Tag Archives: Jihad

A Modest Libertarian Proposal: Keep Jihadis OUT, Not IN


Ilana Mercer

He adopted the religion of peace and forthwith proceeded to shatter the peace of his countrymen.

In the waning months of 2014, Quebecer Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot Cpl. Nathan Cirillo in the back, at Canada’s National War Memorial in Ottawa. Zehaf-Bibeau then stormed Parliament, but was dispatched by a sergeant-at-arms before he could do further harm.

The mother of the martyr, Susan Bibeau, is a “deputy chairperson of a division of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board.” Mrs. Bibeau has done quite well as a Canadian bureaucrat, acquiring “homes in Montreal and Ottawa.” Her errant son told mommy dearest of “his desire to travel to Syria,” a fact she revealed only after the butcher’s bill came due; following Zehaf-Bibeau’s lone-wolf, wilding rampage on Parliament Hill. Read more

The Paris Shootings and Foreign Policy


Daniel Harding

Ron Paul said shortly after the Paris shootings that foreign policy was to blame for the resulting backlash from the various violent extremist groups found in the middle-east (mostly formed during western ‘interventions’ in those countries over the last two decades). Naturally, this view from Dr Paul has caused some controversy amongst our statist ‘friends’ around the world.

Read more

My quote of the day: from Charles Moore in the DT, on Afghanistan


David Davis

I have called this one _MY_ quote, because I know that a majority of libertarians, especially in Britain, think we ought not to be militarily involved in Afghanistan – or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I will not annoy and insult these people by calling it the “Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day” (although it ought to be.) I take responsibility for it instead of the august think-tank for which I have the privilege to be allowed to blog.

These libertarians, and others, know that I have never failed to support war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and that I say [regularly] that the West _must_ take war, if need be everywhere that is required, to all those who cheerfully, frankly and materially oppose individual liberty anywhere. The people the West is trying to resist are not “insurgents”. They are not even “terrorists”, which is why the notion of “The War On Terror” is so glib, shallow and meaningless – these people are willing soldiers for a cause, they really believe what they are saying and they mean to destroy us: they are the willing agents of purposeful and committed deconstructors of everything they think we stand for and love.

Here’s Charles Moore:-

If we truly want to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to challenge its opponents much more fiercely. Politicians such as Nick Clegg, who congratulate themselves on asking the necessary, awkward questions, need to be interrogated about what they actually want. Do they want the first defeat of the most powerful military alliance in history at the hands of a small band of fanatics armed with little more than rifles and IEDs?

Do they have any conception of what such a defeat would mean for the world order, for the stability of countries in the region, or for civil peace in every European city? Do they not understand that this fight will be seen all over the world not as a battle for control of some jagged mountains, but between values, and that, if our values do not win, they will lose?

Please read old Charlie Moore on the whole thing: he puts some sharp perspectives on war, its roles – good or bad they may be – in intercivilisational conflict, and where we ought to go from here. I already said a couple of days ago that the alternatives are only (and ever) victory or defeat, and what it will mean. He’s probably read Sir John Keegan. I doubt most of our present politicians have even heard of the bugger.

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.

Metro hotel woking soldier, but we all have to move on, including him and the hotel.


David Davis

The story of yesterday was that poor Tomos Stringer was denied a room, late at night, on an inconvenient date, when he could have had one, had the Stalinists at the Metro Hotel in Woking let him have one. OK.

WE move on, so does he, for he is in Afghanistan again, so we learn.

Now then, what do we as libertarians fight for?

Anything? Anything at all?

Come on, it must be something, or you would not have got to this page. We are up against the “enemy class” in our own country, and “Jihadists” and other similar sorts of Gramscio-MarxiaNazi nihilists, destroyers and socialists in others, all of whom want to expunge what we think is our civilisation, and what we think is right and good and worthy of defence.

At least the Jihadists of the “Moslem” (YEH I do know what that is) are sort of honest and open, and I salute them for this: the fundamentalist Wahhabi madmen among them say that what we believe in, and do, and glory in, is shit, and crap, and ordure, and that they will “bury us”- ask the Fascist pig Kzhruszhkiev (“leader” of the USSR until sometime in 1964) about this matter of “burying”.) Some of them want to replace us. That’s fair enough – they may or may not succeed, and we shall just have to see. Try us.

So, what do we fight for?

I think we fight for a world in which anything that is not forbidden, is allowed (and not the other way about) – and you have to be careful about defining what’s forbidden! You may come up against Natural Rights…

I think we fight for no limits on the discovery of truth. I expressed it rather poorly, but people like Al Gore do not figure highly on my list of stars at this sad time.

Lastly I think we fight for the destruction, either by us or our agents, or by people whom we help via coalitions of the willing, of those who would return Men (any Men, I don’t care which ones) to a state of pre-capitalist barbarism.

Yesterday’s story of poor Tomos Stringer incensed me. It was not clear to me that such a place as a  “hotel” – although it has as I said its own property rights in who it would accept as guests – ought to take a position based on the views of a “duty receptionist” who may see the world differently from either his/her bosses or the view(s) of the majority of this nation’s people (as seen by the responses!)

But as times darken, as they now will,  we all ought to think about what we individually would fight for. I hope it won’t come to that, but buy books (not food – that’s the least of your worries!) fireproof shelving and CD-ROMS. Copy everything you have ever known and loved, or both, onto these, several times over, and hope.

Georgia again … further to Sean Gabb’s grand piece, interesting view from Down Under


David Davis

… at Kerplunk, tuesday 12th August. Very good analysis, worth reading in full.

I perhaps did not make myself quite as clear as I ought to have done in my very hawkish statements about this conflict that is developing. Because we (the West) have done nothing on account of not really being able to do anything, it will get worse – not necessarily today or in Georgia, but elsewhere. It is my sad prediction that we shall eventually  be forced to intervene, somewhere. I do not think we will raise a finger for the Baltic States, should they come under some pressure, nor the Ukraine, USSR passports having previously been issued in large numbers.

I am afraid that I do not really accept the diplomatic notion of a “near abroad”, in relation to neo-tyrannical powers, such as the USSR Russia. Rather as militant Islamists and Wahhabis view the world, where there is the Ummah-Wahida and the Dhimma. There is, logally for me, no “near abroad” in which the USSR Russia is allowed to behave as an occupying power.

This notion is an illusion, fostered by intellectual sympathisers with socialism, who live in the West, have never grown up and had real jobs, and who can afford to send their servants to queue at “little local shops” for organic food, served to them by a jovial grocer in a brown labcoat, in line.

Now, through all this Georgian hoo-hah, I have realised something. It has come to my notice that I honestly and sincerely view tyrants (such as Putin)  – all of whom are leftists in the end – as Dhimmis.  Thus they are seen by me as living on borrowed time, not with us but somewhere else: also, for now, at our pleasure, in “our” (“our” is not accurate: it is more accurate to say, other sovereign individuals’) lands, and to be dealt with as soon as possible, and they and their actions and beliefs are to be consigned to the dustbin of ideas.

The people they enslave, which is to say, mostly “their” own that they have elcosed in a “Reich”, are there to be liberated (by us.)

Conversely, libertarianism does not, ot me, encompass the concept of a “near abroad”, in which the writ of individual liberty runs, and not tyranny. Everywhere in the Universe is meet to be rid of collectivism. Why? Because is it inherently bad, and that’s the end of the matter.

In this respect, I really am a jihadist turned upside down. I want the West to actively stand up for liberty, without any regard for national self-interest or cost. I believe this on principle. I do not think that it disqualifies me from being a minimal-statist-libertarian with Old Whig tinges.

But we won’t, will we.