Ask Bush Why The Iraqi Military Won’t Fight

Ilana Mercer

It’s quite a surprise that John McCain did not rise on his hind legs when he got wind of what U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had said on the Memorial Day week-end. It was just the thing to make the War Party irate–even more so than the Iraqi prime minister was. (Who is he these days? Ah: Haider al-AbadiIt.) Continue reading

WE HAVE 911 posts

David Davis

THIS is the 912th – eat your heart out, truthers, we’re moving on! (Instead of shooting us in the West in the foot, consider who’s trying to stop us shooting…)

And…you all won’t be able to guess what I’ll do when we have 1,066. (or 1332…)

9/11 falling man … The right stuff from Munchkinwrangler, and we’ve done the grapes.

David Davis

Thoughts on 9/11. Nobody thinks much here about the falling people – only about ways to prove that it was an inside job.

And Munchkin didn’t put up the falling man on his: I did, on here.

Bah, humbug.

(AHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!……NOW they tell me! “He” was put there in Adobe-Photoshop 5.0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeh.)

Sorry. I’ll never buy it. I’ll be back with the same stuff next year. And the year after. And after that. But if someone can prove to me to my satisfaction that it was an inside job, I make a public pledge. I will EAT either president wot signed it: George Bush, OR Bill Clinton, whichever one it was. Or the other other Bush one, or the one before that, who must have authorised it as he’s a republican and wanted to blow up the world too, but he’s dead so I can’t.

They will have to be barbecued, as that’s the best way to eat human flesh (so I’m told) or pork (I know.)

‘Orrible, ‘orrible little people out there, many of you are. Sometimes I can’t think why I bother to write for you all. Must be ‘coz I’m vain. Or that I want to chastize you into being good. Wish I knew which it was.

9/11 7th anniversary … We can be Fabians too, if we want to. The Devil does not have all the best objectives. WE do, at a civilisation near you… free …just say “Yes!”

David Davis

We in the UK still mark sad, or glorious, anniversaries, but more and  more in a “politically correct” way. The objective of the Enemy Class here is to hollow out their meaning, turning them into a sort of trivial Morris-dance. As time goes on, the events themselves thus lose definition, and people find themselves performing slightly strange rituals, eating such ceremonial food as is still permitted by the Safety-Nazis, while fewer and fewer recall what the rituals signified.

For stuff like Armistice Day, it’s still not so bad, although practically everybody has died who really knoew what it meant. For 9/11, I have my doubts already.

Seven years ago today, in about two hours’ time by GMT, nineteen hoodlums and death-eaters hijacked four non-military planes full of civilians, and deliberately drove three of them into crowded and conspicuous buildings. The fourth crashed “harmlessly”, as a result, it is believed from wireless evidence, of the efforts of the passengers to either regain control or redirect it. The truthers will of course say otherwise, but I have not time to refute their theories in detail today (although i oppose them to the end of my strength: for I want this to hit the blog before offices in the USA wake up in an hour or so.

As of now, more time has elapsed since 9/11 than the entirety of the Second World War. Yet we seem in the West to be arguing among ourselves about which batch of US government agencies, with or without Israel, plotted to trash several hundred thousand square yards of New York real estate, together with up to 50,000 living humans inside it.

There are now some dissenting views about what really happened. The “truthers”, whatever they might be, come to mind, as I said. Their hypotheses attract people whose sympathies are leftward-leaning, neo-pastoral, East-Coast-intellectual, and anti-capitalist in general.

All I will say now, is that I would be interested in the result of a chi-squared test on trutherism versus Apple-Mac ownership.

But the substance of the case remains that, unless hundreds, if not thousands of (probably mostly) American citizens who collaborated in an “inside job”, were “silenced” or “made to disappear”, (along with all their  friends and families who would have an interest in grassing up whoever it was) then a foreign power or religion took it upon itself to perform what you must say was an act of war against the USA, which is to say, the West.

It says a lot for the West that very very widespread dissent about the causes of 9/11 is freely allowed. However, a person called Osama bin Laden, made, before he was killed some years ago, a series of interesting videos in which he freely and proudly assigned responsibility for these acts. Not to the agents of a Western government, but to elements within a certain religion. This religion holds tenets, both explicitly stated in places in its Vulgate, and implied in others, and rarely denied categorically by its adherents, which are inimical to coexistence with other “faiths”. It’s enough to make a man agree with Prof. Richard Dawkins.

The main result that endures is that we are fighting, strategically, the wrong “war”, even though tactical theatres in it may be the right ones – such as iraq, Afghanistan, and the like. the war we have been given is not against an actual enemy, but against a tactic used by one. The “War on Terror” makes no sense: you can’t fight a war aganist “bullets”, or “bombs” – the items are deployed by people.

It’s not what our rulers can’t say, that’s our problem – it’s the way in which they can’t say it….and won’t even allow us to, increasingly.

After seven years of quite disarmingly frank rhetoric and clear-bright statements of their objectives, by the enemies of Western Civilisation, both at home and elsewhere, we are no nearer to being able to admit that a sizeable body of people thinks that human civilisation, with capitalism, liberty and natural rights aloft, is going in the wrong direction.

Many of these people reside in the Anglosphere, in particular the UK which is now coming in for exemplary punishment and cultural erasure from its rulers and popular media: they comprise what Sean Gabb has successfully dubbed the Enemy Class. There are examples of Enemy Classes in all Anglosphere nations. Elsewhere, in more self-confident polities, they are ruthlessly suppressed, along with liberals. It is inevitable that we are infested with these people, so long as we ourselevs are real liberals and we yet do nothing about this mortal danger.

Many others are extreme members of a related mass of pre-capitalist-death-cults which number as either nominal or more enthusiastic adherents over a billion people. And many are comically-charismatic murderers such as Castro, Mugabe, Hogu the Chav, Kim-Jong-Il, and the like, who take pleasure in winding-up and patting-on-the-head the legions of insecure yet terribly-famous Western “journalists” (and some politicians, such as the disgusting Ted Heath who fawned on Saddam in 1990.)

No. Sorry. you can’t have a “war on terror”, od what you have done, and expect it all to be sweetness and light after a few years. Sadly, the half-life of the attention span of modern Western audiences and electorates is decreasing.

Moreover, the widespreadness of the ability to (a) understand and (b) carry on in episodic fashion, a political discourse, is decreasing almost by the year. This may be deliberate “education policy” on the part of Western governments, or it may not, but I think it is. All government persons are shits, which is why they do the jobs they do: these days have no other ability – the times are gone when a “great man”, who has raised factories from dust, or laid the b utchered corpses of tyrants in the bloody sand, would “think of a later career in politics”.

But I don’t think that even the government of the USA – no, not even Halibushitlerburton, not even that lot, is capable of covertly murdering 3,000 of its own citizens and trashing its most important city in a morning, “for oil”, or for any other nefarious objective such as “helping Israel”. Even that lot is not a shitty as that.

But it’s time they either shat or got off the pot and let someone else have a shit, as to the titanic battle of our time, which is whether we either can, or indeed want to, save Western Civilisation. it will be of no use to be a libertarian, and fight our own Jihad for the gradual LIBERTARIAN-NEO-FABIAN drive towards more minimal-statist societies, if nobody stands now. We can be Fabians too. But we must have faith that we are right, and know that it will take a long time, or else the loss of our people in 9/11 was for nothing.

Georgia on my mind: What is life, why are we here, and what then ought we to do?

A possible eve-of-war message from the Libertarian alliance.

David Davis (not that one)

 What is life?

Even Alfred the Great, arguably England’s most important King, could not answer that one. But if we are sentient creatures, then we can’t but use time given to make the lot of us and ours better. If Adam Smith and Hayek are right, then we should do it because it enhances our own conditions – self-interest. If the racism industry and its socialist chums are right, then we should do it because we have stuff and others don’t (they call it “fairness”.) Either way, we should act, libertarian non-intervention-opinions or no.


Libertarians ought to be revolted by what’s going on in Georgia. This is of course courtesy of the Soviet Russian government and its wretched, downtrodden people whom it commands – just like the Communists and their Czarist forebears – as a human resource. If it was not for the existence of Big States, and if State power was not delightful for the wielders thereof, most of the ghastly bloodbaths of the past four or five millennia would not have occurred.


Perhaps all of them, and human history will surely have been richer and more full of true progress than it has, even despite the burdens we have endured, placed with force on us by Utopians and pre-capitalists with guns and swords.


Why are we here?

Nevertheless, we in the West live in a still-fortunate civilisation, relative to all others without exception that have existed. Fortunate, relative also to those of which we can conceive – except for full Libertarian or practical-liberal-minimal-statist ones, the realisation of which which we still fervently hope will lie somewhere in the future, and that they are not unachievable mirages, forbidden to us by our current masters.


It’s true that our enemies, of which much the most powerful lurk menacingly at home, diabolically smiling the anodyne, sedative smiles of the Enemy-Media-Class, are doing their level Fabian best to drug us into a Politically-Correct stupor.  They have subverted the universities, the Schools (with the exception of most of the Private Sector, which they also intend to terminate) and the main media channels. By this means they hope to enchain us in a Police State while our back is turned, so that never more can we, the inventors and then the guardians of true individual liberty, frustrate their return of the whole of humankind to a state of miserable enslavement. You have only to sample the outputs of their Wireless Tele Vision channels, and the content, depth and average slant of the “Television News Programmes”, to see that this is so. The mass-circulation-parts of the Dead Tree Press also bear this observation out.


In his life, Chris tame always thought that Libertarianism would succeed in the end by influence of the think-tank type. He wanted to subvert the Conservative Party, but this was in the years when it was fairly liberal and therefore amenable to takeover by peaceful means. This has not happened and probably will not now happen: things came this year to such a pass that there is now as we know a UK Libertarian Party, and we wish it well. But to have any hope of succeeding at all, in the end-times, Libertarians must now get their hands dirty in the rough and tough of comment on dreadful statist affairs, and perhaps take somewhat statist positions on the action appropriate to the disasters that states go about causing.


What, then, must we do?

In the possibly interesting times that may soon come, “we” must be “The West”. Why? Because the Libertarian Alliance is a powerless soap-box, only for superannuated demagogues to stand on, shakily at the best of times, and hoot into cyberspace, occasionally receiving the odd squashed tomato, or egg, in return. Occasionally, someone says something nice about us, or maybe throws us a sixpence, which is better. There is no possible reason for anyone to listen to us, excepting that all others might be mistaken, and that every one of us is a MASTERLESS MAN.


History shows us all that the price of not standing up to pre-capitalists who do evil to third parties, gets bigger and bigger, the more we let the buggers get away with. Initially, it does not seem to matter to us if a bystander in the middle-distance is felled by a bullet, and his body carted away. He is a “faraway country of which we know little”. We may have had pressure put on us by the assassin-thug and his men, many of whom are uncomfortably close to us, or even under our floorboards, to look the other way.


The next thing we know is that the thug actually does plan to perform an act which will do one of two things. It is either fatal for our own honour (Belgium 1914, Poland 1939) because we did actually make an undertaking to help someone, however foolish it was. It is right and good to discharge public obligations, made even for poor reasons, since this links back to the second part of this essay which is why we are here.


Or else it will directly affect us finally. Not necessarily today, but it will at some time. This latter is what Sean Gabb calls going to war over a vital interest. He is quite right that in an ideal world this should be the only reason for a war, and I can envisage Libertarian States – a tautology? – declaring war over something of this kind. If all states were Libertarian, then there ought then to be no wars, but since the scenario is entirely theoretical, I can’t give you a prediction. (But I’d bet you 3p there’d be less conflict.)


In a post yesterday, I stated that Russia has no tradition of liberal pluralist democracy, or of widespread free institutions of any kind. This is precisely the situation that we found ourselves in with Hitler and pre-WW2 Germany. The Weimar Republic took a huge, huge back-of-envelope-leap-into-the-unknown, in 1918, the results of which may have been to leave the German people vulnerable: the development of liberal pluralist structures (likely to be favourable to the use of ordinary diplomacy – not the Bismarckian model, and likely to hinder rather than help aggressive nationalist demagoguery) went ahead, although nobody knew how to use them properly, and the NSDAP cleverly subverted them, until it could abolish them. (See die Ermachtigungsgezetz, of 1933, almost the first thing the bugger did.) The point is that no german-speaking state of 1918 has much more experience of real liberal participation than the people of Russia do now.


So are we going to let the USSR’s Russian govt get away with buggering about inside foreign countries, or not?


If we are here to make planets that we occupy into better places, then we have already taken the wrong action (and I’m not even thinking about the great global warming lie that has engulfed humanity in expensive and unnecessary further burdens.) We have expressed “displeasure”. We have used words such as “unacceptable”, and the like. We have alluded, obliquely, to “measures”, and to “Russia’s standing in the world”. Would Hitler have backed down in the face of this terrible onslaught? I think not.


“Self-determination” was a very bad concept for Woodrow Wilson to bandy about in a world in flames, as he did. It was probably the least bad-seeming-solution at the time, seem from the position of a well-meaning onlooker. But it did enable a few real nations, themselves the products of the beliefs of millions of individuals, to come into existence, and which were undeniably suppressed by the pre-capitalist, pre-liberal structures before them, which force and terror had made persist long after it was time for them to go. The main problems he left us with arose from the specific decisions about these nations that were entirely arbitrary, and thus the product of “planners” (in itself a socialist concept) such as the “Polish Corridor”.


South Ossetia, we are told, wants to go, from Georgia. Perhaps Abkhazia does also: I don’t know. But if they do, then there is therefore also no excuse for the USSR Russia to wade in and pretend that it’s protecting the interests of South Ossetians, or Abkhazians. It’s a matter for Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is therefore a classic example of a scenario in which the Anglosphere ought to commit warlike acts against, not the first and second parties, with whom it has no quarrel, but the third-party which seeks to profit and do a grab (in order to fulfil a pre-capitalist barbarian fantasy) which is the USSR Russia.


If, say, South Ossetia really truly madly deeply wanted to leave Georgia, over, say, taxation policy, or some other injustice, then if that’s the outcome we should allow it. It’s none of our business. But don’t you just get suspicious when the great big heavily-armed (not even a) neighbour jumps in shooting, saying that “SO is being prevented from going, and by the way, we gave lots of them our passports! So we’re going to invade you thoroughly while we are about it, and not go away when you ask us to!”


Western civilisation is the best. It is. Yes. 100%. We not only have nothing to apologise about, to anyone, but, more importantly, we MUST NOT apologise. Ever, ever, ever, to anyone. That includes behaving apologetically towards wicked people, and those who do not share our beliefs. 9/11 would never have happened if the West had not lost its psychological bottle.


Our role, as civilisers, in the grand scheme of human betterment (an idea which WE invented – the hideousness of all other failed branches testifies to this fact) is to teach, and to socialise. Libertarianism, almost a detail – but unachieveable without classical Western civilisation and attitudes and politics-  is the logical conclusion of the entire process. It incidentally takes us a tiny bit nearer towards understanding God’s mind. We have known for centuries, maybe longer, how to socialise children, that they can become sovereign individuals who behave well towards each other as adults, and agree democratically to co-operate in free institutions. What was this all for? Nothing? Is that why the Fabian Gramsco-Marxians took away our ability to do what worked, by statutory means? (You can’t beat even your own child now – you will be arrested, and the State will abuse take away your child.)


States such as the USSR Russia are unsocialised children. (There are many others, most indeed of the UN, but let’s start somewhere, and the balloon is going up just there.) They must be taken in hand, firmly, and treated the same way as  wayward, naughty children whom we want to turn into responsible adults, for their own good. It is not only in a third party’s interest for us to do good (since it directly affects someone else vulnerable and the fate of the Russian people, so heavily abused, past, present, and future if we do not act now at our last chance) but Russia’s that we must take it in hand. Positively. Now. Before it’s too late.