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 the connection between the 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.

The LIB for Liberal gambit

Randal Paul–Son of Ron and survivor of the Bernie Sanders Volunteer Killing Fields gunfight–is tolerated by God’s Own Prohibitionists as handy bait and a false flag lure for libertarian defection; he is a useful Libertarian impersonator.

Randal’s function is to lure wavering mystics away from the LP and into the rights-destroying  mob he himself reinforced with his vote for Anointed General Beauregard Sessions, the new Prohibition Czar. The strategy is a variant on the 1932 tactic of suddenly calling communist looters “liberals.” To visualize how odd this is, here is how liberal is defined in the dictionary on my Apple computer:

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Need I remind the reader that freedom (in a political context) means freedom from coercion? Anyone can search Google News Archives and see that Liberal meant something akin to Libertarian before the summer of 1932. The stratagem arose in the Corn-Sugar Belt as the Prohibition Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists knelt before the guillotine of the November elections. The Liberal Party in its 1931 platform gave mystical bigots short shrift:

The Liberal Party aims at the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, because that society, suppressing the social and political rights of Jews, Catholics, and Negroes, is a foul vulture that is eating the heart out of the body politic; and when it was in its greatest power it continued to enroll new thousands in its membership through the encouragement which Mr. Ford gave to its propaganda with his senseless campaign of libel against the Jews.

Henry Ford and the Klan were pillars of prohibition enforcement, completely immune to rational thought or objective facts. Actual Liberals were organized by Carnegie Institute regulars, captains of industry, railroad presidents, college teachers, steamship officials, bankers, merchants, authors, journalists, publishers, labor leaders, and statesmen in the Steel Belt, not corn farmers, distillers or glucose magnates.

Drys want men with guns to shoot people over alcohol, and conservatives are drys against repeal or relegalization. Wets–mostly meaning liberals–wanted nobody with a gun banning the production, sale and transportation of beer, wine, sauerkraut or liquor in 1932, or hemp, LSD, peyote or mushrooms today. By 1932, wet was the freak flag of liberals against the initiation of force. Mrs Pauline Sabin explained how the former slur became a mark of distinction.

Liberals sought repeal of Republican and Mohammedan Sharia prohibition and blue laws the mystical autocracy had imported from the Mohammedan Middle East. The Liberal Party platform of 1931 explicitly repudiated communism. The rest of their platform could have been written by low-tariff, prohibition repeal liberals in Ontario. Their pre-election propaganda in America, however, was stinging.

The Liberal Party wet plank had already been added to the Democratic platform, and the Dems then won five (05) elections in a row. Today’s mystical prohibitionists hope to trick illiterate voters into thinking “commies” when they see the LIB on the ballots. Make no mistake; the Libertarian party platform is the antithesis of imported communism or Germany’s religious nationalsocialist dictatorship. People who speak of left and right really want communism or nazionalsocialismus. Libertarians seek to protect the constitution from the tendentious initiation of force no government can afford to indulge in this 72nd year of the nuclear era.

Are you surprised to learn that a libertarian-style party existed and wrote the plank for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Interpreters have to think outside the box to mediate between languages and cultures.

 

 

Independence During Prohibition

pre-libertarian repeal

Chicago Tribune, 5 July 1931. The top step says Less Graft

1931 was the year the Liberal Party published its platform rejecting socialism, welfare and the dole and calling for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and all Blue Laws. This pre-libertarian party’s platform provided the framework for the repeal plank that got Democrats elected five times running.

The cartoon was published 86 years ago, but only 41 years before the libertarian party formed. Because they themselves lacked the courage to stand up to the Klan and other empires of murderous mysticsm, Republicans in 1932 began pronouncing “liberal” the way German National Socialists pronounced it–expectorated with a hiss, the same way they pronounced “Jew.” Then again, freedom is not at all popular among National Socialists.

It’s a pity the Democratic Party platform committee has been entirely taken over by ecological national socialists. Those worthies are far more preoccupied with an Aryan model of purity; not Aryan purity, mind you, but environmental purity with transfer payments from producers to non-producers. The Liberal Party was not collectivist and eschewed coercive solutions.

Do you ever need translations of environmental laws and regulations written in Portuguese or Spanish? I also translate lawsuits and contracts, and interpret depositions and full-blown hearings.

Economic Collapse, July 1930

Prohibition caused Depression

Chicago Tribune 17NOV1930

The stock market crash of 1929 marked the realization that prohibition laws would soon destroy the US economy and banking system. By mid-1930, financial collapse was so well underway that the old prohibition enforcement districts were redrawn to conform closely to existing Federal Reserve districts. This change took effect on July 1, 1930, the month Cook County Assessor Gene G. Oliver was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $12,500 by Judge Woodward in Chicago.

Here is a breakdown of the districts.

The transfer of the prohibition enforcement activity from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice under the Williamson Act took place on July 1, 1930, under the Bureau of Industrial Alcohol in the Treasury Department, retained the duty of issuing permits for the manufacture and use of alcohol and other intoxicating liquor for non-beverage purposes, and of supervising the activities of the permitees.  The 27 prohibition districts hitherto existing were rearranged into 12 new districts, with boundaries corresponding in some measure with the 10 judicial circuits.  (Misdirection! The districts were a nearly perfect fit to the Federal Reserve Districts–tr)

1. Boston: Maine, N. Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, R. Island, Connecticut
2. New York: New York State and Porto Rico
3. Philadelphia: New Jersey; Pennsylvania, Delaware
4. Richmond: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, N. Carolina, South Carolina, DC.
5. New Orleans: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas.
6. Cincinnati: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee
7. Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin.
8. St. Paul: Minnesota, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska.
9. Kansas City: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma.
10. Denver: Arizona, Colorado, N. Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.
11. San Francisco: California, Nevada, Hawaii.
12. Seattle: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Alaska.
Source: NY World Almanac 1931 p 36

That same day, the Bank of Winter Park, Florida, closed its doors. As prohibition asset-forfeiture confiscations continued, many other banks would close. The Liberal Party, formed in 1930, published a plank in 1931 calling for the repeal of blue laws and the Prohibition Amendment. The Democratic Party copied this plank in the summer of 1932–in the middle of a major banking panic–and went on to win the election in November. That is s demonstration of the law-changing clout of libertarian party spoiler votes. By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn in as president in March of 1933, every bank in the nation had already closed its doors.

If you are disappointed not to have learned this in school, join the crowd. But be sure to choose a financial and accounting translator who won’t overlook things and cause added disappointment.