian who knows that the market is wonderful, but it is not everything.” Intellectual honesty like that is hard to come by these days, and that’s why Mercer’s writing is so damn good: it’s fearless and succinct. Bold and challenging. Accessible and engrossing.

Moreover, anyone who’s forever banned from Facebook, pegged as a hater by the SPLC, and given accolades by everyone from Peter Brimelow and Vox Day, to Tom Woods and Paul Gottfried, well, they’re pretty cool in my book. Plus, Mercer has become what I would call a mentor and a friend. So, for those of you who don’t already know her, please meet the never-to-be-duplicated Ilana Mercer. And folks who are already familiar with her and her independent streak, get ready to have your socks knocked off.

DISSIDENT MAMA: Let’s start with a little bio. Where are you from, why you left and came to the States, and how you got into dissident journalism?

ILANA MERCER: I was born in South Africa. My parents immigrated to Israel, where I grew up. Primary, secondary and some tertiary schooling happened in Israel. I returned to South Africa, which was never far from my heart. There, I married and had a daughter. My husband and I left South Africa in the late 1990s for obvious reasons, as “mobocracy” dawned. Our honeymoon was spent dodging riot pockets resembling the riots engulfing more than 2000 cities in America of 2020, an eventuality presaged in my 2011 book, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons From America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” (The difference: South Africa still had an extremely tough police force.) 

Leaving was particularly difficult for me (not so for my husband, who wisely initiated the move). You never make up for a life and a homeland lost. Friends with whom I raised my daughter were left behind. Family, too. 

I did not enter “dissident journalism”; I’ve always been a dissident thinker. I recall a high school principal complaining to my mom that, “ilana has her own laws. She doesn’t make them up; she just has them.” 

I began writing in Canada. Writing in Canada was an exhilarating experience, as Canada – are you sitting? – was far more structurally conservative than the radical USA, where celebrity drives publishers, where writers are often not paid (joy, “that’s the free-market speaking,” I’ve been lectured by sorts who’re prepaid by special-interest think tanks); where plagiarism is just “flattery” and where ethics are passé and old-fashioned. 

Back in the day, Canadian op-ed pages were not dominated by empty celeb journos, and writers were compensated well for quality work, even if straight off the boat, as I was! Right away, I was writing opinion for Canada’s national newspapers about topics from Quebec as a beacon for secession (quoting Clyde Wilson), to intellectual property rights, to progressive rock. I soon began scabbing as an op-ed writer. 

Yes, crossing the picket line to make a living! Those were heady times. A few sessions with the best of editors set me on the right track to being ruthless with my own prose. In that old Canadian ethical journalistic scene, editors, following traditional journalistic strictures, didn’t use their position to publish themselves constantly as our own publications often do, in direct conflict of interest. They edited. Since these professionals had no conflict of interest – they had no incentive to oust competition so as to hog the page with their inconsequential pabulum – they recruited the best. That’s the way division of labor is meant to work. It enforces ethics, too. In American journalism, lines are blurred. It’s all very radical, non-hierarchical and, in the meta-sense, unconservative.  

Canada, sadly, always follows the US, whether it is in the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, taxation, or, I imagine, the corruption of its op-ed pages. 

However, while we Americans take some comfort in the fact that ours is a market-generated cancel culture – please! – Canadians, it has to be said, have state-generated speech codes and extrajudicial “human rights,” kangaroo courts. Bad news.

DM: Do you ever just wanna flee? If not, how do you stay so on fire?

IM: Flee? Oh, yes, every moment of every day. I want to flee, yet I stay on fire. The Fire is in me, in my makeup, tempered by reason, I hope. I have no idea how to tamp it down. A young man recently sought my advice about writing (quite a few young men do). He also asked how to acquire The Fire. You have to be born with it. 

However, there is something else young writers can do to help find their fire. Contrary to the message of America’s parents and pedagogues (“make everything fun”), skills that are worth acquiring are seldom fun and easy. You have to work hard to become tops (if you have it in you), or just competent (if that’s all you’ve got). 

Ignorance and a shoddy education that banishes the West’s literary canon from schools: this has robbed young minds of the source of idiom, the vocabulary, the range of expression, the imagination, the discipline and structure to channel whatever passion they may possess. Subpar or no drilling in English grammar compounds the problem. Like in music, technique is almost everything.  

How can writers channel passion or worthy thoughts the way the best writers do, if the only “words” they command are “amazing,” “incredible,” “OMG,” and “I feel like,” and if their syntax and grammar are fractured? They can’t.

DM: Can you give a primer of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” and is it a cautionary tale?

IM: Published in 2011, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” used the tragic example of post-apartheid South Africa to forewarn Americans of the effects of a shift in their country’s founding political dispensation, a shift being achieved stateside through immigration central-planning. 

Immigrants arrive in a country, the United States, whose institutions already acculturate its own into a militant anti-West, anti-white politics. It’s the case of destruction from within and from without. You can hope to combat the first, if your demographics are stable. Destruction is irreversible when you’re importing political and cultural aliens by the annual millions (two, plus/minus) 

America’s political class has thus been tinkering with the country’s historical demographic composition for decades. The consequence of which is that, like South Africa, America is headed for dominant-party status, in which a permanent majority intractably hostile to the host culture consolidates power, and in which voting along racial lines is the rule. 

As sure as night follows day, the American democracy is destined to resemble that of South Africa, where a ruling majority party is permanently entrenched, and where voting is characterized by “a muscular mobilization of a race-based community,” with a marginalized minority consigned to the status of spectator in the political bleachers. The Trump revolution was the last chance for America’s historic, founding majority, and those who identify with it and value its legacy, to reverse the process.

DM: Is the deification of Lincoln similar to that of Nelson Mandela?

IM: No, the deification of Lincoln is not of a piece with the worship of Mandela. Mandela, for all his faults, was not a mass murderer or a war monger. Other than a minor intervention in Lesotho. Mandela opposed wars the likes of which America pursues. I’m not a fan, but Mandela does not deserve to be crudely lumped with Lincoln. 

In “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” I provide a well-rounded and honest assessment of Mandela who, it cannot be denied, was a patrician and had “old-world courtesy.” As the distinguished Afrikaner historian Hermann Giliomee put it: “He had an imposing bearing and a physical presence, together with gravitas and charisma. He also had that rare, intangible quality best described by Seamus Heaney as ‘great transmission of grace.’”

I’m no fan of Mandela, but he was no Lincoln.

Stay tuned for part 2 of my interview with Ilana Mercer.

Source: Dissident Mama – Ilana Mercer, part 1: Roots, writing, & resistance

Dissident Mama, episode 18 – Carl Jones

Welcome to the Dissident Mama podcast, episode 18. Today my guest is Carl Jones, past Chief of Heritage Operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, past Alabama Division Commander of the SCV, current Army of Tennessee Councilman, and NRA Certified Firearms Instructor. Jones and I talk about hot topics including Confederate ancestry, what it means to be unReconstructed, his recent interview with PBS, the GOP’s complicity in Southern cultural genocide, a recent “debate” he had with BLM, Kyle Rittenhouse, what I call “the archetype,” and localism.

Download this episode!

Source: Dissident Mama – Dissident Mama, episode 18 – Carl Jones

Episode 199 – Hotel Rwanda (1:26:50)

We veer back to a more serious movie as we bring back Jared Wall of Breaking Liberty to discuss Hotel Rwanda.

The film chronicles the true story of Paul Rusesabinga (Don Cheadle), a brave hotel manager who risked his life and those of his family to take in more than 1,000 refugees during the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis by Hutu militia.

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 199 – Hotel Rwanda (1:26:50)”

Governments Are Not Incentivized to Solve Problems

States arose with agriculture, around the same time as slavery. When states were monarchies, it was relatively obvious that the institution existed – like slavery – to separate people into two classes. One that produced, and another one that consumed. 

This fact became intolerable, and people demanded to have a say in how the state was run. They did not imagine that states, as such, were the problem, but simply that they were run by monarchs. They could no longer imagine forms of organisation that did not involve state, but really states are the anomaly. Throughout most of history there were none. They are a logical error predicated on misunderstanding of economics. 

Economics demonstrates that people and institutions tend to act as they are incentivized to behave.

Companies gain wealth from providing goods and services for money, the consumer is king and puts them out of business if they don’t deliver the goods. Charities have limited resources and must allocate them effectively if they are to do well in league tables. Even then there is still corruption.

The government is simply not incentivized  to solve problems. First, they get paid whether they do a good job or not. Second, they monopolize services so they can’t compare their performance to other strategies and adopt other people’s innovations. 

Damningly, the government derives its power from people being poor because the pretext for every government program is “how will the poor get xyz if the government does not provide it”. 

If poor people become rich they will just do what middle class people do which is take their kids of out public schools and put them in better private schools, take out health insurance so they don’t need to rely on poorer nhs hospitals, there will be less crime so less need for police, and no poor people to go in the army and fight endless wars in the Middle East. With the diminishing need for social programs because people are rich enough to solve their own local issues, there will be less need for social workers and other social services. Millions of government bureaucrats will no longer be necessary. How can the government even make them redundant given that A) they represent a huge voting block? and B) they are heavily unionized. 

Solving problems reduces the need for government and no one puts themselves out of a need for a job unless they are forced to. The incentive structures are such that government are doomed to fail and basically everything that economic theory predicts you will find from government is exactly what you see the results to be. More and more dependence, less self-sufficiency, people bribed with public funds to support this or that policy, and driven to hatred of one another. 

Source: Seeing Not Seen – Governments Are Not Incentivized to Solve Problems

Dissident Mama, episode 17 – Dann Reid

Episode 17 features Dann Reid, who is the creator of the Culinary Libertarian blog and podcast. Reid says his goal is to help teach and share information on baking, cooking, ingredients, “general food stuff, and policy which is relevant to liberty.” With his blog, he hopes to “make cooking and baking possible and take the scary away” while encouraging newbies to embrace “reasonable expectations to start with.” And with his podcast, Reid tackles interesting topics with wide-ranging guests from both the liberty movement and culinary worlds.

Whether it’s fighting for food security and food sovereignty, challenging woke food bullies, or donning a cheesecloth face mask, Reid likes to keep the control freaks on their toes, all while inspiring us non-chefs to revel in the fun of cooking and the freedom of using homegrown ingredients. Be sure to check out Reid’s book “Cooking For Comfort: One-pot Meals You Can Make.”

Also mentioned in our discussion are Michael Boldin’s Tenth Amendment Center, self-described “Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer” Joel Salatin, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie’s PRIME Act, and the books “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights: The Escalating Battle Over Who Decides What We Eat” by David E. Gumpert and “Sacred Cow: The Case for (Better) Meat: Why Well-Raised Meat Is Good for You and Good for the Planet” by Robb Wolf and Diana Rodgers.

Download this episode!

Source: Dissident Mama – Dissident Mama, episode 17 – Dann Reid

Episode 198 – Gentlemen Broncos (1:22:06)

We mount our Battle Stags and take a less serious turn, and move from a movie masterpiece to a movie that’s barely a movie in Gentlemen Broncos which was a suggestion by our guest, Ben “Dirty J” Johnson.

A mostly peaceful wildfire, probably from a maskless gender reveal that was conducted without proper social distancing, has de-nadded my co-host rendering him unable to connect to the internet so it is just me and Dirty J on this one. However, we do intend to create some bonus content so we can all hear Robert’s take on this and bask in his hate that I fully expect him to have for this one.

We get into intellectual property, the time value of money, plagiarism, and I even cram in a convoluted sports analogy as we discuss this quirky movie by the director of Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre.

Here is the bonus episode where we have Robert give his thoughts on the movie, be sure to watch this AFTER listening to the episode:

We’re also proud to announce that our YouTube video for this episode now features actual video footage of the show, check it out here and be sure to hit that subscribe button!

If you would like to get (occasional) early access to future shows, join us on Patreon and support us at the $3+ per month level at:

Never miss an episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts to get new episodes as they become available.

* Note that all links that appear on this page that promote products and services for purchase are affiliate links, we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you on any purchase you make using one of our links.

Continue reading “Episode 198 – Gentlemen Broncos (1:22:06)”

“The Precautionary Principle” with Dr Frank


If you don’t follow Dr Frank’s open Facebook Group, you should.  Check out Follow the Data with Dr Frank.  He’s the adult in the room which is refreshingly rare on social media.

“The Precautionary Principle”

Watch out for this one. It is irrational, and can be used to justify just about any decision or behavior. It goes something like this:

“Since there is the possibility that something *could* happen, we should take precautions and do x.”

This leads to all sorts of silly behaviors and decisions.

A more rational approach is to ask what is *most likely* or *certain* to happen, and to plan mitigations for those things based upon the best evidence available. Not merely what is possible. Almost anything is possible.

Follow the data. Which risks have the clearest evidence to justify our attention?

For example, for decades I have been telling my students that “global warming” is not nearly as threatening to human life as a *global pandemic* would be… and we were due for one. (Boy, did I call this one.)

So if we were going to spend vast resources on something that *might* happen with devastating consequences, we should be investing in things that are inevitable over things that might potentially be relatively mildly harmful.

This is one way to distinguish which are the scientifically justified investments and which are merely political agendas.

Because pandemics are inevitable. (Eh, hem…)

And so are asteroid impacts. (I always show my students a picture of the back side of the moon at this point in the lecture.)

And volcanoes, and earthquakes, and solar flares, and wars…

And all these things are more likely to disrupt humanity and to claim myriad human lives.
So don’t fall for it.

Recent incarnations are:

“We should close the schools because children might die.”

“We should force otherwise perfectly healthy people to take an insufficiently tested vaccine, because it might save lives.”

Instead, use the science and the math to set priorities. Don’t build a house of cards. Build a solid foundation, based upon the sturdiest facts at your disposal.

Children are far more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid. Better never allow them to ride in cars…

Certainly we will make mistakes, and some unlikely things are bound to occur. But the fact that there are infinite unlikely things that *could* happen makes it impossible to predict which ones of the myriad possible bad things we should protect against.

Because we simply cannot protect against everything.

So go with the science. Follow the data.

And please… “drive safely.”


View RSS feed

Source: Liberty LOL – “The Precautionary Principle” with Dr Frank