Denier is the new Juden

Eight parties unmentioned

From the socialist Wikipedia

Ecological National Socialist candidate Albert Goracle, lost to G. Waffen Bush by three electoral votes in the Y2k election. Had voters in his home state of Tennessee backed his platform–ban electricity, continue asset forfeiture looting, jail hippies and blacks for plants–Gore’s party would have won by 16 electoral votes. The Dems could have had their hands in the till and hacks on the government payroll. Neither the Green nor Libertarian party commanded enough Tennessee spoiler votes to reverse the outcome. Still, Gore blamed Florida for his defeat.

Something similar happened to Germany and Austria back before ballots replaced bullets, Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) lost WWI and blamed Jewish politicians. Thanks to the Jo Nova blog, the pattern of collectivist self deception can be see in this example, in which I replace a single word with its conceptual equivalent. The context is journalist Ross Clark asked The Goracle a technical question about sea level rising versus land mass sinking.

When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a Jew?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a Jew?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a Jew.’

That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film’.

If Clark had tried that at an Oswald Mosley rally, he would have been beaten by goons. But the point is that the Econazi mindset is concerned not with facts, but bogeymen and strawmen. This last election had similar planks and a similar outcome. If the Dems had not copied the Green party anti-electricity agenda, and had instead copied the Libertarian party re-legalization plank, they might have beaten God’s Own Prohibitionists.

Get in touch for translations of political party platforms, nuclear reactor specifications, energy-related bills before various government assemblies or financial and economic impact of prohibition laws on national economies.

Adjustment of data into Truth

At Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith labored to erase from the newspaper morgue facts inconvenient to The Party and replace them with “rectified” versions.

As in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the better folk–fully deserving of their government jobs and hand in the till–can plainly discern Truth. Their inability to differentiate a constant or read a thermometer to within a single degree is just the sort of spurious irrelevancy one would expect Deniers (in the pay of dollar-worshipping egotists) to criticize by way of misdirection. Today that penchant for rectification via alternative facts is applied by recipients of transfer payments from taxpayers to modern “researchers.” Here, courtesy of Tony Heller, is how political pseudoscience persistently altered the past record of ordinary temperatures to meet present exigencies in the wake of the defeat of the Democratic candidate in 2000:

Data tampering

realclimatescience.com

Yet sudden changes in the policies and laws advocated and passed by “the elect”–those better voters ensconced in the Congress–are not news. Those better people are paid $174,000 apiece in annual remuneration for the discerning way in which they direct the initiation of force to the benefit of fellow Party members by whom they are elected. In November 1892, practically 9% of all voters cast ballots for candidates enamored of the “graduated income tax”, plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

In just over a year the income tax neither entrenched kleptocracy party wanted became law. It wouldn’t do for the Great Unwashed to realize that a vote for its own party was what changed the law. Therefore no History book in any government school calls attention to that timely succession of events, much less to the economic collapse that caused the Supreme Court to strike down that tax law the following year.

Government subsidies today call for ex-post-facto rectification of sea level measurement data. The largest changes are reported by Communist China, Ecological National Socialist Brazil and three primitive islands in Oceania, home to fewer than a million inhabitants frightened into a state of fear by pseudoscientific documendacities.

data adulteration

Who controls the present controls the past…

But we’ve also seen how 1.4% of the total vote, when cast by religious fanatics in 11 successive campaigns, added a Mohammedan Sharia law ban on alcohol to the Constitution. Religious racial collectivists formed Germanic-style parties to compete with republicans even after  Prohibition enforcement caused the Crash and Depression and made that party the hateful thing it is today. Constant draining of spoiler votes by socialist, socialist-labor and communist parties had a similar affect in seducing the  Democratic party away from the salutary influence exerted on it by the Liberal Party during the campaign of 1932, when the economy collapsed entirely.

Small wonder then that a government once dedicated to the protection of individual rights was changed–by persistent casting of looter spoiler votes by tiny but violent minorities–and mutated into a truthless looter kleptocracy. We’ve seen where such spoiler votes took Russia, Germany, China and half of Korea. Since 1972, however, libertarian parties have offered voters a peaceful, rights-respecting path back to freedom, and now function in at least 21 countries. Will 9% of US voters avail themselves of the opportunity to change history? Possibly.

Orwell wrote: “The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end.” –Through a Glass, Rosily, (Collected… V.4 p 35). If 9%–about a third of Americans able to frame concepts and make comparisons–deign to cast their vote for rights and reality, looter altruism may give way to individual rights just as the communism of pelf gave way to union goon violence and communist taxation in 1894, and ecological nationalsocialism in 2008.

This interpretation of current events in the light of historical precedent was brought to you by http://www.portugueseinterpreter.com

 

1920s Drug Fiends

Excerpted from Prohibition and the Crash, by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 18

Drug Fiends

            A five-to-four decision by the Supreme Court in Seattle’s “whispering wires” bootlegging case settled the 4th Amendment issue of wiretapping on June 4. Our highest Court on that day pronounced government skulking over phone lines legal, ethical and good.[1] The Court’s stated position in finishing the work begun with the Sullivan and Marron decisions was that the Bill of Rights was so important that only Congress—certainly not the Judicial branch—had the authority to attribute “an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment.”[2]

Thirteen Coast Guards were suspended June 2, ostensibly for accepting bribes to overlook smuggling of “liquor” from ocean liners, but that story had been suppressed for over 2 months and had developed an odor.[3] In Buffalo, June 4 was opening day for a conference between U.S. and Canadian customs officials. The meeting was organized by Assistant Treasury Secretary Seymour Lowman. This is the same Lowman, who replaced Lincoln Andrews after Andrews was forced by Elmer Irey – the heavy-artillery agent – to resign. Placed in charge of customs, Lowman’s specialties included narcotics smuggling and dismissing “dirty” agents.[4] When newsmen finally found out about this meeting nearly 3 weeks later, Secretary Andrew Mellon assured them that no railroad men had been threatened and that it “had nothing to do with prohibition or enforcement of the Volstead act.” This naturally raised suspicions about drugs, suspicions reinforced when 6 persons were shot on the floor of the Yugoslav House of Representatives. Yugoslavia was a major exporter of medical-grade opium and was reeling from widespread riots. This news hit reporters even as they tried to pry a scoop on the secret meeting from Secretary Mellon.[5]

In April 1921, the Literary Digest had run an unsigned article “Is Prohibition Making Drug Fiends?” The article raised troubling questions. The State Department understood perfectly well by 1922 that war-fed output and prohibition-enhanced smuggling facilities were thwarting all efforts at narcotics control.[6]

Repeal advocate Franklin Fabian speculated in a 1922 book that prohibition might have something to do with U.S. narcotics consumption being 6 or 7 times as high as in most European nations.[7] The very suggestion was hotly denied by prohibitionist Herman Feldman, who also denied that figures describing the true situation could be had from any source. Feldman relied on the usual apocrypha and anecdotes to shore up his beliefs, and shrugged off any hard data on arrests and convictions as proving only that enforcement was improving. Feldman’s source, a Dr. Kolb, argued that alcohol was actually a sort of gateway drug which led to narcotics use.[8] Nowhere does Feldman explain why no narcotics planks figured in U.S. political party platforms before 1924. Yet that year the Democrats—eager, of course, to exclude Asian immigration—suddenly began railing in their platform against “the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth,” while the Prohibition Party merely blinked and stood mute on the issue.[9] The sight of prisons steadily filling up with “narcotics” convicts led the Democratic Platform Committee and Herman Feldman to diametrically opposite conclusions as to why.

At prohibition hearings held during April of 1926 Congressman William S. Vare of Pennsylvania had declared the “increased use” of narcotics throughout the nation “appalling.”[10] Then on May 14, 1928, Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee reported that 28% of federal inmates were “addicts” and pushed for the Porter bill to segregate the junkies on a Kentucky “narcotics farm.”[11]

Yet the wisdom of the Harrison Act stood unchallenged even after 537 pounds of heroin and morphine were discovered in Brooklyn by New York Deputy Chief Inspector Louis J. Valentine’s staff in 1927—the year of the recent “Tong War” on U.S. soil and civil turmoil on Chinese soil.[12] Not only had alcohol prohibition increased U.S. demand for heroin and morphine, but the well-developed channels for alcohol smuggling served even better as conduits for smuggling drugs. It was probably easier to bribe a customs agent to look the other way if the agent believed that rum, not heroin, was being smuggled in.

 

[1] (NY World Almanac 1929 91)

[2] (Olmstead et al. v. U.S. 06/04/28 [465])

[3] (NYT 8/15/28 23:4)

[4] (Merz 1931 248-249)

[5] (NYT 6/22/28 31; 6/23/28 34, 52)

[6] (Taylor 1969 150)

[7] (Fabian 1922 77-80)

[8] (Feldman 1927/30 109, 113-115, 111)

[9] (Johnson and Porter 1975 246; 249)

[10] (Feldman 1927/30 101-102)

[11] (NYT 5/15/28 10)

[12] (NYT 7/1/28 14; 1/13/27 4)

Does your company ever need to come to terms with pharmaceutical suppliers south of the border? Why not hire an interpreter familiar with the history and background of many foreign products?