The Curse Of Col. Gadhafi

Ilana Mercer

When they destabilized Libya and overthrew strongman Muammar Gadhafi in 2011 the U.S. and its Canadian and European allies unleashed a series of events that accounts for the steady flood into Europe of migrants from North Africa. There are, purportedly, “up to 1 million” poor, uneducated, possibly illiterate, predominantly male, and by necessity violence-prone individuals, poised to board rickety freighters in the Libyan ports of Tripoli and Zuwarah, and make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, to southern Italy. The 900 migrants who perished off the coast of Libya when their vessel capsized embarked in Zuwara.

Zuwara has always been “famous for people smuggling,” notes Richard Spencer, Middle East editor of The Telegraph. “The modern story of Zuwara and its trade in people,” says Spencer, whose newspaper has documented the genesis of the exodus well before the U.S. press awoke to it, “was a key part of the late Col. Muammar Gadhafi’s relationship with the European Union.”

The “indigenous, pre-Arab inhabitants of North Africa,” Berbers, as they are known in the West, have long since had a hand in human trafficking. As part of an agreement he made with Silvio Berlusconi’s government, “Col. Gaddafi had agreed to crack down on the trade in people.” For prior to the dissolution of Libya at the behest of Barack Obama’s Amazon women warriors—Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power—Libya had a navy. Under the same accord with the Berlusconi government (and for a pretty penny), Gadhafi’s admiralty stemmed the tide of migrants into Europe.

Here’s an interesting aside: Because he cracked down on their customary trade, the Zuwarans of Libya rose up against Gadhafi; the reason for this faction’s uprising, in 2011, was not the hunger for democracy, as John McCain and his BFF Lindsey Graham would have it.

Back in 2007, Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair also shook on an accord with Gadhafi. Diplomacy averse neoconservatives—they think diplomacy should be practiced only with allies—condemned the agreement. The “Deal in the Desert,” as it came to be known derisively, was about bringing Libya in from the cold and into the 21st century. In return, and among other obligations, Gadhafi agreed to curtail people smuggling.

Ever ask yourself why so many northern and sub-Saharan Africans flocked to Libya? As bad as it was before the West targeted it for “reform”—and thus paved the way for the daily privations of the Islamic State—Libya was still one of the mercantile meccas in this blighted and benighted region.

As dumb as “W” was in unseating Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, he acted wisely with Gadhafi. Both George Bush and Bill Clinton, before him, saw to it that, in exchange for a diplomatic relationship with the U.S., Gadhafi abandoned terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Africa has always provided what the cognoscenti term “push factors” for migration: “Poverty, political instability and civil war … are such powerful factors,” laments Flavio Di Giacomo, a spokesman for the International Organization of Migration in Italy. More recently, the Middle East has been the source of the flight. The chaos and carnage in Iraq is ongoing—has been since the American invasion of 2003. Of late, the civil war in Syria, in which the U.S. has sought to topple another strongman who held it all together, has displaced 4 million people. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have absorbed hundreds of thousands of these refugees, as they should. But there are at least 500,000 more war-worn Syrians ready to be put to sea.

Programmed from on high, Europeans, like Americans, are bound by the suicide pact of political correctness to open their borders to the huddled mass of Third World people, no matter the consequences to their societies. Gadhafi was without such compunction. In 2010, he openly vowed to “turn Europe black,” unless the neutered Europeans rewarded him handsomely for doing the work they refused to do: patrol and protect their coastline.

“Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black,” roared Gadhafi, “as there are millions who want to come in. We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent, or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton cackled barbarically when she learned of the demise of Col. Gadhafi, but the colonel is having the last laugh.

ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return to Reason.” She is a contributor to the preeminent libertarian site Economic Policy Journal and to Junge Freiheit, a German weekly of excellence. Ilana is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an award-winning, independent, non-profit, free-market economic policy think tank. Ilana’s latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is She blogs at


  1. The actual mistake was not supporting King Idris in 1969.

    In 2011 the actual situation was not a choice between a stable government and anarchy – but whether or not to sit back and watch a socialist tyrant slaughter his population.

    It is not “conservative” or “libertarian” to write an article concerning Gadhafi and totally leave out that he was a monster – who slaughtered his own people and supported anti Western forces around the world (including the IRA).

    This article reminds of the smear article against Winston Churchill that was put up on this site yesterday (an article that might as well have started “Germany calling, Germany calling, our glorious German air force gave London another pounding last night – the cowardly warmonger Churchill must have been terrified….”), in that what it leaves out is more important than the stuff it puts in. I hope that the writer of this article (being Jewish) will have the courage to condemn that Rothbardian smear article by R.R. – but I will not get my hopes up too far (ideology seems to trump truth with a lot of people round here).

    Should the socialist tyrant Gadhafi have been allowed to exterminate all dissent? A case can, perhaps, be made that he should – that this would have been less horrible than has happened in Libya anyway. Yes – perhaps there should have been no intervention to try and end the slaughter in Libya (as the locals have continued to slaughter each other anyway – even with the tyrant gone).

    But such a case should be made honestly – there should be no dishonest pretence that the West “destabilised” the socialist tyrant in Libya, he “destabilised” himself, and he slaughtered his own people in the most dreadful ways.

    As for immigration from Africa (or the Middle East), European nations (and the United States) are massive Welfare States – such nations can not possibly have an open door immigration policy (regardless of the terrible conditions the would-be immigrants are coming from), so the immigrants (whatever they call themselves) need to be SENT HOME.

    Only if the would-be immigrants are SENT HOME (automatically – without legal antics) will they stop trying to cross the sea (and risk drowning) – only in this way can the lives of the would-be immigrants be saved

    Finally a note to Sean Gabb (who decides what is put up here).

    Dr Gabb – if you really can not understand that it was Colonel Gadhafi, not Winston Churchill, who was the evil “man of blood” then your judgement has become utterly warped.

    • I will say nothing in my own defence, But Ilana Mercer is a woman of strong and consistent moral principle. She has an impressive record of saying what she believes, and saying it very well. You are at perfect liberty to disagree with how she believes the libertarian case should be put. I only ask you once again to stop regarding any disagreement with what you believe as a sign of moral corruption. It does no credit to you, and makes argument less profitable than it ought to be.

      Because your comments are never moderated, and are sometimes promoted to the front page, where they can be read by large number of people, you have the confidence to put a lot of effort into this blog. Please consider that the tolerance you enjoy is owed to others.

    • His tendency to regard disagreement as a kind of moral corruption is a nuisance, as is his assumption that he has any kind of veto over what is posted on this Blog. His commenting rights are based purely on our tolerance. He has not yet exhausted that tolerance. We shall, even so, be watching his behaviour over the next week or so.

  2. It’s odd that neoconservatives would flock to this space. It’s a little different in the US; the neocons tend to stay away from hard-core libertarian spaces. I won’t give them too much credit, but perhaps they recognize that neocon and libertarian, never the twain shall meet (mostly).

  3. The person is question is rather strange in his ways. He is also partly used by others as an agent of disruption. We have put up with him for years. However, we thought we had come to an agreement after Christmas. We would welcome him into our circle; he would behave like a gentlemen. He has now broken that agreement. He has broken it plainly on this blog. I am also aware of his Facebook conversations about us.

    We are waiting on further events before we take action.

  4. While I like it when real gentlemen defend me (no, I’m no feminist; I have no need to be)—I will say this in defense of Mr. Marks: I did not take offense to his comments. They are mild and intelligent compared to the rube-hicks from whom I’ve taken weekly punishment for 15 years ( I am just perplexed by his “libertarianism.” “Classical Liberalism And State Schemes” is an old piece. My apologies for any infelicities. Still, it outlines the libertarian case against invading the world to save it: ” … Ultimately, ‘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. …'”
    Read more @

  5. Sean – your de facto support for Colonel Gadhafi is duly noted. Do you also support the IRA? After all Colonel Gadhafi backed them, and Murray Rothbard supported them also (although with words rather than arms and training).

    It is not “intolerant” of me to write in this way – as, after all, you accepted money from the Islamists in Sudan, so your moral character (or rather your lack of it) is obvious.

    As is your de facto support for the dishonest claim implied in the original post that the West stirred up the revolt against Colonel Gadhafi.

    I repeat my original point that the mistake was not supporting King Idris in 1969. A point that both you and Ilana Mercer have totally ignored.

    • Erm, Paul…we seem to be coming to the point where you regard yourself as the Keeper of Sean’s Conscience. On Facebook you have also tangentially suggested, here and there, that you are also The Keeper of Mine.

      It is not clear to me or Sean that third parties are justified in trying to stop us thinking what we think, by implying that we are being dishonest.

      I have not always agreed with some of Sean’s positions he takes; he is fully aware of that and we frequently argue. For example, I was in favour of war in Iraq and Afghanistan until subsequent events there persuaded me that these were (a) a gargantuan waste of effort and (b) seriously mis-managed both militarily and politically (something positive could have been gained in the absence of some gigantic f***-ups.) I thus came round more to Sean’s position that he’d always held.

      But I never sought to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty, let alone in public. But I am on record on this blog many times of saying stuff like “I do not agree with Sean about….because of…..” (whatever it was.)

      You may not admire the “Rothbardians”. It’s your choice. I do admire them, but kind of in parts like the “Curate’s Egg”. I am not a great fan of Kevin Carson; but if Sean wants to put Carson’s stuff up for discussion, then that is part of what this blog is about. Carson’s stuff doesn’t hurt me. You can throw eggs and tomatoes if you want to; we don’t mind.

      Try to stop trying to redirect people’s consciences Paul, and you will be much more relaxed.

  6. Ilana Mercer.

    I have now read your comments again.

    I can still not find the formal condemnation of the late Murray Rothbard (or Ralph R. – who had a post “Churchill Man of Blood” on this site only a few days ago) for making a hero of the holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes.

    As you are, as Dr Gabb correctly states, a person of strong moral principle – you must have condemned Rothbard , and Ralph R., for this elsewhere.

    I formally apologise for my ignorance as to where your condemnation of Rothbard and Ralph R. is to be found.

    Please direct me to it.

  7. I’m puzzled, Paul Marks, by your demands from one column that addresses current issues. A column is not a thesis. It’s bad writing to go off on a tangent in an 800-1000 word column. I have not written about Churchill; it’s beyond my ken. But I have certainly expressed myself about WWII as a just war, although it was a crime to drop the atomic bombs and bomb civilians ( I have also condemned Obama for his contempt for historic memory ( In all, I don’t think you have read all of my work (going back to 1998). I suggest you search my Articles Archive ( There are considerable differences between myself and Rothbard and Raico (who requested to have no contact with me b/c of this: On Israel I suspect that von Mises would be squarely in my corner. But generally, as to the application of the non-aggression axiom—the soul of libertarianism—we are on the same side.

  8. Also, Dr. Sean Gabb is accused by Mr. Marks of “accepting money from the Islamists in Sudan.” I have no idea if this is true. But if it is, what’s wrong with that? Sean has not compromised his principles. If Islamists like his principles; great. Maybe they are closet paleolibertarians. Seriously, we are not politicians. We should receive money from anyone, so long as we never soften our principles.

  9. Copied from another thread on this Blog:

    Dear Paul,

    I have just read your various comments of today, on this posting and on one by Ilana Mercer.

    Since I thought this matter had been amicably settled yesterday, I find them astonishing. However, they have been made, and I will now do what I must.

    We made an agreement after Christmas. You broke it last Monday. I gave you a reprimand on Tuesday. You have thrown it back at me. I must therefore ask you to leave this Blog immediately. You will be allowed back if you make it clear that you have accepted the terms stated in my post of last Tuesday. Any comment you post without such acceptance will be a trespass, and will show the nature of your claimed devotion to the principle of private property.

    I write these words more in sorrow than in anger. But you have left me with no reasonable choice. There have been times in the past nine years when your contributions to debate on this Blog were useful and perhaps enlightening. You stand within a valid and respectable area of the libertarian movement. But, while I have no objection to being told I am wrong, and even very sharply told, and while I expect other contributors to this Blog to face severe criticism without complaint, we cannot tolerate your continual accusations of bad faith, or your settled insistence that anyone who does not share every detail of your opinions is morally depraved.

    I hope that you will eventually see the reasonableness of my position. Until then, however, you must regard yourself as forbidden from posting any further comments here.

    Yours sincerely,


  10. Ilana Mercer.

    Many thanks for your opposition to Murray Rothbard and Ralph Raico. Both our families lost members to the holocaust that their hero, Harry Elmer Barnes, denied occurred. And we both know that it was Mr Hitler who was the real “man of blood”.

    As a sincere anti Marxist you would have noted the anniversary of the Communist conquest of the Republic of Vietnam yesterday – an event the late Murray Newton Rothbard celebrated, the man was totally beyond the pale. Both in his attitude in relation to the National Socialists (his open support for Harry Elmer Barnes – and so on) and his attitude towards the Communists – in which he again backed the line of “historians” such as Harry Elmer Barnes and Gabriel Kolko. Opposing the Berlin Airlift and the help to the Republic of Korea – and basically supporting allowing the Communists to conquer the world. Just as he, Rothbard, opposed helping the United Kingdom resist Adolf Hitler.

    Dear Sean.

    Show me the “agreement” where I agreed not condemn your position in relation to the enemies of our country, your position that we should not have resisted them in Europe and around the world. I do not remember signing any such document.

    Where did I agree not to condemn your position on the First World War?

    Where did I agree not to condemn your position on the Second World War?

    Where did I agree not to condemn your position on the Cold War?

    Where did I agree not to condemn your position on the Islamists today?

    You have written several “condemnations” of me – never, as far as I know, of Murray Rothbard or Ralph Raico.

    Whereas I have actually continued to talk to you – even though I was told NOT to talk to you.

    Do you know that I was asked not even to mention your name Sean?

    Do you know that I refused to obey that request?

    You think I am your enemy because I “talk back” and condemn you when you do things that are wrong. You never think that the reason I am harsh with you is because I want you to reform – that I still see the possibility that you could reform.

    Actually I am not your enemy Sean (I have always hoped that you could be persuaded to reform) – but you do have enemies. People who detest you so much they will not even mention your name. You will probably never understand it – but I actually have your best interests in heart (you are laughing now – but it is the truth, even if you never realise it).

    Murray Rothbard was potty – so is Ralph “Churchill Man of Blood” Raico.

    Rothbard celebrated (actually celebrated) the fall of South Vietnam.

    Had Mr Hitler won the Second World War, Murray Rothbard, would have celebrated that also. Evil Uncle Sam and evil Winston Churchill defeated – accept that they were not evil, it was our enemies who were evil (a “little” point that Murray and Ralph appear unable to grasp).

    As he was being dragged off to the gas chambers (for the Nazis would not have overlooked his “bloodline”) would Rothbard still have been celebrating?

    Saying that Harry Elmer Barnes proved the holocaust never happened would not have saved young Murray from the holocaust – which was only too real.

    Just as pretending that the Communists were no worse than Uncle Sam (and that the Communist conquest of Vietnam should be celebrated because for “six hours there was no government”) would not have saved Murray Rothbard from them.

    One can not allow the resources of the world to fall into the hands of enemies and expect to be left alone.

    Had Louis XIV conquered Europe he would not have left this island alone.

    Had the French Revolutionaries conquered Europe they would not have left this island alone.

    Had Imperial Germany conquered Europe they would not have left this island alone.

    Had Nazi Germany, and her allies, conquered Europe they would not have left this island alone.

    And had the Soviets and other Marxists conquered Europe they would not have left this island alone.

    You know all this Sean Gabb – you are NOT potty, you are playing stupid games and I am tired of it.

    Just like the Islamists – you know what they are like (yes you never killed anyone for them – you just worked in P.R. I have never claimed otherwise). You are NOT potty – you know that they have world wide aims (not limited to the Sudan). Rothbard was potty he, for example, thought the forces of Islam could be allowed into Israel without creating a second holocaust – you Sean are NOT potty (you know Rothbard’s position on Israel, like his position on so many other matters, was demented).

    Will you not, even now, turn over a new leaf?

    Instead of spending your time writing attacks on Paul Marks and Winston Churchill (although I am flattered to be put in such distinguished company) will you not use your talents in a better cause?

    Instead of pretending that the Islamists are no threat to the West – will you not take up your pen and oppose them?

    You could argue, for example, say that the Tobruk government in Libya should be supported – or that the situation is hopeless (I agree that it may be hopeless) and that we should never have allowed the relatively civilised government in Libya, King Idris, fall in 1969.

    After all the new Revolutionary government did not confine itself to Libya – it funded the enemies of the West all over the world (including against the United Kingdom).

    And, if we can not agree on this matter – and, of course, I could be wrong.

    At least write a “condemnation” of the Rothbardians.

    Take some time off from bashing Paul Marks (who has never written a post confined to bashing you) and bashing Winston Churchill – and bash the Rothbardians.

    You do not have to condemn the Rothbardians over the First World War – not if you honestly feel there is something in their arguments.

    But at least you could condemn the Rothbardian position on the Second World War and the Cold War (over the Berlin Airlift, Korea and so on).

    PLEASE Sean, PLEASE do it.

    • As I said previously: Paul is a problem for which psychiatry is not yet ready. The only hope is to have him placed in cryogenic storage and thawed at intervals of a century or so. Science might eventually catch up.

      PLEASE Sean, PLEASE do it.

      • Oh I think Psychiatry is perfectly ready to assess the likes of Paul Marks. Assessments are easy – but, thanks to the ‘hate speech’ laws we are now encumbered with, stating the results less so.

  11. Sean (and/or I) will condemn or not condemn what we effing well please, Paul.

    Can;t you just accept that individual people take highly complex positions on the inner details of otherwise broad canvasses – such as WW2 for example?

    If a couple of obscure American historians of whom I’ve never heard called Churchill a “man of blood”, then I for one would disagree with them. And since War is horrible and always statist, I ahree that it produced horrible devices like nuclear weapons; but the dropping of them probably saved 3-4 million more lives and four more years, at the sad cost of 200,000. What would you have preferred?

  12. Since Paul is no longer posting here, I think it impolite to discuss him in slighting terms. Please desist.

    I also wish to point out that we are not a white nationalist, still less an anti-semitic, blog. We do not welcome aspersions cast on Jews or on people of partially Jewish descent. Please desist here as well.

    In general, I dislike people who don’t post under their real names. They tend to be trouble makers – especially when they are anti-semites.

    • If you want to say anything truly worthwhile and effective these days it’s not wise to post using your real name. However, I see your fear, Sean – even understand it. But do not worry, you won’t need to expel me – I shall not trouble you again, I’ve wasted more than enough time here already.

Leave a Reply