Category Archives: Conspiracy

Nasty In A Nose Bag

Christianity, Conspiracy, Islam, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Propaganda, Terrorism, The West

A nose-bag clad Islamist crashes a rally in remembrance of Pvt. William Long, the soldier slain in Little Rock, Arkansas, by the Jihadi Carlos Bledsoe AKA Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Don’t you love the wry, under-the-breath comments uttered by peaceful American mourners, in response to the crow’s disrespectful shrieking? (For the sake of accuracy, “Fatima” is wearing an abaya, not a burka, although she should be covered completely like the restless parrot she is.)

Update V: Paleos Must Defend the West, And That Means Israel Too

Conspiracy, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Multiculturalism, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Palestinian Authority, South-Africa, The West, War

The excerpt is from my new VDARE.com column, “Paleos Must Defend the West, And That Means Israel Too.”

“The fiery address this heroic European rightist [Geert Wilders] delivered in the Israeli capital got me thinking about the difference between the American and the European Old Right. Wilders is a hardcore man of the latter faction, for whom—in the derisive description of neoconservative Francis Fukuyama—”identity remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory”. It is this earthy instinct, I venture, that accounts for the understanding the European Right evinces for Israel’s life-and-death struggle.” …

“Frenchman Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front gives the American media a petit mal. Yet, despite all his idiosyncrasies, he identifies with Israel. Even the late Jörg Haider of the Alliance for the Future of Austria, who “exhibit[ed] every sign of anti-Semitism”—Hugh Fitzgerald’s estimation, not mine—was … “not quite so systematically vicious when it [came] to the state of Israel.” Vlaams Belang of Belgium is pro-Israel. Leader Filip Dewinter told a Jewish magazine: “One has to choose sides. Which side are you on in the ‘war on terror,’ “the side of western democracy and western civilization, with its Judeo-Christian roots, or the side of radical Islam?” …

“Most libertarian and conservative American traditionalists, also referred to as paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians, depart from their European counterparts. Like exotic political marsupials, local paleos have developed in geographic isolation and, hence, in a self-referential and self-reverential vacuum. While they have generally—and justly—supported western interests in conflicts such as in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and Cyprus, paleos make an exception of Israel. In fact, some are more devoted to the Palestinian cause than most left-liberals.” …

Read the complete column, “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too,” on VDARE.com.

Update I (Jan 10): THE MCCRAE MEGILLAH. I’ve posted Gus Mccrae’s letter hereunder (write to him at mccraegus@gmail.com), as an example of everything that is rotten in the paleo faction. I can’t say for sure whether he is a paleoconservative, but neither can I vouch that paleos have denounced such creatures and their constructs.

Notwithstanding that Mccrae seems incapable of adhering to Barely a Blog’s posting policy (I guess he thinks the Jew woman’s property is his by birth right), there is nothing worth addressing in this venomous, irrational outpouring.

The Mccrae “thesis” in a nutshell is this: my Vdare.com article was disingenuous and deviant because I’m Jewish. Mccrae believes that as a Jew, I know only too well that Jews are responsible for the West’s woes, in general, and for its immolation by immigration. Qua Jew, I’m well aware that Jews practically control the world, because, being Jewish, I’m in on it. Therefore, my column was a cover and a foil for the shenanigans of my Tribe.

The Mccrae megillah is first, and worst of all, a non sequitur.

Update II (Jan 11): I thank those of you who’ve written well-reasoned and well-mannered comments. I’m still awaiting a comment by “prophet james.” It was deleted by mistake.

If you are going to indulge in conspiracy thinking vis-à-vis Jewish machinations, at the very least, mention the manifest subversion carried out by “moderate” Muslim organizations in this country, against this country. (“Exposing the Muslim Lobby”)

And remember, Jews are highly represented in all spheres. Jews have certainly been among the most individualistic, original, and entrepreneurial members of American society. Think of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the eponymous mastermind of Dell Inc., casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and many more.

As have Jews been among the best defenders of liberty: Think Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman. (Was Frank Chodorov not Jewish? So many significant Jewish rightist, I can’t keep up.)

If Jews shrugged, you’d be without a quarter of your Nobel-Prize winners–cancer curers, scientists, etc. So get a grip, will you?

Reluctantly I return to Barely a Blog’s posting policy, which some rude, self-styled paleos seem to have difficulty with.

Don’t barge onto my private property demanding I explain myself to you, toots (you know who you are). My thoughts have been developed over years, and are archived on the mother site, ilanamercer.com, for your convenience.

Our posting policy states:

“The companion site, BarelyABlog.com, was established to generate debate about the essays on IlanaMercer.com, ILANA MERCER’S work. Readers participating on BarelyABlog.com are cordially asked to familiarize themselves with their host’s arguments. If readers prefer to showcase their ‘argumentation,’ or that of the scribes they favor and patronize, we suggest they pay for their own domain. This site is, after all, paid for by the host and her generous donors.”

The lax, rude individual who demanded I reproduce on the blog, for her edification, my thinking on foreign aid is directed to the two nifty search tools on ilanamercer.com, here, and here. I am sure even she can navigate them.

Update III: Elsewhere on this blog, JP Strauss writes the following:

Heck, if the IDF were my army, I would have invaded weeks ago. Flog the mobs, execute the terrorists and blow up the weapons caches. Israel has shown great levels of restraint up until now.Unfortunately, restraint sometimes leads to losing battles.

Allow me to introduce JP to BAB contributors: JP is an Afrikaner paleoconservative or paleolibertarian. Afrikaners have generally been highly conservative and very pro-Israel. While they’ve rightly been upset at their local, liberal Jews, Afrikaners seem to have been able to resolve the contradiction left-liberal Jews present without turning to support the PA and oppose Israel.

Leave aside the historical deceit paloes and radical leftists attach to Israel’s founding–mostly bogus of course. As something of a Randian, suffice it for me to see what Israel proper is like—skyscrapers, high-tech, high-fashion, friendly, peace-loving people, low crime rate (4 murders per 100,000; and that includes military deaths)—to support the right of the civilized society to hold all the bloody land in that benighted spot.

Update IV (Jan 12): I am not clear why a reader took my last updated comment as an endorsement (by this anti-interventionism) to spread democracy. I really can’t see the logic, especially in the context of my positions, stated, in “Thank You, Nancy Pelosi,” as follows:

“Of course, American interests in the Middle East are not to be conflated with Israeli interests. … Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane American foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, Israel included, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.”

When I say that I identify with Ayn Rand’s strong stand for civilization and against savagery, I mean this:

What do Palestinians do with land they get in return for the elusive peace? Destroy it. What did they do with the Israeli constructed hothouses in Gaza? Blew them up, and took to hothousing Hamasniks.

On what basis does the West, and left-liberal Israel, wish to grant Palestinians more land? Oh, for certain loony paleocons–libertarian and conservative–the notion is that the land is the Palestinians’ to trash. How libertine and licentious. Besides which, the land is disputed.

If you cannot keep your promise and abide by the contracts you sign to respect the negative rights of your neighbors, why do you deserve more land?

I’ll tell you what the logic behind this lunacy is. It is this: Palestinians are driven by forces beyond their control and in the control of Israel alone. Deprivation has caused their depravity. You all know what I think of the post hoc root-causes rot; you know what I think of the “idea” that crime is the fault of everyone but the perp!

Update V (Jan 13): The position of the Afrikaner people, in general, on Israel deserves mention. Afrikaners, “The Puritans of Africa,” are generally conservative. They are attached to their Christian faith even more so than Americans (who’ve imbibed a lot of New Age Christianity).
While Israel opposed apartheid, it was a true friend to South Africa during the years of sanctions and boycotts. Back then, it was South Africa and Israel against the world–and against the forces of liberalism intent on snuffing out civilized outposts at the tip of African and in the Middle East. The US had joined the Suicide of the West, often on the side of the commies, in supporting assorted “national liberation” movements.

In any event, older Afrikaners (and older Israelis) have not forgotten this epoch of their history.

Update 2: History Of Traditional Levels Of US Immigration

Conspiracy, IMMIGRATION, Politics

Courtesy of Numbers USA, here is the exponential, unsustainable increase in immigration into the US since the 1965 and 1990 Immigration Acts. The trend is quantitavely and qualitatively different from decades past.

This is top-down central planning that swamps the local, founding peoples (Anglo, Afro, and Indian-American). I’m surprised at those who’ve shrugged it off as an inevitable natural phenomenon.

Update 1 (May 20): A few of our valued contributors seem unfamiliar with the term “central planning.” They confuse it with conspiracy thinking. I’m not a conspiracy thinker. I’ve written about the flaws of that kind of thinking in “On Conspiracy Thinking.”

Applied to immigration policy, my critique of conspiracy means that “the state presides over the disintegration of civil society, but it does so reflexively, rather than as a matter of collusion and conspiracy. … most of what the behemoth does nowadays [is] contrary to the good of the individual, and aimed reflexively at increasing its own power and size.”

In other words, immigration central planners began with good intentions and dollops of the usual stupidity and hubris never in short supply among the political class. Progressively, as with any sphere that has been brought under government control—and not as a matter of collusion and conspiracy—immigration policy evolved into an industry, with stakeholders, powerful vested interests, and power-conferring constituencies.

This is politics, not conspiracy. This is also why you want to keep these natural-born social engineers away from as many spheres as possible—an impossibility in contemporary America.

I can’t locate the reference I once made in a column to Samuel P. Huntington’s conclusion that the “denationalized elites” of the American state are unique in the modern political landscape in acting entirely against the interests of a “patriotic public.” (Maybe a reader can find this citation. Larry located it; thanks.)

Update 2: And this is also why I wrote in “Bush Answers Kennedy’s Calling” that,

“[A]ll immigration policy by definition amounts to top-down, statist, central planning. But the least invasive policy is one that respects a nation’s historical and cultural complexion and the property rights of its taxpayers. Bush’s batch of soon-to-be amnestied illegal aliens are voracious tax consumers, who will cost more in social services than they pay in taxes over a lifetime. By contrast, immigrants who arrived between 1870 and 1920, during the Great Migration, although poor, did not constitute a burden, because the Welfare State as we know it did not exist.”

“Moreover, what Bush in his dotage termed ‘the great American tradition of the melting pot’ is no more. In previous decades immigrants assimilated. In the spirit of the times, they are now encouraged to acculturate to the politics of petulance. As a result, too many seem to harbor a vestigial resentment toward the host society and to cling to an almost-militant distinctiveness.”

“Clearly, unfettered immigration and the interventionist state, as Ludwig von Mises noted, cannot coexist.”

What The EU Has Done To British Sovereignty

Britain, Conspiracy, EU, Europe, Political Philosophy

Some say a North American Union à la the EU is a conspiracy theory. The people who say so have a nasty tendency of looking down on “bitter” types who prefer guns and god to the goons in government.

In contrast to deniers such as Michael Medved, there are authentic, credible conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan who say the supra-state under construction is real, and is being covered-up.

In “Adieu to the Evil EU,” I explained a thing or two to the O’Reillys of the world who had been heaping scorn on the French for rejecting the centralized state American neocons were applauding at the time.

Here are some of the effects on the UK of joining the EU. O’Reilly and his fellow Fixers may find them appealing. As will Kaiser-in-Waiting, McCain:

“The effects of EU membership are complicated and have worked in part in conjunction with other international influences, primarily the incorporation into British law of the European Convention on Human Rights. EU law has taken primacy over UK law. As a result, Parliament is no longer what it was. While, in British constitutional tradition, Parliament could decide as it wanted, Parliament can now decide as it wants only provided that what it wants is in conformity with EU law. As a result, writes King, ‘British government today is shackled government to a far greater degree than it used to be’”.

“But that is only the beginning of the story. With European law comes also the European Court of Justice. British citizens can take the British government to court in Europe, and the European Court can find against the British government even if it is acting in accordance with British law. Furthermore, British citizens can take the British government to court in Britain on incompatibility between UK and EU law, and British courts can declare UK laws inoperable with reference to EU law. The same applies to human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. British citizens can appeal, in Britain or Europe, to a law that stands above laws enacted by their own Parliament. This represents a double transfer of power: from British elected to international non-elected institutions, and in Britain from Parliament to the courts. The courts have been handed a set of super-laws which they can use to test the validity of laws passed in Parliament, and thereby the power to override the will of Parliament.”

“The scope for judicial review by the courts has thereby been radically extended. But even that is not the end of it. With its new powers, the judiciary woke up from ‘a long sleep’, started to assert itself, and the senior judges metamorphosed into a political class of activists. The old doctrine that the courts only interpreted the law was thrown out in favour of a new doctrine by which the courts explicitly make law. ‘No one’, wrote Lord Denning, ‘can tell what the law is until the courts decide it.’ Judges were no longer only judges, but threw themselves into public debate, felt free to criticize lawmakers and ministers, chaired all kinds of commissions and so on. Under John Major, ‘war broke out between senior ministers and senior judges’”.