Let’s Mobilize An Army Of Stone Throwers On Border


By ilana mercer

In the United States, even Customs and Border Protection apologizes for doing its job. CBP is supposed to “protects the public from dangerous people and materials attempting to cross the border …”

On one of the networks that wants all people, dangerous or not, to cross the southern border into the U.S., if they so desire, a CBP officer was bending over backwards to appear like a “global force for good.” (That, believe it or not, was the U.S. Navy’s motto, between 2009 and 2015!)

Tear-gassing rubble-rousing migrants, who were charging his officers and breaching the U.S.-Mexico border, was in the service of protecting … the migrants, especially The Children. Perhaps that’s in the oath of office a CBP officer takes?

Law enforcement officers entrusted with the safety of the American people struggle to articulate pride in executing their mandate. Attached to the expected self-loathing repartee is, invariably, a declaration of loyalties to The World. (Of a piece with this confused loyalty is the typical argument made by the typical TV talker: Illegal immigration must be stopped, so as to … save migrants from the journey’s depredations.)

It’s instructive to contrast the apologetics around defending the U.S. border and the American people with the absence of apologies on Israel’s borders.

In May this year, “Tens of thousands of Palestinians massed near Gaza’s border fence, threatening to ‘return’ to the lands their forefathers lost when Israel was created in 1948.” They wanted in.

Israeli soldiers responded not with tear gas, but with bullets. They killed over 60 protesters who threatened to breach the border. The number has since risen to 120.

Most of us, this writer included, would condemn such excessive force.

Yet surprisingly, the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly—pondered but briefly and nonchalantly about Israel’s army having used excessive force, concluding almost callously: “Every state has a right to defend its borders.”

Come again?!

This from the very same editorialists who never tire of protesting any disruption in the holy quest of weary columns of Christ-like caravanners, planning to defy the U.S. government, by illegally entering the United States of America.

Moreover, calmly and with no histrionics does the Economist report, matter-of-fact, that “Any Palestinian, even a farmer, coming within 300 meters of the fence [with Gaza] is liable to be shot.”

And while the august magazine has declaimed dutifully that “Israel must answer for the deaths in Gaza,” its writers have also evinced a good deal of impatience with the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), stating: “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”

In other words, grow up. The stone throwing was cute when your “Struggle” was in its infancy.

Go figure.

For the longest time, the world raged about Israel’s refusal to accept the necessity for its citizens to be blown to bits or be overrun demographically (by people who’re “only seeking a better life” for themselves and their posterity).

Israel paid no attention to the liberal lunatics aligned against its oft-excessive habit of defending its citizenry’s rights.

In fact, the Jewish State has recently gone one better. Israel has automated the process of defense, creating a set of “auto kill-zones” “by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.”

Bluntly put, Israel has deployed gizmos to Gaza; “Robo-Snipers” instead of flesh-and-blood men and women.

The nation’s “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” are still deployed to the front—but virtually. They sit at a safe distance “behind computer screens,” waiting on “approval by a commanding officer” before “pushing the kill button.”

The IDF Southern Command’s rules of engagement along the Gaza fence are, shall we say, particularly aggressive.

Oh, it’s still pro forma for the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to open every one of their sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel’s actions on its borders and everywhere else.

But even the U.N., a cesspit of venality and stupidity, has gotten the message over the decades. And it is this:

Israel’s army is not going to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs, thereby not committing the crime of using excessive force.

Israel’s action on its borders is not unlike action taken by the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of borders not our own.

**

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

 

Advertisements

Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis


Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis

By Duncan Whitmore

Both the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the US President have elevated the topic of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Leftist, liberal elites – previously so sure they would arrive easily at their vision of an open, borderless world – have been scalded now that the lid has been lifted from the bubbling cauldron of the needs of ordinary, everyday citizens seeking to preserve their jobs and the culture of their homelands.

It is high time that this vitriolic, divisive and – frankly – often quite tiresome issue is put to rest. That, alas, is unlikely to happen, particularly as the political globalists seem content to plough on with their vision of open borders through the looming UN Global Compact for Migration. Listening to the mainstream arguments (or at least to how the leftist/liberal media chooses to portray them), one would be forgiven for thinking that the immigration question needs to be met by an all or nothing answer – i.e. that it is either an unqualified good or an unqualified bad. We are led to believe that it is a contest between liberals, or self-styled “progressives”, clamouring for fully porous borders on the one hand, versus elderly, conservative, racist bigots who supposedly want to keep everyone out and preserve England’s green and pleasant land for white faces.

The falsehood of this dichotomy is obvious to almost anyone who is not of the liberal-left, and, in fact, a “sensible” view on immigration is quite prevalent – that it is possible to be in favour of permitted, but regulated immigration, allowing some people to cross the border as immigrants to come and live and work in the territory of the state while denying that privilege to others. It is also recognised that immigration is economically beneficial in some situations, but not in others – i.e. when immigrants are highly skilled and productive instead of welfare consumers.

The task of this essay is to sharpen this “sensible” view with Austro-libertarian theory. We will begin by outlining the core libertarian theory concerning immigration before examining a key area for contention among libertarians – whether, in a world populated by states, any particular state should restrict or otherwise control movements across the border by persons who are not considered to be citizens of that particular state and whether this is in accordance with libertarian theory. We will then move on to exploring the economic and cultural implications of immigration policies. Read more

Let There Be Peace


By Natalie Fawn Danelishen

Every Christmas we are inundated with songs such as “let there be peace on earth” The song and its sentiments are shared among many. So, what happened to Peace?

Perhaps, the best example of laying down arms for a moment of peace is reflected in the Christmas Truce of World War I. As Judge John V. Denson noted,

“The Christmas Truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western Front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the “Great War” leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public.”

It was, in itself, an act of rebellion since mingling with the enemy was considered an act of treason.

So, it comes as no surprise that historians wish to hide that peace could be achieved without our masters and overlords (the government). The common man does not wish for war and people will do everything in their power to avoid it. As portrayed in the World War I novel All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque.

“But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late. Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony — Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?”

Much of the same response happened on the western front. As Eddie Rickenbacker became a rebel and took to the air to watch the greatest blessing to mankind 100 years ago on Armistice day, peace. He wrote:

“it was 11:00 A.M., the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. I was the only audience for the greatest show ever presented. On both sides of no-man’s-land, the trenches erupted. Brown-uniformed men poured out of the American trenches, gray-green uniforms out of the German. From my observer’s seat overhead, I watched them throw their helmets in the air, discard their guns, wave their hands. Then all up and down the front, the two groups of men began edging toward each other across no-man’s-land. Seconds before they had been willing to shoot each other; now they came forward. Hesitantly at first, then more quickly, each group approached the other.

Suddenly gray uniforms mixed with brown. I could see them hugging each other, dancing, jumping. Americans were passing out cigarettes and chocolate. I flew up to the French sector. There it was even more incredible. After four years of slaughter and hatred, they were not only hugging each other but kissing each other on both cheeks as well.

Star shells, rockets and flares began to go up, and I turned my ship toward the field. The war was over.”

That quiet, peaceful Christmas and the day of Armistice 100 years ago are evidence that the common man does not wish for war. As Afghanistan enters its 18th year, children that were born when the war started can soon sign up to fight in it. If there is one thing we know about Afghanistan, it is that we don’t know why we’re still in Afghanistan. How many, men, women, and children must die before it ends? The truth is not what they are telling us, and this war will only end when the common man rises up and demands an end to it. As Lew Rockwell once said:

“We don’t oppose the state’s wars because they’ll be counterproductive or overextend the state’s forces. We oppose them because mass murder based on lies can never be morally acceptable.”

If wars are started by lies, the truth is the antidote. As the song goes “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.”

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and ‘Leftism’ – An Appreciation


By Andy Duncan, Vice-Chairman of Mises UK

As John the Baptist to the Jesus Christ of Hans-Hermann Hope, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn forms an essential reading component of any modern Miseo-Rothbardo-Hoppeian. As a Renaissance gentleman swimming in a sea of kleptocratic fools – perhaps whilst holding his head aloft and smoking a fine Cuban cigar – Kuehnelt-Leddihn successfully negotiated these seas and serially and routinely speared and devoured our enemies, the hate-filled envious class warriors of ‘social justice’.

Although an Austrian nobleman by birth, he never became a full true ‘Austrian’ in the sense of Ludwig von Mises. However, rising up from the water, he definitely flew within the ambit of angels, describing himself as an ‘extreme conservative arch-liberal’. In one sense of the word, I would personally regard myself as completely ‘apolitical’. I simply wish that everyone else in the world would leave me alone, so long as I abstain from infringing upon their rights of property and freedom. However, if someone compelled me to bear a political label, then I would hold myself happy to concur with this description.

So, if you’ve never read Kuehnelt-Leddihn before, where do you begin? Should you start with Liberty or Equality, The Menace of the Herd, or Leftism? (To my mind, these three immense works rise up clearly as the triumvirate pinnacle of his many books.) Well, as a labour of love I’ve already read all three for you, along with most of the rest, and for me the clear winner stands out as Leftism. It’s historical, it’s complete, and it stands alone by itself. If there existed only one of his books in the vaults of history, it sums up his thinking best of all. Fortunately, it’s also freely available to download and read via Mises.org at the link here! Quickly, before all stocks go!

Read more

Which if not Victory is Yet Revenge


“Which if not Victory is Yet Revenge”
Thoughts on the Tory Apocalypse

by Sean Gabb
1st December 2018

This Book is Free
Get a Copy

As I write, those who demand a second referendum on the European Union seem ever more likely to have their way. Their argument is: that it is now two years since we were asked to vote on leaving; that no one expected the process of leaving to end in the present shambles; that we should be asked what we now think of leaving. These calls are an obvious fraud on the electorate. Since the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the custom in Europe has been for any unfavourable referendum result to be followed by another vote, in which the preferred result is given. This was done to the French, the Dutch and the Irish. It is now being done to us. Read more

Mrs May’s Disastrous Deal


Mrs May’s Disastrous Deal

By Duncan Whitmore

Albeit for the wrong reasons, Theresa May never ceases to amaze. In spite of having first tabled an almost universally unpopular proposal for withdrawal from the EU at Chequers in July of this year, and then having done the equivalent of inject that proposal with steroids through the draft “Withdrawal Agreement” with the EU, she soldiers on in the face of all resistance.

Sean Gabb has summarised the contents of the draft agreement unveiled last week in an earlier post on this blog so there is no need to repeat that here. What we will do instead is to outline the combination of circumstances that have led to this situation and conclude with some thoughts as to what libertarians can make of this whole this debacle. Read more

Theresa May: A Study in Bare-Faced Wickedness


Theresa May: A Study in Bare-Faced Wickedness
by Sean Gabb
21st November 2018

Because I am writing about the European Union, I shall be neither surprised nor upset if the majority of my British readers go straight for the delete button. I write near the end of a week of fierce and increasingly unanimous denunciation of the Draft Agreement the British Government has “negotiated” for our withdrawal. However, more than half the people on my mailing list live outside the United Kingdom, and some of these have asked me to explain to the best of my ability what is happening. Here is the briefest summary I can manage that still makes sense. Read more

« Older Entries