Are anarchists libertarian?

Just as the word “liberal” changed meanings in Republican Party argot in 1932, so “anarchist” also changed meaning in 1972. Prior to then its published definition was “the belief that all government is evil and unnecessary, combined with opposition to the institution of private property.” (Smith and Zurcher, 1944)

Looking backward through the preceding century’s newspapers in Germanic and Romance languages, references to anarchy, anarchists and anarchism are, without exception, references to bomb-throwing collectivists and assassins with pistols. French President Carnot, Spanish Prime Minister Canovas, Austrian Empress Elizabeth and King Humbert of Italy were all killed by Italians, but President McKinley was murdered by a son of Polish immigrants. All of the killers appear in the press as self-described anarchists indistinguishable from communist, socialist or labor-organizing zealots.

In fact, the closer the examination, the closer the resemblance to today’s mohammedan suicide bombers, hijackers and gunmen. Indeed, socialism, especially in its communo-fascist variants, is as much a religion as christianity or mohammedanism. All of these things are mysticism: the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Anarchist, communist and religious philosophies all rely on mysticism.

The new religion of Environmentalism now has its own version of the “atheist” epithet and brands real scientists (e.g. the 32,000 degreed scientists who signed the Petition Project) “deniers.” Since it is impossible to prove a negative, and the production of evidence is incumbent upon those who make the claim, the attempt is made to shift the burden of proof with no notion whatsoever of epistemology or logic. A denier is anyone who asks for convincing evidence. As soon as Soviet Communism had in 1920 consolidated control over an entire government, propaganda machines labored to distance it from its anarchist comrades. But the political aspects of anarchism, like that of so many foibles, were best summed up by the philosophical saloon owner Mr. Dooley.

“What on earth’s to be done about thim arnychists?” Mr. Hennessy asked. What do they want?”

“They want peace on earth an’ th’ way they propose to get it is be murdhrin’ ivry man that don’t agree with thim. They think we all shud do as they please. They’re down on th’ polis foorce an’ in favor iv th’ pop’lace, an’ whin they’ve kilt a king they call on th’ polis to save thim fr’m th’ mob.”

But thanks to Republican and Democratic appointee judges’ interpretation that religious murder is “the Free exercise therof,” the act is protected and anti-Planned Parenthood cop-shooters and Houston child-drowners alike are, ipso facto, declared insane and not responsible for their acts until the killing is safely concluded. Catholic and Protestant apologists loudly aver that the very murderousness of the perpetrators’ actions serve as “proof” of their innocence. The Saracen view, as examined by H.L. Mencken, forges a functionally similar conclusion:

Mohammedans “are not bidden to love their enemies but to smite them, and there are no oppressive rules about distinguishing between foes in arms and innocent bystanders. The Moslem theory is that the latter, if they happen to be true believers, will go straight to Paradise and are thus not to be pitied, and that no calamity can be too great for those who doubt. “*

Both brands of mysticism draw the line at uppity females exercising the individual right to choose whether or not to reproduce, and withdraw forthwith the protection so gallantly extended to men who–for reasons of faith–kill doubters.

anarchyloses

No Victory=Losers

Likewise, as political theory, post-1972 anarchism relies on the reverse of Jefferson’s assertion that “to ensure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The anarchist view is that the very act of legalizing robbery, murder and barbarism in general (by abolishing enforcement of the restraining laws) creates a “free” market out of which agencies competing in the forcible restraint of men will rise like faithful toward the Rapture.

Syllogistically, the premises are 1. A market from which force and fraud are not excluded by government and laws securing rights is free (as opposed to coerced) and 2. That the “free” market resulting from abolition of laws against murder and robbery will summon forth agencies to compete–for profit–in the forcible restraint of men, thereby ensuring rights. The proposition: if rights aren’t protected then the market is “free,” is reversed by affirming its consequent. A child could see the error in logic in Lewis Carroll’s day. No sooner had “former” communists announced their conversion to anarchy and consequent devotion to infiltrating and subverting all things libertarian, than Ayn Rand (who wrote the non-aggression principle in 1947) reacted by noting that:

“All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists.

True, few born in 1907 Russia know a lot about American hippies, but her observation that anarchists are collectivists matches the facts of reality for the past hundred years. Like Nixon’s anti-libertarian law or the Hitler-Stalin pact, the sudden reversal of anarchist definitions and rules of inference coinciding with the emergence of a political party devoted to the defense of intellectual rights is a false-flag operation. Anarchists in libertarian drag resemble nothing so much as collectivist infiltrators whose purpose is to see to it that the Libertarian Party is avoided by people whose spoiler votes we need in order to repeal bad laws and taxes. With friends like these…

If there were an ounce of brains or sincerity among “libertarian” anarchists, they would support the LP in accordance with the Constitution and someday, with the initiation of force happily eliminated from the interactions of citizens (which outcome they do NOT want), anarchists could then organize their own party, write a platform and seek voters to complete what they might regard as an unfinished task. This they do NOT do. Meanwhile, the presence of an anarchist at a libertarian function has as salutary an effect as flinging in a dead cat.

** Treatise on Right and Wrong

Beware of altruism!

timenough“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”
The quotation is from Robert Heinlein’s “Time Enough for Love,” and stands at the entrance to an Amazon forum for baffled people who talk to invisible friends. They are baffled because they cannot understand how Robert Heinlein–a freedom-loving American proud of his heritage and willing to defend it–could possibly deny the goodness of altruism.

Oddly, none of the participants seemed interested in looking closely at what altruism boils down to. My ethics prof taught that altruism declares actions taken for the benefit of others good, but that actions taken for one’s own benefit are evil. No number of examples from Bob Heinlein’s books had any effect on the forum participants. They always came back with his address to cadets at a military academy, using baboons as examples of self-sacrifice for the tribe.

Yes it’s true he made the presentation.

But a good writer tailors his delivery to the intellect and interests of his audience. Let’s face it, Officers Candidate School is not where you look for philosophical thinkers. So he gave the audience what it came for, a rousing defense of sacrificial subservience to unquestioned arbitrary authority.

This song by Tom Lehrer, mathematician and pianist, helps resolve the dilemma.

The Heinlein talk at Annapolis was a public relations success. Ayn Rand made her own presentation at West Point. Yes it was philosophical, and yes it really irritated they who presume to take what you earn, but the cadets loved it.  She did make mistakes in the Q&A, and that is the only part of the talk you’ll hear quoted or discussed in looter circles.

Robert Heinlein: Ayn Rand fan

strangerIf the science-fiction bestseller Stranger in a Strange Land (1960) feels to you like an adaptation of the main points in Atlas Shrugged repackaged for regular idiomatic American consumption, that is probably no accident. Robert Heinlein was an Ayn Rand fan before it was even fashionable. 

Way back in 1949,* Bob Heinlein wrote his agent Lurton Blassingame to tell him “Specifically” that he would “like to do a job somewhat like Ayn Rand did in The Fountainhead, but with modern art, specifically pictorial art…”, as its theme. Heinlein himself had one of his protagonists advise the younger generation to “Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.” **

Heinlein admired the gal enough to emulate her, and it all fits together. Bob was primarily earning a living by entertaining readers and Ayn did that while striking at the root of the Soviet and National Socialist empires. Both writers clearly identified altruism (not tough choices for loved ones) as an evil incompatible with human life. Contemporaries, they’d witnessed the Crash and Depression (backdrop for Atlas Shrugged), and the rise of German National Socialism, made possible in part by Herbert Hoover’s “Moratorium on Brains.”

Anyone able to meet Rand’s three main points (see poll) head on and disprove them would reduce her entire life’s work to rubble and make money doing it. No one has attempted it yet. Likewise, no one has ever attempted to show by what objective or verifiable standard of value altruism could possibly be a good thing rather than an evil meme.  Both writers are appreciated by organizers of the Libertarian Party, which has adopted a terse pledge as a sort of guideline for setting priorities, that members “do not advocate the initiation of force for political or social purposes.”

The non-aggression pledge is patterned after one penned by Ayn Rand in 1947, while National Socialist war criminals were still being tried and hanged in Nuremberg, Germany. It is the exact antithesis of what those ideologues advocated, namely, “Positive Christianity” and “unlimited authority” for “a ruthless fight” to enforce “the common good before the individual good”… “if necessary at the cost of their lives.” To this Josef Goebbels added his disparagement of “Disgusting personal egotism” while shrilly proclaiming “We are socialists!” ***

From the statements they published from 1918 through 1945, it is clear that in order for national socialism to be “right wing,” it simply has to mean altruistic religious socialism entirely opposed to free markets.

*Grumbles from the Grave, Ballantines/Del Rey Pb. pp. 109-110.
**”  Time Enough for Love (1973).
***” Nazi Ideology Before 1933 (UT Press 1978  81-2)

 

Mr. Dooley’s political philosophy

anarchists84Americans of a century ago would puzzle in wonderment at the gasps of shock and outrage on today’s trail of fear and loathing. But defeated viewers with alarm denouncin’ an’ deplorin’ and the elect commindin’ were old hat 116 years ago.
But whenever an illicshun begins to warm up just a tad higher’n the level of limp-wristed foppery and bug-eyed gasping, newspapermen reach into the archives for some Peter Finley Dunne as a kind’ve reality check.
My own favorites are the rough-and-tumble of counting the unverifiable secret ballots Al Gore was so fond of recollecting. (This was before he was joined at the groin to disappointed massage girls, and asset-forfeiture caused Wall Street skyscrapers to rain securities brokers and investment bankers onto bloody sidewalks below). Like Bernard Baruch retelling ballot-box-swapping stories of the deep south, Mr. Dooley recalls Chicago election-year pollytics with international flavor and consummate wisdom.
Dutch South Africans discovered gold in the Transvaal and Brits immediately began clamoring for the gold the vote “or else…”

If I was Kruger there'd've been no war."
"What wud ye have done?" Mr. Hennessy asked.
"I'd give thim th' votes," said Mr. Dooley. "But," he added
significantly, "I'd do th' countin'."

Ah yes, th’ countin’. This is the art of pollytics in a secret ballot that is completely lost on libertarians an’ th’ Grain Party. Just as the law sez whatever you can get the court to say it sez, so the vote tally is whatever you can get the precinct to say it was. It works like this:

Man an' boy I've taken an intherest in politics all me life, an' I find
th' on'y way to win an iliction is to begin f'r to count th' minyit
ye've completed th' preliminaries iv closin' th' polls an' killin' th'
other judges an' clerks.

Rocket science it ain’t, and no wander the Libs an’ Grains turn up such piffling vote counts. Everyone from the banana republics of Darkest South America to the Mohammedan Meccas of Africa puzzle in wonderment at how ‘murricans seem to have lost command of the manly arts of  hands-on Democratic Republicanism. The exercise of raw suffrage has withered into the legal wrangling of liars and lawyers.

‘Th’ hated enimy has stolen th’ ballot an’ thrampled on th’ r-rights iv th’ citizens,’ says they, ‘in the southern part iv th’ state faster thin we cud undo their hellish wurruk in our own counties,’ they says. ‘They now hol’ th’ jobs,’ they say, ‘an’ if they stay in they’se no more chanst iv iver ilictin’ a dimmycrat again thin there wud be iv ilictin’ a raypublican if we got in,’ they say. ‘Do ye mix us up a replevy writ an’ we’ll go over an’ haul th’ chair fr’m undher thim,’ they say.”

That was pollytics as she is back in the days when men were men and America was fray, an’ proud ‘iv it!

Mr. Dooley can be found at Gutenberg.org, where donations are warmly appreciated.

 

 

Os Exterminadores do Tio Sam

O que é que a Colômbia e o Brasil têm em comum?

Eis o que está ocorrendo na Colômbia, e não passa nas teletelas brasileiras.

Eis o que ocorre no Brasil. Não sei se isso aparece nas teletelas colombianas ou não.

bushaecioA atual embaixadora americana no Brasil foi expulsa de Bolívia, saiu do Paraguai numa enxurrada de protestos “populares” para depor o presidente eleito. Seu trabalho no Caribe coincidiu com um aumento de 800% na taxa de mortalidade em tiroteios. Assim que a Dilma derrotou o crente das pistas de pouso (e amiguinho do George Bush) por 8% na votação do primeiro turno, a diplomata americana foi transferida para o Brasil.

O atual embaixador americano na Colômbia foi expulso de Cuba, transferido para Venezuela, depois trabalhou numa burocracia internacional que empurra o programa dos partidos Democrata e Republicano nos EUA. Sem perceber a ironia, o governo americano o destacou como embaixador na Colômbia em primeiro de abril de 2014, antes mesmo do primeiro turno nas eleições.

Algo mais? Ah, sim… As agências de espionagem americanas grampeiam as ligações telefônicas dos políticos e das empreiteiras de economia mista nos dois países e no resto do mundo. Basta um vazamento seletivo dessas gravações e dados aqui e acolá para os bananais de partidos oposicionistas nada libertários, e pum! Multidões populares nas ruas para cassar… a quem não agradou os dois partidos corruptos e xenofóbicos que por voto secreto controlam o governo americano. Todos estes paralelos, é claro, podem ser pura coincidência.

A modest plank suggestion

LPThe libertarian party is the most anti-rape, anti-stoning, anti-pidgeonholing and anti-violence against everybody party there is, yet 2/3 of libertarians aren’t women. Why?

Lily Goldberg observes that anarchist men are disgusting, and this matches the evidence of my senses too. A poll showed only 2% of Republican women preferred Rand Paul, and he has six times as many supporters among that party’s faithful (including, no doubt the Log Cabin faction).
Q:  what’s wrong with these numbers?  A: The fallacy of equivocation.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a term has two different meanings in an argument.

So in a discussion of libertarians, injecting a gaggle of legalize-rape-and-murder anarchists* or force-women-to-reproduce Christian Republicans commits that fallacy. Shortly after stumbling into my first libertarian meeting I was accosted by an anarchist impersonating a libertarian. Ugh! Just ask yourself: who else would have them? And there’s your answer.

The same goes for Ron Paul and his boy Rand. Ron wrote me in the 1980s that he considers abortion: “aggression against the unborn.” Ergo, he is a Republican, Tea, Prohibition or Constitution party supporter. Republicans have no problem with discrimination, superstition and collectivism. Their entire party is about nothing else. Rand Paul is a testament to the danger of mystical brainwashing, but neither one is anything but an anti-choice, birth-forcing Republican. Our party has for 44 years had A Lady as its symbol, until some genius came up with the yellow chicken.

Calling two anti-choice Republicans “libertarian” has cost the LP 33% of the self-respecting female vote. It isn’t that women can’t reason, or are dependent or any of that claptrap. Nor did this mislabeling bring us a single vote. The Prohibition Party is now morphed into the Tea Party (which impersonates 1970s libertarians from Austin Texas, but rejects individual rights) and the Constitution Party (whose First Amendment advocates “the coercive exercise thereof” and whose Fourteenth Amendment begins “All ova fertilized“). Anyone willing to vote for antiabortion fanatics will go to that party under any or all three of those names–NEVER the Libertarian Party. I am offering heavy odds on that. The current plank makes the LP look like Republican impersonators!

Anarchists were 100% communist and socialist before 1971, and haven’t changed since. Like National Socialist Republicans they realize they have an image problem and instead of forming their own party and building theirs up, they act only tear down what positive image the Libertarian Party has earned. A Big Tent is a circus sideshow full of black Klansmen, Jewish nationalsocialists, pinhead intellectuals, looter capitalists and cross-dressing conservatives, not a political party with any sort of appeal to rational beings. Just as a girl knows better than to splash on cheap perfume and daub herself with greasepaint before throwing herself at every passing guy, the LP is also going to have to exercise a little more subtlety and acquire more discriminating tastes.

Mas vale sola que mal-acompañada would be a good expression for the LP platform committee to keep in mind. After all, with 2% of the vote we repeal lots of bad laws. And if we’d only shed some disgusting creeps and non-passable impostors back in the seventies we could by now be pulling down 5% of the vote or more in every election and writing the damn laws ourselves. Now, here’s my plan… We REPLACE that cowardly straddle in the 2012 platform with the following manly abortion plank:

The Libertarian Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion. (Not another word!)

If we want them to copy our planks, reset their priorities and change the laws, we might as well set the example. That’s what the Liberal Party did in 1932, and they got rid of the Prohibition laws that ignited the Great Depression. Another thing, joining sore losers, whining crybabies, impotent mystics and illiterate jerks who cannot understand language as simple as “free exercise” and “All persons born…” is not the way to attract anyone but disgusting creeps. We want to offer fresh alternatives and dispense with men-with-guns, taxes, fines-and-imprisonment and torture every chance we get.

  • Anarchism itself relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent in efforts to gull libertarians. Until after violence has been excluded from a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction contains no free market whatsoever–much less a free market in the forcible restraint of men or women.

Republican-National Socialist comparison

naziborderGermany’s National Socialist platform had this to say about borders and immigration:

7. We demand that the state pledge itself to assure the productivity and livelihood of citizens above all others. If it is not possible to support the entire population, members of foreign nations (non citizens) are to be expelled.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich immediately.

The Republican platform of 2012 asserts: In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified persons in this country poses grave risks to the safety and the sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, is to secure the rule of law both at our borders and at ports of entry.

That GOP platform further declares

The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built. … federal funding should be denied to sanctuary cities … denied to universities that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens… we support English as the nation’s official language… 

Terrorism was virtually unknown in These States until George HW Bush invaded portions of the former Ottoman Empire in acts of undeclared war in 1992. Cartels form to traffic in precisely those drugs the US government criminalizes, precisely because that prohibition effort amounts to a subsidized marketing campaign to increase the selling price by 400% on average. Exactly the same thing was done with beer, wine and liquor from 1920 to 1932, and caused criminal gangs to flourish in every major city. Human “trafficking” may have something to do with the religious extremism which leads most Republican politicians to assume that the coercive imposition of mystical prejudices by force of law is somehow authorized by the First Amendment (it isn’t) . Working girls in nonfanatical countries such as Holland and Brazil are rarely kidnapped or “trafficked.”

By “unidentified persons” Republicans clearly mean Democratic and Libertarian voters. And yes, those are indeed a grave risk to the sovereignty of the GOP wing of the incompetent gerontocracy dominating Washington, but not to the safety of These States. So what remains after stripping away the nonsense is the GOP’s determination to use barbed wire and men with guns to keep people from fleeing ruined economies and violent dictatorships. Most of those economies were ruined and dictatorships created by the US policies of exporting prohibitionism and communist-style taxation to drive up drug prices, control foreign politicians, and provide a pretext for militarizing civilian police forces.

The Democratic platform makes the observation that unlawful crossings were at a 40-year low on their watch. Small wonder, after George W. Bush doubled state and federal asset forfeiture confiscations in 2007 and thereby precipitated the economic collapse from then through 2014. GOP property confiscations destroyed the real estate market. The same thing happened when Herbert Hoover’s Republican prohibitionist policies destroyed the economy in 1930. After Republican administrations had already cut immigration in 1921, 1924 and 1929. Mexican immigration stood at zero even before Congress in 1931 cut European immigration quotas by 90%.

So far,  following examination of 3 of Hitler’s 25 Points, the Republican party is way ahead of the Democratic party in the Nazification of These States through its immigration and “war” confiscation policies. Still, the Democratic party in its platform also endorses prohibitionism, hence drug cartels, and seeks to deport individuals for harmless preferences that violate nobody’s rights. Only the Libertarian party platform rejects entirely the borders and immigration planks drawn up for Germany’s “religious right” by Hitler in 1920. The Libertarian party also rejects the Republican and Democratic policies of collectivist and religious coercion that brought on most of America’s border and immigration problems.