Category Archives: Israel

All Empires Collapse: Has The West Reached Tipping Point, And If So, Why?

Christianity, COVID-19, History, Israel, Race, Racism, The West

THIS WEEK ON HARD TRUTH: Are we living in the last days of Rome? What role has Christianity played in bringing this about? Hard Truth confronts the inarguable fact that Western Civilization is warping out of recognition. Ilana and David ask why. Edward Gibbon blamed Christianity for Rome’s demise. I’m inclined to agree. David disagrees. That’s what makes it fun.

WATCH: “All Empires Collapse: Has The West Reached Tipping Point, And If So, Why?”

LISTEN TO THE HARD TRUTH Podcast:

“All Empires Collapse: Has The West Reached Tipping Point, And If So, Why?”

In Praise Of The Whip: To Whip Or To Rein Is Not The Question

Argument, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Nationhood, Reason, Republicans

3 Replies

What on earth is wrong with the whip? The reference is, as CNN put it, to “recent images that appear to show US Border Patrol agents on horseback confronting migrants along the Rio Grande.” So far so good.

Videos taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters appear to show law enforcement officers on horseback using aggressive tactics when confronting migrants, who are largely Haitian, to prevent them from crossing into the US.

Wonderful.

“The Biden administration is expressing horror,” promising to proceed aggressively against these poor horseback officers, who work in near-impossible conditions, without institutional support and for meager wages.

How does the Right respond? Is it a whip or is it a rein, they kibitz. Look, if it’s not a whip, it ought to have been one, and if the border patrol agent used a rein as whip—then hooray for him. The End.

That’s the Right’s problem. The anatomy of every single left-manufactured national scandal sees our side always conceding to the legitimacy of the left’s case, and then going on the defensive, instead of attacking.

In short: asinine. stupid. defeatist.

The anatomy of a good response is never, but never, to apologize and equivocate about a principled behavior, in this instance, the right of self- and national defense.

The right response: “What if US Border Patrol agents on horseback were wielding whips? Got a problem with repelling and whipping outlaws, who are charging you, your horse and into your country?”

Vice President Kamala Harris called the images “horrible” and said she supports an investigation into the matter.

Heroic, not horrible. Part of the job of the law is to round up the likes of the Haitian invaders and turn them back. If the law is not doing this—it’s because natural morality has been inverted. Good is bad and bad is good. Right is wrong and wrong is right.

What a moral inversion it is that forces US law enforcement to process and pander to outlaws; instead of arresting and expelling them IN JUST THIS MANNER.

* Image via Tracey Ann Whitehill on LinkedIn

Ben Domenech: Selling Soothing, Snake-Oil Conservatism On FOX News Primetime

Argument, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Free Speech, Israel, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Technology, THE ELITES

2 Replies

With Ben Domenech’s somnambulist, soothing, well-articulated, Establishment conservatism, Fox News is lulling viewers back into a meaningless, middle-of-the-road, political impotence.

And a load of claptrap.

Last night, June 5, Big Tech censorship was obviously panned vigorously for speech oppression, but an Israeli actress ensconced in Hollywood got to make allusions on air to her preference for censoring anti-Israel comments, when those are uttered by people lacking “expertise” on Israel. More philosophical bunkum, but certainly in line with neoconservatism’s Israel First position.

Americans—certainly this writer, who is pro-Israel—support unfettered speech! That used to be the American position—which includes the rights of people to express anti-Israel positions no matter the state of their expertise, which the silly sabra seemed to be demanding as a condition for speech on Israel.

Discussed too was the incitement to murder whites, expressed by a deviant at Yale, Aruna Khilanani. This, according to panelist Liz Wheeler, was best understood not as murderous anti-whitism needing to be aggressively combated, but with the aid of her unscholarly, unlearned allusions to the Frankfurt School… Wheeler’s ignorant theoretical escapism will help your life as much as voting Republican did.

In this context, Lynette Ackermann asked me, “Ilana, Have you any suggestions for a new paradigm for the 21st century?”

Reply: “What I am strongly suggesting in my commentaries about anti-whiteness is… keep it real. When it comes to anti-whiteness—a very serious, grave reality—you need a scrappy strategy, not a paradigm.” No theoretical escapism!

But the worst slot belonged to Douglas Murray, much revered for his accent and inchoate, wishy-washy positions. The segment dealt with Facebook’s verdict to ban Donald Trump for another two years. (Frankly, President Trump had not stood up for voters like myself, whose websites are banned for life, presumably, with no ability to appeal. And the former president’s response to Facebook’s Nick Clegg was, to put it charitably, puzzling: “Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. It will be all business!”)

Likewise, for his part, Domenech evinced great concern over Facebook curtailing the power of politicians; not so much about the power of the people curtailed.

But Murray is really something. The sassy, salient line he repeated again and again on the live broadcast—it doesn’t appear in the Fox News online video—was this: The Big Tech meddlers are “not fit for purpose“:

“… it is high time we make it clear that we cannot and will not live under the rules of Big Tech. They are not up to the job that they have taken upon their shoulders to perform.”

The premise of that statement is that, while Deep Tech is not up for the job; someone is up for the job of censor and speech adjudicator. On display here is “Bic Con” deception, Tory deception, too. These establishment conservatives do not trumpet absolute free speech: Richard Spencer’s, Nick Fuentes’, Tommy Robinson’s, Michelle Malkin’s, mine. They seldom come to the defense of dissidents. For this reason, Murray is wont to make a stupid (cleverly worded) statement:

“We are dealing with kids here,” he said, adding “these companies got everything about the last year wildly wrong” and citing Big Tech’s censorship of the Wuhan lab leak theory.

Crystal clear premise once again of the Murray fatuity is this: If Deep Tech were more mature and accurate in their prediction (Murray awoke pretty late in life to most truths, too)—they might be in a position to adjudicate which speech if fit for consumption, which not.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong, but well-spoken.

Mercer Memorial-Day Message Same Since 2009

America, Homeland Security, Israel, Just War, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, War

2 Replies

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”—ilana mercer

I have published this message every Memorial day, since 2009, softened slightly for taste.

Robert Glisson, a veteran and a longtime reader—where are you, Robert?—was once asked to write an op-ed for Barely A Blog about the “Patriot Guard Riders.” The op-ed, entitled “For The Love of A Brother-In-Arms, And ‘Big Brother’ Be Damned,” was prefaced with this comment:

“I do not identify with the military mission, but who can fault the humanity of the effort?”

It is the habit on the Memorial Day weekend to thank uniformed men for their sacrifice. And it is the annual custom on Barely A Blog to extend sympathies to the Americans who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations. I’m sorry they’ve been snookered into living, dying and killing for a lie. But I cannot honor that lie. I mourn for them, as I have from day one.

I am sorry for those who’ve enlisted thinking they’d fight for their countrymen and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars and assorted informal attacks. My heart hurts for you, but my worshiping at Moloch’s feet will not make you feel better, deep down.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which actually fought a just war. I grew up in Israel, so I honor those men who stopped Arab armies from overrunning our homes. In 1973, we came especially close to annihilation.

I can legitimately claim to know of flesh-and-blood heroes who fought so that I could emerge from the bomb shelter (in the wars of 67 and 73) and proceed with my kid life. I always stood in their honor and wept when the sirens wailed once a year. Wherever he is, every Israeli stops on that day and stands still in remembrance. We would have been physically overrun by Arabs if not for those brave men who defended the homeland—and not some far-away imperial project—with their bodies.

But can we Americans, in 2021, make such a claim? Can we truly claim that someone killed an Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni, Libyan or Syrian so that we may … do what? Remind me?

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

How fast the so-called small-government types forget that the military is government. As explained in “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program “:

“When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small. Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.”

“Classical Liberalism And State Schemes “ further suggests how the military, as an arm of the state, can become antithetical to the liberty of its own citizens and the world’s citizens:

We have a solemn [negative] duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty, and property. But we have no duty to uphold their rights. Why? Because (supposedly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—their lives, liberties, and livelihoods. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.
“philanthropic” wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects, if you will. The warfare state, like the welfare state, is thus inimical to the classical liberal creed. Therefore, government’s duties in the classical liberal tradition are negative, not positive; to protect freedoms, not to plan projects. As I’ve written, “In a free society, the ‘vision thing’ is left to private individuals; civil servants are kept on a tight leash, because free people understand that a ‘visionary’ bureaucrat is a voracious one and that the grander the government (‘great purposes’ in Bush Babble), the poorer and less free the people.”