At the local level, voters are remarkably sensible. Despite immense brainwashing, voters defeated gay marriage even in ultra-left California. Since only a small proportion of residents attend local elections and vote on proposals, left-wing activists constitute a much larger proportion among voters than the general population. Polls confirm that the silent majority is reasonably conservative. The term is rather derogatory: their point is not to preserve old ways but to sustain societal values; it’s not conservatives vs reformers, but people with values vs nihilists.

The central power depends on interest groups and lobbies more than voters. The interests of “liberals” and bureaucracy fundamentally coincide: both groups want more regulation. Bureaucrats want regulation to arrogate more powers to themselves, and liberals need regulation to forcibly do away with traditional values. Thus appears a bizarre situation in which liberals want more rather than less regulation and favor expanding government powers. True liberals would respect a society’s freedom to hold values and practice their deviations in private rather than seeking the government’s enforcement of them on the unwilling majority.

Jewish leftists similarly gravitate toward the top. Ultra-leftist views are non-existent on the local level: in schools and offices, Jews hate Arabs and discount the idea of a Palestinian state. Israeli leftists operate through the unelected arm of the state—the courts and police. They are even stronger in America, whose Jews are completely removed from Israeli realities.

The Israeli Supreme Court is similar to its US counterpart in that it has developed a habit of reading morals into the Basic Law—Liberty. The court strikes down laws and regulations arbitrarily, with only vague references to the Basic Law. Every regulation contradicts some liberty, and so the court got absolute jurisdiction.

The solution lies in administrative autonomy: Jewish towns must be able to establish their own codes and regulate everything that the majority wants to be regulated. Townships must have the right to exclude Arabs, mandate public observance of Shabbat, and anything else they deem necessary. The Supreme Court’s self-arrogated right to strike down any law or regulation must be limited to inter-city events. Inside towns, jurisdiction should be local only, with no central judicial authority; residents must be allowed to live as they like and those who don’t like can move out.

It is understandable that the White House advisors are predominantly leftist: they came not from the real life, but from universities dominated by leftist academics bent on twisting the world according to their models and values (or absence thereof). Less clear is, why are the media mostly leftist? Theoretically, media cater to general population which, we believe, tend to have substantial sense of values and oppose leftist nihilism.

The answer is possibly that media are run like all the big corporations, with little regard for the customer. Corporations, media ones included, rely on advertising rather than product quality. That is especially true for so-called credibility goods, those whose quality cannot be realistically verified and depends on the supplier’s reputation. A newspaper can get considerable readership by taking a crude and unflinching stance against homosexual marriages, thinly covered pornography in public places, integrated schools, and the like. Such a strategy would immediately backfire: libel suits, ostracizing of journalists, ridicule of owners—liberals will do everything to discourage dissent. Advertisers would shun an ostracized newspaper. Generally, only a few tabloids are willing to go through all the hassle—in fact, they get less hassle because proud liberals dismiss lowly tabloids and largely ignore them. Mainstream media swim along the stream and play by the rules: scandals are fine while politically incorrect discussions on values are not.

No major media outlet would state the self-evident truths: peace is based on power and capitulation rather than negotiations, there is no goodwill in international relations, and the killing of enemies is a rewarding experience, and useful at that. No media outlet can say openly that Jews and Palestinian Arabs have a different scope of rights, just like European settlers and Native Indians in America. No journalist can say that Machiavellian—or biblical—methods of forming states through the annihilation of indigenous populations remain valid and unavoidable today—just as they were two hundred ago when good Christians from Europe settled North America to form the most liberal society on earth.

Confusing the commonness of the opinion with its truthfulness, good people embrace liberal rhetoric and oppose Israel.

Anarchy can be highly repressive, as it is in communes, and arguably in Rousseau’s Utopia. The only example of a large-scale anarchist movement, Nestor Makhno’s, was militant, with little concern for liberal human rights.

Even the most liberal anarchic society would have to fight initially against government resistance.

Anarchist communities might infringe on the private ownership of the land they take. Near-anarchic wild-west towns were founded on land expropriated from the exterminated peoples. In light of anarchist theory, there is nothing wrong with Jewish pioneers taking the land from the Arab inhabitants. Anarchy is an intra-societal policy. It only works among the consenting people and does not preclude repression of opponents.

The litmus test of any action’s compliance with anarchism is whether it could be carried out absent of government. On many occasions, tribes with no governmental structure have cleared land for themselves. Left to themselves and armed reasonably, Jewish pioneers would take over the West Bank just like stateless Jews did in 1947.

Indeed, an argument can be constructed that Palestinian Arabs rely on governmental support to resist the Jews. Their terrorism was made possible by the support of several Arab governments, and since the Oslo accords –has been abetted by the EU’s quasi-governmental groups. Unlike Jews before 1948, Palestinian Arabs rely almost exclusively on governmental funding rather than private money, which fact condemns their struggle as anarchic enterprise.

The liberal opposition to Israel, South Africa, and Vietnam is unrelated to colonialism because it implicitly accepted Sino-Soviet colonialism in Vietnam. Though the Soviets were wary of direct involvement in Asia, their contacts with the Vietnamese date to at least 1924, when Ho Chi Minh posed with Trotsky for a photo. Similarly, Vietnamese colonialism in Laos did not concern the leftists. To speak of European colonialism in South Africa was likewise odd after the Boers had lived there for three centuries, longer than some African tribes.

Nor was the liberal struggle related to humanistic concerns. The communist regime in Vietnam and the corrupt black government in South Africa are more oppressive than the US-sponsored and Boer governments, respectively. while the leftists screamed against Western policies in Vietnam, much bigger atrocities were going on elsewhere unnoticed, whether in Africa or the Soviet Union.

The right to national self-determination was hardly an issue: neither Jews nor Basques ever enjoyed leftist support, and the Boers, a centuries-old nation, were entitled to a state of their own without the black natives.

We can get a clue from the fact that leftists verbally attack those who heed their assaults, but not the atrocious communist or Muslim states who ignore their accusations. So at least in part, leftist movements against the Vietnam war, apartheid, and Israel serve as saber-rattling to show and reinforce the left’s power.

Also, the “anti” movements are about money. That should not come as a surprise to those who see the massive collections for Darfur resulting in the delivery of no more than a few sacks of rice after administrative and advertising expenses have been paid. Look at the considerable protests against Iraqi invasion versus the near-silence about Afghanistan, where per-capita losses among the locals are much higher. Protest fashion, like any fashion, chooses arbitrary objects; Iraq rather than Afghanistan in this case. But there is also the issue of well-paying special interests: the USSR pumped money into the anti-Vietnam war movement, Muslim regimes sponsor anti-Iraqi war campaigns, and there are plenty of Muslim entities and rich Jew-haters to finance anti-Israeli activities.

Leftist protest movements are best understood as anti-systemic endeavors. Their only aim is subverting the established system, and they seek weak spots to pound on. The causes advocated are not goals in themselves: a US evacuation from Iraq would mean more bloodshed and the absence of a separation barrier would increase both terrorist losses among Jews and retaliatory losses among the Arabs. The protests are means to a single end: subverting traditional governments and the rule of law.
Marx’s prediction that socialism would take over the capitalist system relatively peacefully has been borne out. Just like in Ancient Rome, democracy and economic might have combined to create a welfare state, and to make people economically—and therefore politically—dependent on the state, resulting in the fall of a society which has grown utterly irresponsible and inefficient. Socialism took over Europe, and has now taken over the United States. Corporations support the arrangement as they also get their cut in the form of government contracts and bailouts. This need not be the end of time: historically, welfare state have always failed, and left the field for new, more efficient states which rose up from the shambles. Smaller cycles also exist: Britain is less socialist today that in the late 1940s, though the overall trend is toward increasing welfare.

Welfare states usually fall to hordes of barbarians, and the current cycle is no exception: Muslims now swarm Western cities.

And leftists are their fifth column.

Enter the proliferation of proxy wars. American society clung to its affluence and the Soviet gerontocracy clung to its power. Too cowardly for an open war, the two societies clashed on the periphery. The United States fought in Vietnam for a single reason, to stop Soviet expansion. An honest and manly way of deciding such a conflict would be to attack the Soviet Union. Instead, the Americans killed millions of Vietnamese who had little to do with Soviet imperial ambitions. The USSR responded in kind by arming the Arab states against their American client, Israel.

Today, Syria arms Hamas and achieves its aim of fighting Israel while remaining safe. Why does not Israel retaliate against Iran, the Hezbollah state of Lebanon, and Syria for the terrorist attacks? Fifty years ago, Israel routinely retaliated against Egypt for fellaheen attacks from Gaza. Nothing has changed legally or geopolitically: the Jews are in the same state of ceasefire with Lebanon as we have been with Egypt. The real change came from affluence; having matured, the society grew cowardly.

The trend toward irresponsibility is all-encompassing. Take bankruptcy, a legal way to steal and defraud. Or corporate limited liability: any number of people can form a company, damage others through defaulted loans or factory pollution, and close down the company with no harm to themselves.

Governments are happy with this irresponsibility. Democratic politicians want their short terms of office to be marked by welfare. They have no problem with the unfortunate fact that welfare now often comes at the cost of delaying solutions, making them much more painful later. What happens later is not the incumbent politicians’ problem.

Having irresponsible subjects is still better. They shirk personal responsibility and pass all their responsibilities onto the government. Just think of it: the state took upon itself such a basic responsibility as that of an individual to care for his family. A wife knows that she depends for her income not on her husband but on the welfare office. Retirees depend for their livelihood on social security rather than on their children. In only a century, states totally changed the societal framework: they cut family ties and short-circuited what used to be family connections with government institutions. Attachment is a matter of dependence; people used to depend on family members, but now they depend on politicians and bureaucrats.

Who can imagine such a state will persist?

Immigrants come here because generations of law-abiding taxpayers have built public facilities, from roads to universities to welfare funds. They built them for their children and compatriots, not for Kenyans. The problem arose strictly because of government intervention in such matters as welfare and minimum wage: In a fully privatized, free society poor immigrants wouldn’t be able to survive for a week if housing and public appearance standards were enforced.

Citizenship is a profitable franchise which must be sold by the government. Existing citizens who wish to emigrate must be able to sell their citizenship. Illegals immigrants commit theft by claiming residence or citizenship benefits which do not belong to them. Governments do not like to set up a market for citizenship because it would remove arbitrariness from the immigration process. Citizenship and residence are among the most important, defining rights in nation-states, and ruling elites are not about ceding them to market forces.

The government not only refuses to charge immigrants the high cost of a citizenship franchise, but also forces local entrepreneurs to pay them minimum wage. In case of illegal immigrants, minimum wage is a tax on law-abiding citizens for the benefit of criminals. Astonishingly, many people support minimum wage laws. They do not realize that it is the largest tax they pay, and dishonest at that: rather than ask clearly whether efficient workers are willing to massively subsidize their inefficient peers, governments opt for hidden redistribution through overpriced consumption. Sovereign governments have a right to impose any tax on their subjects, but they do not have a right to deceive them.

Minimum wage laws and social welfare produce massive political repercussions. Though latent unemployment runs at double-digit percent, the economy needs foreign workers. Some of them come illegally, some stay illegally, many become permanent residents and eventually change the society’s face—literally. Government subsidizes local spongers while consumers subsidize foreigners who are allowed to work here at artificially high wages. Society thus loses on both ends. If the minimum wage paid to local workers is a huge and deceitful redistribution, minimum wage requirement for foreign workers tests the limits of common sense. What possible ethical reason is there for a society to pay foreign labor migrants more than the least they would accept? Billions of people live in countries with $30-a-month wages; why should we pay laborers here fifty times more? They would accept $200 per month with gratitude if employers provided them with food and minimal housing. They have no meaningful medical facilities in their countries; why give them health insurance in our country? They are neither born here nor transported here forcibly. We set the terms, and out of billions of people out there a few hundred thousand will always be ready to accept them. Working in our country is a huge economic privilege for them, and there is no reason to effectively tax local consumers for their benefit. On the contrary, it is a government’s obligation to seek the best terms for its citizens rather than for anyone else. The government must work to bring migrant laborers here on the best possible terms, for the lowest possible pay.

A society without long-term welfare benefits would require far fewer foreign workers. The government has already brought here a hundred thousand able-bodied Ethiopians and closed its eyes to the infiltration of another twenty to forty thousands working-age Africans. They are so unskilled that in economic terms they stand below Thai workers. Absent the government benefits which allow them to stay perpetually unemployed, the Africans would take the lowly agricultural jobs. Somewhat more skilled construction jobs should go to the unemployed Jews of the development towns, who likewise must lose the welfare sustenance. It is a crime in Judaism to rely on community support if one can feed oneself.

The idea of society subsidizing immigrants is bizarre. Citizenship is a valuable franchise, and immigrants must pay for the right to enter the country. It can be either a fixed fee or higher taxation, but some payment must be there because the immigrants receive important goods from the society: safety, infrastructure, social services, and the ability to earn higher wages than in their home countries. Citizens enjoy those facilities by the virtue of inheritance: they were paid for with their parents’ taxes. Immigrants leech off the previous generations’ taxes. Even the United States generally bars immigrants who are likely to become a burden on the society within the first four years. Much less Israel should admit the immigrants who drain our resources from the day one.

Nation states turned themselves into their societies’ reason for existence. Instead of states servicing their societies, societies serve national ideology. States thus resist inequality of their residents: for the state, they are all equal because they are equally obliged to the state, they are similar pawns regardless of their origin. No. Immigrants must prove themselves feasible to existing citizens who own the country. No benefits should be provided to immigrants, but in line with the Torah, “tribute and servitude” must be charged them.

Far from implicitly subsidizing foreign workers, the government must charge for the privilege of working here. All migrant visas must be auctioned off.

Not a single work visa must be issued to our Palestinian enemies. It is a political objective of the utmost importance to force their emigration from Judea and Samaria. Some 400 to 600 thousand Palestinians work in Israel. Practically the entire West Bank Arab population relies on Israel for income in some way. When Israel refused jobs to Gazans, that pitiful territory slipped into the Bronze Age within two years. Not a single Palestinian worker must be allowed here. Hiring them is high treason, as it allows them to stay in Judea and Samaria. lacking a job here, their working-age population would start leaving in droves and depopulate the area within a generation or two.

Welfare economics leads to defeatist politics.

Americans have not become tolerant toward aliens. They objected to even a temporary influx of Jewish refugees during the Holocaust, and imagine what their reaction would be to an influx of gypsies today. Rather, blacks and Mexicans have become Americanized, and thus provoke less resentment.

It is a fundamental human right to be left alone. There is no point in arguing whether national differences are cultural or genetic. Suffice that all people view others as different. The lines between “we” and “they” are certainly arbitrary and rarely justified, but they are lines nonetheless. People are entitled to have opinions, even mistaken opinions. But make no mistake: the fact that aliens strive to enter America suggests their admiration for American ways and their desire to join the ranks of the American people. The aliens want to transform themselves into Americans, and thus recognize the cultural difference between America and their own communities. The divide is even stronger in Israel, where Jews and Arabs sensibly detest each other, and Jews and Ethiopians have little in common apart from both being two-legged.

Governments tend to admit aliens for a profound ideological reason. In nation-states, there are no groups or nationalities, just the state-forming nation. All citizens of France, regardless of their origin, are of the French nation. By allowing immigration, nation-states assert their definition of nationality as congruent with citizenship. For them, closing immigration would be tantamount to the admission that citizenship does not confer nationality, and that implies a very dangerous conclusion: their existing citizens belong to different national groups, and are not alike. Once the homogeneity of voters is thus destroyed, democracy is falls apart; how can a majority decide matters for qualitatively different minorities? Obviously, the minorities will be always discriminated against. On other hand, why should the majority give way to insignificant minorities with contrarian interests? In culturally heterogenous societies, democracy becomes inoperative. A similar case can be made for economically heterogenous societies, but in free-market economies wealth is fluid, and a person of modest means can meaningfully hope to become rich. Cultural differences are less fluid because the state-imposed equality of all citizens removes incentives to adopt the majority’s culture.

The free market solves the problem of immigration. In a free society, employers would be free to refuse employment on whatever grounds, including ethnic or cultural. Jewish consumers would be able to boycott Arab suppliers, schools—all of them private—could shut their doors to underperforming aliens, and private communities would be free not to rent housing units to them. Immigrants wouldn’t be able to enjoy welfare that neither they northeir ancestors had funded. Faced with high costs of living and enforced community standards regarding housing, public appearance and behavior, and education, immigrants just wouldn’t be able to survive. The situation would be even better if all the infrastructure were private: city buses not subsidized, city roads all toll roads, government services outsourced and payable. Economically and culturally different aliens would stay clear of such a society.

The US supreme court rejected “separate but equal” based on the technical difficulty of ensuring equal quality of education. In other areas, especially those which do not require public funding, the “separate but equal” idea remains sound.

Shouldn’t we “love a stranger?” Not at all. No one can love a stranger; that’s why he is called a stranger. The Torah speaks about ger, a de facto convert who has embraced our ways. It is highly questionable whether the requirement to love means supporting him or just not oppressing him, but a more important consideration is whether he can embrace our ways. One immigrant among a sea of locals would surely assimilate. The situation changes when they are many. In such cases, they interact among themselves and resist assimilation. The situation is simpler in the United States, a cultural blank slate of a society. Immigrants are easily Americanized within two or three generations because Americanization is empty: they just shed their old culture without acquiring any new one. The Israeli situation is much more difficult because immigrants must acquire Jewish culture, ethics, religion, and work ethics—a complex mix. It was not for nothing that rabbis said that we banned conversions at the time of King Solomon and will ban them again once messianic development creates a proper Jewish state.

Sizes matters. A large country like America is a land monopoly, and monopolies cannot arbitrarily reject consumers—citizens, in this case. Small Israel is another matter. She can refuse cultural and religious aliens like the Vatican does without meaningfully infringing on their rights. In a world of competing jurisdictions, every jurisdiction has a right to exclude any group, just as individuals can exclude any guests from their homes. Public land belongs to people like a house to its owners, and they can close their country to newcomers just as a house can be closed to trespassers.

Libertarian societies lack values. They proclaim freedom to be their value, but freedom is the absence of restraints, while values are restraints. Freedom is the opposite of values.

Libertarian societies abrogate values, and then abandon responsibility. They become quasi-socialist welfare states.

Libertarianism is not an honest intellectual position, but a rationalization of fear. No human being enjoys alien practices. Affluent people want to make the most use of their wealth, and reject values along with other behavioral restrictions. Affluent people fear for their wealth, refrain from violence, and don’t want to repress deviants. Encountering no resistance, deviants take over societies.

Really, our Jewish views are indefensible. It is so easy to ridicule them on rational grounds. That what faith is about—unquestioning belief.

Jewish faith passes the test of a scientific theory: a hypothesis is offered, and accepted if it is simpler than other hypotheses to that end and doesn’t contradict the observed facts. Jewish monotheism is the most straightforward religious doctrine in existence, and no commandment contradicts the observed facts of human mentality or social processes. An honest leftist would accept Judaism as a policy.

The left does not care about ends; they mostly enjoy the means. Note how the Western leftists changed their sympathies from Nazis to Communists to Vietnamese to Arabs to endangered species. The only thing common among those attachments is the desire to change the existing order of things, and preside over the introduction of a new one. Leftism is about power, and power is best demonstrated by repression, whether of entrepreneurs in leftist Russia or religious Jews in Israel.

Once Judaism is rejected, Zionism becomes racism and robbery. Jews believe themselves different from others due to Judaism; if there is no Judaism, the baseless assertion of one’s difference amounts to racism. If Jews have no right to Hebron, where Abraham purchased a land plot and a burial place, where David had his capital before conquering Jerusalem, then what is the Jewish right to Tel Aviv? The left’s policy of giving up Hebron but holding on to Tel Aviv amounts to this: we’re moral people because we steal only a little; we steal from Arabs in the Tel Aviv area but not Judea. According to Judaism, we’re the rightful owners of this land in its entirety; according to the left, we’re small-time robbers at best.

There is no way leftism can be reconciled with Jewishness. Which of them should we ban in Israel?

In our case, the Jewish settlers of Judea and Samaria act in the best traditions of anarchism: rifles in hand, they take over small patches of land, wall them away, and live there. The Jews meet several paramount anarchic qualifications: they distance themselves from relatively friendly governments (Israel) and staunchly oppose hostile ones (the Palestinians). They rule their communities with a very significant degree of autonomy in religious, educational, and administrative matters. They take over only the villages and farming land they need for living; they do not make the kind of empty land-grab characteristic of states expanding their jurisdiction. They don’t oppress the native population unnecessarily by something like mass expulsion; on the contrary, Jews take empty lands, and the Arabs who despise their new neighbors can move a few miles into Jordan. Bizarrely, the hooligans who pose as anarchists demand the most un-anarchic thing: Palestinian sovereignty over the empty land—or the land which had been empty before Jews built their villages. Normative anarchists would never participate in inter-state disputes, such as a conflict between Israel and the would-be Palestinian state.

Settlements practice textbook anarcho-syndicalism: a group of people own their settlement just as they would own a factory. Just as they are entitled to prevent anyone else from working at their factory and enjoying the fruits of their prior investment, so they can exclude anyone from the settlement which they have built. The criteria can be entirely arbitrary: syndicated factory owners can exclude non-unionized or foreign workers, and the settlers are entitled to exclude Arabs.

There is a right to be offensive: many anarchists insist on their right to dress and behave contrary to traditional norms. Xenophobia is a human right like any other. The settlers don’t have to argue that Arabs constitute a security threat: suffice that the Jews want to maintain cultural homogeneity. Just as anarchic factory owners can refuse employment to communists, just as atheist Jews might not welcome the odd-looking ultra-Orthodox crowd in their kibbutzim, so the settlers can exclude newcomers through any criterion, ethnic or religious included.

Traditional anarchists were militant and incidentally friendly to Jews. Modern hippie-type anarchists are also militant, but anti-Semitic. The difference is due to the fact that modern anarchists are fake. In the early twentieth century, anarchists believed they could achieve their goal of a societal order without compulsive power. They sought to build a society—and society-building is always violent, as the previous order must be dealt away with. They used violence, but also respected others’ right to violence. Doubtlessly, Nestor Makhno would see dear comrades in Jewish settlers, as he cared about principles rather than natives’ rights. He would have admired the settlers’ principles and wouldn’t care a bit about their cost.

With the triumph of state socialism, traditional left-wing anarchism became doomed. Leftists, both the working class and the intellectuals, saw the Soviets as the embodiment of their dreams. To insist on anarchism’s ethical superiority to socialism was to betray the leftist ideal. Bank robberies, a historically standard source of anarchist financing, became problematic in the West; in the East, communists suppressed their ideological opponents. Lacking clear goals, financing, or a home base, anarchism all but disappeared.

It was reinvented in the 1960s as the hippie-peacenik movement. American hippies did not want to describe themselves as communists, though their economic goals were close to it. At the time, communist affiliation was still considered indecent. They hijacked anarchism; even the circled A symbol of anarchy became a symbol of peace.

Fake anarchists find themselves in the position of lacking any positive goals. Realistically, they cannot hope to create autonomous communities; even the hippie communities fell apart. They cannot dismantle the state or fight civil wars to that end. The traditional anarchist movement took the moral high ground: it believed in the ultimate goodness of human beings and their ability to guide themselves in the absence of state power, and realistically hoped to achieve that society soon. Modern leftist anarchists build nothing, and negate everything. They are bereft of hope, full of hatred. As such, they converge with other haters against the traditional objects of hate, Jews.

Their anti-Semitism does not stem from opposition to capitalist society. Hardly any people are farther from capitalist enterprise than dirt-poor Jewish settlers, driven by their ideals to live in a dangerous land. In the West, leftist anarchists commonly side with national manufacturers and trade unions to enforce mercantilist policies aimed at protecting their home markets; that’s the worst nineteenth-century capitalism in action. The anarchists hate for the hatred’s sake, but are especially hateful toward traditional values and enemies; both are epitomized as Jewish. The anarchists converge with other hateful, antisocial groups, such as neo-Nazis and Western right-wing radicals.

It is easy to prove that fake anarchists do not seek justice. They hold anti-separation-barrier demonstrations in Israel, but not anti-terrorism rallies in Gaza. No anarchists fight in Darfur. They protest Israel protecting her borders against illegal African immigrants, but not Egypt doing the same.
Ultra-left inciters in the West Bank are not legitimate members of the anarchic ideological movement, but mere hooligans who have made anti-Semitism a cover for their discontent.