Winston Smith, climate data rectifier

2+2 is 4

Search Google News for Orwell

Winston clicked ‘back numbers’ on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of the NY Times. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from one issue that Comrade Gore, in his speech before the election, had predicted that the North Pole would by now be ice-free. As it happened, not even atomic-powered ice-breakers could make any headway in the frozen Northwest Passage. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of the comrade’s speech, in such a way as to make him predict something that had actually happened. Or again, another issue published the official forecasts of the output of wind generators in the fourth quarter of 2011. The real output was mostly birds, killed by the moving blades.

Fraud1999-2017

Today’s issue contained a temperature graph, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes.

This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Green Party and copied by the Democrats could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.

Winston glanced across the hall. In the corresponding cubicle on the other side a fat, doughy-looking, dark-chinned man named Schmidt was working steadily away, with a folded newspaper on his knee and his mouth very close to the mouthpiece of the speakwrite. ***

 

Orwell’s 1984 was translated into most languages and, along with Anthem and Atlas Shrugged, fatally wrecked the growth of Fabian Socialism (INGSOC), National Socialism and International Socialism. Former socialist dupe George Orwell shows how predatory altruism preys on young and superstitious victims alike, until questioned as to its values and consequences. You can help repeal the force-initiating laws stealthily inserted into our laws by making a small contribution to the Libertarian Party.

Advertisements

The Civil War tariff revolt

 

The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 involved state secession and use of force to repel attempts to collect federal customs tariffs. Nullification acquired a different shade of meaning even before the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision soon extended the reach of the Fugitive Slave Law north to the Canadian border. By 1860 Southern conservatives were complacently decrying “Nullification”–by which they meant the creation of sanctuary cities where slaves could hide.  Local authorities in the North worked only to enforce local and state laws–not to help persecute runaway slaves under odious federal jurisprudence.  

So why do government school history professors stand by and let charlatans convince the innocent that the Civil War was caused by racial collectivism? Andrew Jackson again addressed the Congress, in January 1833, regarding South Carolina’s virtual secession in a bill outlawing US customs from collecting Tariffs of Abominations.

That State Legislature first passed “An act to carry into effect, in part, an ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the United States purporting to be laws laying duties on the importation of foreign commodities,” passed in convention of this State, at Columbia, on the 24th November, 1832. The next was called “An act to provide for the security and protection of the people of the State of South Carolina.” It then passed “An act concerning the oath required by the ordinance passed in convention at Columbia on the 24th of November, 1832.” This last was an oath rejecting federal power in favor of state laws and courts. Jackson explained:

But by making it ” unlawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of the United States or of the State, to enforce the laws for the payment of duties, and declaring that all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance of the contracts made with purpose to secure the duties imposed by the said acts are and shall be held utterly null and void,” she has in effect abrogated the judicial tribunals within her limits in this respect, has virtually denied the United States access to the courts established by their own laws, and declared it unlawful for the judges to discharge those duties which they are sworn to perform.

One federal customs house was moved from from Charleston to Castle Pinckney as a “precaution,” and trusted customs agents who quit in fear could not be replaced, such was the nearness of armed confrontation.  Jackson spoke of the potential for military violence:

…the power of summoning the posse comitatus will compel, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, every man over the age of 15, and able to travel, to turn out at the call of the sheriff, and with such weapons as may be necessary; and it may justify beating, and even killing, such as may resist. The use of the Posse comitatus is therefore a direct application of force, and can not be otherwise regarded than as the employment of the whole militia force of the county, and in an equally efficient form under a different name.

Jackson made it clear that federal troops would put down the insurrection unless Congress, the courts and the Carolina legislature acted to head off the danger. This they did by lowering the “Tariff of Abominations” that had sparked the reaction. Still, all hope of stopping “protective” tariff extortion within the system was doomed thanks to Jackson’s defusing of the situation.  Colonial “Acts of Navigation” had necessitated the 1st Revolution in 1776. This revolt led Lord Dunmore to issue an Emancipation Proclamation calling slaves to arms in exchange for freedom long before Lincoln’s similar proclamation.

The Opium Wars in which Great Britain attacked Chinese cities to force repeal of the Chinese government’s ban on opium grown in British India came to resumed naval artillery attacks in 1859. At the outset of these wars, in 1837, Britain had withdrawn capital invested in the United States to gird its navy for war. The resulting contraction of capital caused America’s First Great Depression, but to this day it is inexpedient and impolite to even mention this Chinese connection.

China was again defeated and a tariff on opium imports was enacted there in January 1860 to pay reparations to her attackers. Despite professed neutrality, the US also landed military forces in China. Cause had again produced effect. Thus, in a failing economy, the Morrill protective tariff was soon being assembled in Congress. It was reported in March 1860, passed on May 10, then went dormant.

The South reacted and by September the Secretary of War had quietly facilitated southern seizure of federal weapons and facilities. After the mild and Whiggish Lincoln was elected, with three months to go before taking office, Texans raided armories and commandeered revenue ships, sparking tariff revolt elsewhere.  Capital flight and foreign adventures had wrecked the economy, and the Secretary of the Treasury resigned December 10.

South Carolina seized a federal fort, customs-house and vessels that same December. In January, with Lincoln’s inauguration still two months away, Georgia seized two federal forts and an arsenal, then commandeered a steamer. Louisiana took over three forts and the arenal at Baton Rouge as Georgia seized the arsenal at Augusta and a steamer. Then Florida commandeered navy yards and an arsenal.

The Morrill tariff was revived, the embattled Treasury began selling notes, and John Sherman made a speech about federal tariffs, fort and armories. A secession convention was convened and northerners began backing away from support for sanctuary cities by repealing the Personal Liberty bill and similar enactments. William Tecumseh Sherman calculated the effect of reverting to a revenue-only tariff, dubbed “free trade” by Morrill and other protectionists:

“Now, if the south have free trade, how can you collect revenues in the eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati, and even Pittsburg, would be about the same as by rail from New York, and importers at New Orleans, having no duties to pay, would undersell the east if they had to pay duties.”

This was what the Civil War was about–customs revenue and crony tariff protection.

Meekly disarmed colonial Brazilians had no such possibility, and imperial slavery continued there until after Cleveland’s first term–yet rabble of the looter persuasion do not order their statues torn down or accuse modern Brazilians of racial collectivism. Americana, the Confederate town founded by disaffected Johnny Rebs, holds charming square dances in gray regalia with nary a protest from unreconstructed brown audience members and participants. ALL of them are fed up with carpetbagger looter politicians and their damned taxes!  These politicians and their judges keep the Libertarian Party from forming, so locals–forced at gunpoint to vote–cast enough blank ballots to elect libertarian mayors in many major cities.

If you want Brazilian or American audiences to understand your theory on the roots of war or what causes economic depressions, you might consider hiring a degreed and accredited translator and interpreter.

Ayn Rand influence 1939

fascists, prohibitionists and mystics

See original at Google News

Books like Atlas Shrugged and 1984 aren’t exactly fiction. Their realism stems from the they way they are rooted in true life events. Worried about maniacal Lutherans and Catholics that took over Germany in an extermination pogrom against Jews, Ayn Rand penned her 1941 Letter to Innocent Fifth Columnists warning against passive acceptance of National Socialism.  This was soon after her warning in “We the Living” of the altruistic collectivism that had already turned Russia into a slave-powered extermination camp. In the “Fifth Column” story above, communists and socialists overplay their hand wreaking vengeance on fascist 5th columnists shortly before the shoe moved to the other foot, sending Marxist Workers Unification Party volunteer George Orwell fleeing for his life.

The PETITION AGAINST BEER story bares to view the economy-killing fanaticism voters rejected in favor of FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1945. In The Fountainhead, heroine Dominique Francon steers a mystical prohibitionist (Mrs Lonsdale) away from hiring architect Howard Roark, to protect his his career from ruin. In the clipping above, mystical fanatics call themselves “The Fishers of Men.” Yevgeny Zamyatin–a Russian novelist and inspiration to George Orwell and the Jefferson Starship–had died in 1937. Twenty years later Ayn Rand herself did a Hitchcock cameo in Atlas Shrugged as “the fishwife”–an individualist writer fishing for the minds of men.

If you have additional examples of how the prohibition era–in which fanatical altruist religions turned Russia into slave pen, made light beer a felony narcotic in These States, and rearmed Nazi Germany with Republican economic assistance, drop us a line.

 

 

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.

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?

Econazi Death-Worship

George Orwell may have coined the expression “death-worship.” In any case his use of it in “The Last Man In Europe”–working title for his novel “1984,” was the first I ever set eyes on. But it certainly wasn’t the last.

Ayn Rand–already famous in 1948, and well into her production of Atlas Shrugged–commented, in response to comparisons, that Orwell was a self-described socialist with whom she supposed she had little in common. In Orwell’s phraseology the thing emerged thus:

In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. … The new movements which appeared in the middle years of the century, Ingsoc in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia, Death-Worship, as it is commonly called, in Eastasia, had the conscious aim of perpetuating unfreedom and inequality. … But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment.

Ayn Rand was Orwell’s junior by two years, and the world they observed was contemporaneous. He went to Spain to do battle with Christian fascism. Ayn’s family struggled against the starvation inevitably resulting from Bolshevik asset-forfeiture expropriation and laws against trade and production in Russia. She escaped to America. Both writers watched and described the exact same altruist dictatorships. Ayn Rand’s description of the Soviet as a continent-sized death camp in “We the Living” meshes perfectly with Markoosha Fisher’s “My Lives in Russia” in everything but spin and slant. Both Russian women agreed on the facts–the nouns–but interpreted their meaning with antithetical adjectives. Fisher produced pro-Soviet propaganda for a U.S. market eager to find some virtue in the International Socialist government with which America was then allied against Germany’s National Socialist Government.

There is no shortage of critics who absolutely despise Ayn Rand–or her ideas. But not a single one of them can answer a simple question about what three normative statements make up the bulk of her teachings; nor do they mention what she considered as the standard of value for differentiating good from evil (which, like Mencken, she identified as right v. wrong).

But Orwell had an explanation for that too…

The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense.

Now you see where this is going. Herbert Hoover’s Moratorium on Brains, the Nuclear Freeze & Surrender and No Nukes movements, The New Left as Anti-Industrial precursors to today’s Econazi Global Warm-mongering movement. All of these manifestations of currish, fawning worship of totalitarian mass-murder régimes are nothing more or less than the worship of death none of Ayn Rand’s critics dare to identify. Yet an understanding of the causal connection with coercive totalitarianism absolutely required for the practice of altruism provides the key to comprehending today’s rioting looters and the popularity of the latest styles in Mohammedan suicide-vests.

Their irrational appeals to settled science, their constant invocation of altruism, their contrivance of imaginary “problems” that admit of no solution other than totalitarian dictatorships–all of these policies can only arise out of blind commitment to the worship of death itself as the be-all and end-all touchstone standard of values in which the freedom to live your life is the evil thing that must be curtailed–as at Auschwitz. Sound farfetched? Here is a graph from a blog put up by another lady who is nobody’s fool. It too shows that the thing climate Cassandras are working toward is the heat death of the civilization that defeated looter kleptocracy in 1945 and 1992.

Freezing in the Dark

Blue bars are mortality from cold, see:  Moderate Cold Kills

So there you have it. Intellectuals of the looter persuasion hate the ideas of Ayn Rand yet cannot bring themselves to identify and confront them head on. Instead they zoom in on tangential irrelevancies and organize attacks on her personal self.  See examples of this devious cowardice here, here, here and here.

Both Ayn Rand and George Orwell and their readers are keenly interested in how millions could be brainwashed into the literal worship of death as the standard for their code of ethics.** Yet sneering illiterati who claim to disagree, are eager to talk about anything but that! But to strike at the root of her philosophical teachings, they would have to identify their own values. Why not hit her where it hurts? Identify up front the ideas she actually espoused: that man must choose his values and actions by reason; that the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force. Those are the three main ideas, yet they might as well be invisible to wanabee non-aggression deniers.

On these three points and these three points alone is there any real controversy about Ayn Rand’s ideas. A competently written rebuttal would at least attempt to show that each of these ideas is wrong, evil, socially dangerous. Anyone sweeping together a dustpan load of irrelevant cheap shots, personal attacks, and shopworn smears–will accomplish nothing in the way of shutting down power plants and setting up that socialist dictatorship. What will their fellow travelers think of such lack of zeal?

** Ethics is a code of values to guide our choices and actions. It relies on a fundamental standard, a compass that points toward eudaimonia, the good, and away from suffering and death, or evil.

Should you ever need an interpreter able to see through the cant well enough to make out the underlying meaning, look me up.