Why I Like Bibi

Politicians are, overwhelmingly, a loathsome class composed of parasitical, murdering sociopaths. Readers of this blog can attest that I don’t refrain from denouncing anyone of the ruling class, whether the subject be Dishonest Abe, the criminal gang that is the ANC, Bush the Lesser or Barack Hussein Obama. Don’t get me started on the fare in Irish politics either – the sickening gombeens and the populist Israel-bashers like Osama bin Andrews and Terry Laden (not to mention David Norris).

Yet sometimes there’s a man, and I’m talkin’ about Bibi Netanyahu here, well… he’s the man for his time and place.

I don’t have to agree with every policy of Binyamin Netanyahu to appreciate the fact that Israel’s Prime Minister is on a higher level than his political peers, not least his audience at the United Israel-Bashers yesterday. The Arabists at the BBC, the men behind the curtains in Brussels, the professional sugar-coaters of Islam, the NGOs, and countless other dark forces – they want us to hate Netanyahu, like we hate no other. That’s because Bibi is *SHOCK* a patriot. Bibi knows and appreciates the history of his people, and puts the security of his own nation before its Arab neighbors who might be inconvenienced by a roadblock or suffer some other indignities because of it. Surely he can’t be allowed to do that? Israeli Jews aren’t a Designated Victim Group, last time I checked with the Politburo and some academics at SOAS. Bibi believes his country is perfectly entitled to take steps to ensure it maintains its Jewish character. This sane proposition is now regarded by many as one step from building the next Auschwitz.

Bibi isn’t like the political fools we suffer in the rapidly declining West. Bibi Netanyahu isn’t working hard to deracinate his own country, something that seems to have been actual government policy in the United Kindgom. Nelson Mandela, for example, destroyed a thriving, highly-developed nation by introducing horrific, racist, racial socialism. He was beatified, and becomes the international community’s arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. His dysfunctional country names highways after Yasser Arafat, the very mention of whom earns cheers at a UN where Israel is condemned more than all countries combined. A man like Bibi, if he were magically at the helm Europe, would not import tens of millions of seventh-century Muslim immigrants and punish those Europeans not enlightened enough to appreciate their wonderful gift. A man like Bibi would not have brought Thilo Sarrazin before a kangaroo court to chastise him for suggesting uneducated, crime-prone Muslim immigrants are bad for Germany, and certainly not as nice a minority as Jews might be (Sarrazin’s book, meanwhile, sells like hotcakes among the Germans who believe life for the white European should not be a never-ending series of apologies – the silent majority?). A man like Bibi Netanyahu would not regard Enoch Powell as England’s wannabe Hitler, a figure the Guardians of Acceptable Opinion should continue to ensure is only disparaged on the BBC even while bands of ‘youths’ are pillaging, stabbing and burning right outside on our doorsteps. No, android phones, twitter and even Hasidic Jews were responsible for the riots, I’ve heard Al Guardian say.

Bibi Netanyahu is the opposite of the smooth-talking Harvard academic, who wants to bring millions of barely-literate and hostile Mexicans into US territory previously won from Mexico, but can’t stand the ‘racists’ who point out these Mexicans are barely-literate and hostile to America. Bibi Netanyahu would laugh away a bleeding-heart who lobbied him to adopt Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s vision to bring all institutions down to the level of black achievement, and then hire armies of PhD-holders to explain why the country and its institutions are failing, while assuring us that the highly reasonable Charles Murray is another closet Nazi. Bibi Netanyahu wouldn’t put a self-described affirmative action baby onto the Supreme Court, one who managed to enter Princeton yet had to peruse books like The Troll Under The Bridge in the summer months to improve her reading skills.

For his first term in the nineties, Bibi Netanyahu put the Israeli economy in a significantly stronger position than it was when he entered. Who believes Obama is going to do the same in his country? Yet poor Bibi was ousted in 1999 due to a vote of no confidence in the Knesset. Leftist-backed protests, trumped up corruption charges and the evil Bill Clinton’s meddling allowed a cabal of leftist tycoons and NGO’s oust Netanyahu and replace him with Ehud Barak in time for Camp David. Now the NGOs are screaming blue murder because the Likud is getting one back.

If this is why Bibi is so hated by all the talking heads on Christiane Amanpour, lets have a Bibi over here, please.

Rejoice not at thine enemy’s fall – but don’t rush to pick him up either.

FF ends Presidential hopes of Dana, Ó Murchú and Norris (Irish Independent)

Jewish New Yorkers Give Democrats Headache, But Why?

Alright, this Drudge Report banner is funny, but I’m thinking the media is spinning this historic result in New York’s Ninth Congressional District into something it isn’t. Was this really all about Obama and Israel, or even mostly about Obama and Israel, given the state of the economy? After all, look at Republican Scott Brown’s recent win in heavily Democratic Massachusetts. This simply seems like a similar revolt against reckless economic policies and career politicians, something the Democrat David Weprin represented as opposed to the Republican businessman Bob Turner.

The Democrats are confused and panicking, however, which is always fun to see. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is assuring the flock that the upset is the fault district’s Orthodox and Russian-Jewish residents, and that this demographic isn’t representative of the wider American Jewish population. However, it can’t be ignored that the Ninth Congressional District hasn’t seen a Republican victory since 1922 and the observant Jewish population has been around for a while now. The possibility that Jewish Americans are no longer a group that be counted as knee-jerk Democrats is an exciting one, and may change the tactics of both parties in their future lobbying efforts.

‘Flag Racism’ at St. Andrews

Chanan Reitblat is an observant Jew, paying top-dollar to study at Yeshiva University in New York, and for a term at St. Andrews University in Scotland. Reitblat studies chemistry.

Paul Donnachie is a heavy-drinking, loutish boor who has the taxpayer to thank for heavily subsidizing his education before recently being kicked off the St. Andrews campus.

Paul Donnachie, on the far left (and in more ways that just this photo)

Paul Donnachie represents much of what is wrong in Western nations like Scotland. For one, there are far too many people in university that really shouldn’t be. I suspect he was one of them.

Donnachie is an anti-Israel activist. Rabidly anti-Israel sentiment is usually a good sign of a Western country’s decline. Scotland, much like Ireland, is full of these uninformed loudmouths. They make up much of the student population. One wonders: what on earth went wrong with the nation that produced Hume, Smith and so many luminaries of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution?  Are their descendants overweight, on welfare and wearing keffiyehs? The people of Scotland, victims of socialist experimentation, turn their back on civilization and identify with the savage.

Donnachie put his hands on his genitals, and smeared them on an Israeli flag owned by Reitblat. The flag was a gift from his brother in the IDF, and carried high sentimental value. Reitblat was verbally abused by Donnachie, and even called a “terrorist”.

Donnachie was booted out of university, a wise decision on the part of St. Andrews that preserves the dignity of the institution. Yesterday, a Scottish court gave him 150 hours of community service. To get this matter out of the way, I must say that I absolutely support freedom of speech. If a student wishes to burn an Israeli flag at a demonstration, he should be free to do so. The nature of this case is very different.

Now, I’ve witnessed the truly insane level of anti-Israel sentiment that exists in Ireland, and its one of the reasons why I will never move back there. ‘Palestine Solidarity’ groups are similarly strong in Scotland, the home of the bombastic George Galloway, who calls Israel the “Hitler state on the Mediterranean” (while fond of leaders like Bashar al-Assad at the same time). In these places, the debate on Israel, its neighbors and enemies is completely dominated by a noisy, extreme clique made up of the likes of Paul Donnachie, the Socialist Workers Party and similarly nefarious groups. London has these idiots too (we are home to SOAS, after all) but at least there is some diversity of opinion.

I hope experiences like this don’t turn off Orthodox Jews and friends of Israel, such as Chanan Reitblat, from studying on European campuses for fear of such facing a hostile, bigoted atmosphere. That would only hasten Europe’s descent into the new Dark Age (some universities, such as in Norway, actually ban speakers who defend Israel). Europe would be a far poorer place in many senses should this occur.

Irish Travellers: Whatever Next?

So, it seems five Irish Travellers have been arrested on suspicion of enslaving two dozen people on their site in Bedfordshire.

English, Polish and Romanian men were found by detectives in filthy and cramped conditions. Travellers lured these people to their site, sometimes from soup-kitchens, on promises of work and lodgings. They ended up being caged, beaten, intimidated and forced to remain and toil on the site, some of them for up to fifteen years.

I suspect similar situations exist in Traveller encampments all over this country.

Vanessa Redgrave considers Irish Travellers a “strong, wise, warm, and gentle community”. Redgrave even claims her brother died defending this lovely, persecuted race of men.  The stress of campaigning on their behalf gave him a heart attack, she says.

Just like the hundreds of anarchists and communists camping at Dale Farm, Redgrave, Traveller activists and the entire British left seems to have been in the dark about this modern-day slavery. Just as they are on the rampant child-abuse, misogyny and homophobia among Travellers; not to mention the environmental destruction they bring to wherever they settle.

Its great being a Designated Victim Group, isn’t it?

Vulnerable Poles and poor, desperate Englishmen certainly didn’t see the supposed gentleness of the community that Vanessa Redgrave. Then again, Redgrave hasn’t invited the Dale Farm Travellers to live on her own ample grounds. Lets face it: this community is about as warm, gentle and romantic as cancer of the testicles. It’s time to stop babying them.

200 police officers were involved in Sunday’s raid in Bedfordshire

Fugitive Slaves in Ancient Israel

How great it is to incorporate some lessons and issues from the Bible into this blog, even for a short post tying in with something I wrote here earlier. I couldn’t resist bringing this up after studying some of the Laws of Deuteronomy earlier today. In Deuteronomy 23:16-17, Israel is given an obligation concerning the treatment of escaped slaves, reading (from the Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society):

You shall not turn over to his master a slave who seeks refuge with you from his master. He shall live with you in any place he may choose among the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not ill-treat him.

What a remarkable departure this is from the norm of the Ancient World. The Code of Hammurabi stipulated that all escaped slaves be returned to their owners, on pain of stiff penalties. The Fugitive Slave Law in America lasted until the end of the War Between the States. In his excellent Pentateuch & Haftorahs, the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Joseph H. Hertz, noted in his commentary that despite the noticeable laws surrounding slaves in the Torah, slavery in Ancient Israel & Judah was appears to have been very rare. Throughout Scripture, there are no references to slave markets in the Land, and scant indeed are mentions of slaves among Israelite society.

The obligation to shelter escaped slaves and treat them kindly might explain this situation, along with the commandment to free slaves on the Jubilee year, as well as to release a slave upon his seventh year of service (Exodus chap. 21 and Deuteronomy chap. 15). This relates to the libertarian and humanitarian arguments I mentioned in favor of the Secession of the Confederate States of America. In the libertarian scholar Jeffery Rogers Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War’, the author argues that slavery would not have lasted very long in the Confederacy, given that the United States would no doubt have quickly repealed the widely hated Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. This in turn would have created a flood of runaway slaves from the South in the direction of freedom, making slavery more costly to maintain where it existed. Famous abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison actually advocated before and during the war years that the free states secede from the slave states for this to happen. Hummel uses the example of Brazil, where slavery was outlawed in some areas but not in others. Free regions became such a haven for runaways that the costs of runaways on slave-owners became far too much to bear. Slavery was abandoned all over Brazil in 1888, without a shot fired. Human beings forced into slavery simply don’t start acting like cattle or pieces of furniture.

Interestingly, if unexpectedly, it seems that there is good evidence to support the position of Hummel and Garrison from the Bible itself.

Libertarians for Secession: Answering Michael Lind

It seemed every libertarian was up in arms this week over the rather silly piece attacking those of our persuasion penned by Michael Lind in Salon. Unsurprisingly, the old chestnut about Hayek and Freidman’s tenuous connections to Pinochet cropped up, along with fairly standard misrepresentations of the words of Ludwig von Mises on fascism, something very common nowadays among left-leaning hacks. The main focus seemed to be criticisms of democracy and majoritarian tyranny laid down by the brilliant libertarian scholar Han Hermann Hoppe and others. Over at the Adam Smith Institute blog, Sam Bowman addressed all this quite extensively.

I want to focus on Lind’s discomfort with libertarians who sympathise with the cause and struggle for Southern independence from 1861-65, as I happen to be such a person and associate with many others. Lind, let us not forget, was the man who warned us in Salon that “neo-Confederate” Tea Party “fanatics” are apparently attempting to “destroy America’s credit rating unless the federal government agrees to enact Dixie’s economic agenda”. It’s fairly clear Lind’s picture of his Southern countrymen is not an enlightened one. One can almost imagine Michael Lind gleefully day-dreaming of murdering thousands of Dixie’s residents while burning its crops and cities in the anti-Semitic General Sherman’s genocidal march through Georgia. All for human rights, of course.

Now Lind writes:

When it comes to American history, libertarians tend retrospectively to side with the Confederacy against the Union. Yes, yes, the South had slavery — but it also had low tariffs, while Abraham Lincoln’s free labor North was protectionist. Surely the tariff was a greater evil than slavery.

This is one of the most ignorant insults I have ever seen directed against libertarians who claim the War Between the States was a war that should never have been waged. I know absolutely zero libertarians that side with the Confederacy because of its tariff policies. Instead, it is the issue of secession that overwhelmingly dominates libertarian debate on the topic. Now, libertarians often point out the differences in the Confederate Constitution to the original document that still existed in the Union (despite Lincoln’s subsequent complete disregard for it by suspending habeas corpus, closing down hundreds of anti-war newspapers and locking up the Mayor of Baltimore and much of the Maryland legislature). Those differences being the Confederacy’s ban on protectionist tariffs, government subsidies to private enterprises and the requirement of a two-thirds legislative majority for any tax increase. Libertarians do this to demonstrate the strongholds of Jeffersonian limited-government that many Southern states were, compared with the Hamiltonian big-government North. When first running for office in Illinois in 1832, Lincoln, already a famous lawyer, proclaimed:

I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by my friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favour of a national bank… in favour of internal improvements and a high protective tariff.

‘Internal improvements’ was the term at the time for large-scale spending programs on infrastructure, something I have written about here previously. Unsurprisingly, Lincoln carried no Southern state in the election of 1860, and very often did not even appear on the ballot. Lincoln was the most divisive electoral candidate in American history, even after guaranteeing the rights of slave-owners to keep their slaves throughout his campaign and First Inaugural Address.

Returning to Lind’s argument, it’s very difficult to see what libertarians he is talking about. That is, libertarians who would accept slavery for lower tariffs, as well those who induct “Jefferson Davis into the libertarian hall of fame”. The original and most well-known study of the War Between the States from a modern libertarian viewpoint is undoubtedly Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War’ by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. In this book Hummel happens to be fiercely critical of Jefferson Davis as well as Lincoln, and sees no inconsistency in supporting the right of secession while uncompromisingly opposing slavery. In fact, one of Hummel’s most interesting arguments is that secession would have helped defeat slavery, as it would have allowed the Union to repeal the fugitive slave laws, and thus have legally made the North a haven for escaped slaves. Other chattel slavery-based economies such as Brazil could not sustain the vile institution due to the problem of runaways. Conscious men, even in bondage, do not act like cattle or furniture. If you believe this is a radical original proposition, it is interesting to note that the abolitionist movement itself was fiercely split before the war due to this very point. In fact, the most famous abolitionist, the editor of The Liberator and social reformer William Lloyd Garrison, actually advocated long before as well as during the war that the Northern states should have seceded from the slave states for this to happen. Hummel estimates slavery would have collapsed in the Confederacy before the end of the century, possibly even in under five years.

All sane libertarians can agree that the death of slavery was a positive result of the war. The fierce Lincoln critic Tom DiLorenzo, of the Mises Institute, calls the end of slavery the “one unequivocal good” that came of it. However, libertarians also lament the loss of the right of secession, which is most relevant considering secession, not slavery, was the reason Lincoln launched his destructive war in the first place. Several states in the Union actually had slavery, and they were not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to “rebel-held territory”). Even the head of the Union Army, Ulysses S. Grant, was an overseer of slaves on his family’s Missouri plantation. Lincoln actually demanded in the early stages of the war that captured slaves be returned to their owners, until many figures in the Union Army persuaded him this was aiding the Confederate war effort, and that these slaves could be used for menial tasks around Federal army encampments.

Libertarians always prefer peaceful alternatives to war, even when it comes to ending the evil of slavery. Why not peaceful Emancipation, as occurred in every country except Haiti, over a war where more Americans would fall during one battle at Gettysburg than in all previous American wars combined? Buying the freedom of every slave, along with forty acres and a mule for each freed man would have cost a fraction of what the brutality of 1861-65 did. Libertarian critics of Lincoln simply argue non-violent options and less bellicose forms of persuasion should have been tried.

Lind seems shocked that Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee to express support for his lost cause after the war. I find that as unsurprising as Karl Marx’s letters of congratulations to Lincoln and his ardent support for the Union war effort. I don’t know about you, but the letters of Acton and the gentleness in the response of Lee bring joy to the heart of this proud Neo-Confederate.

Acton to Lee, Nov. 1866:

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

Lee’s response, Dec. 1866:

While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

The full correspondence can be found here.