MEMBERSHIP DRIVE-BYS

The webcomic to end all webcomics

Sinfest, by Tatsuya Ishida–no holds barred!

MEMBERSHIP DRIVE-BYs: PLATFORM PLANKS & RESOLUTIONS adopted by infiltrators and useful idiots to drive away voters and supporters.

These abound in political organizations. In Republican documents, lurid reefer madness propaganda and calls to arms for Girl-Bullying Amendment (ver. 8.0) are examples. Among Democrats, shrill misquotations of evasive pseudoscientific Doublespeak and mournful cries for new and higher taxes fill the bill. Both sclerotic looter gerontocracies with only coercion to offer seek to terrify voters by casting “the other” party’s candidate as the incarnation of Satan in cloven hooves. Ah! But this is what enables Libertarian spoiler votes to maneuver those parasites into letting go of their most obnoxious laws!

Are you between these two forms of socialism?

Either-or Left-And-Right Socialism

To traditional looter kleptocracies, a key to enabling collectivism to keep on coercing is binary either-or framing: communist or fascist, left or right, Trumpista or Antifa! They NEVER publicly acknowledge the law-changing power of outside-party, neither-nor spoiler votes. This they water down by declaring themselves centrists, moderates, or some linear miscegenation of part-Hitlerite part-Stalinist policymakers–at least in America. 

Observe that U.S. looters focus on the job-seeking competition as the embodiment of absolute Evil and struggle to evade mention of law-changing libertarian spoiler votes. But the LP vote share is nevertheless increasing in hockey-stick acceleration! What’s a wilting Kleptocracy to do?

LPvotescurve16

Even looters know that ignoring a problem does not make it go away. To them, a way must again be found to cause the Libertarian Party to make really dumb mistakes–fritter away what money it can raise–and so alienate voters as to make us look bad even compared to The Kleptocracy! There’s a tall order…

The GOP and Dems would be careless indeed not to again infiltrate and sabotage the LP as they did in the 1980s. So how about treacherously poisoning our decision-making process? Here is another of the latest such efforts passed by the Libertarian National Committee:

Whereas, the plurality voting election method is the weakest voting method and a deeply flawed way of electing government representatives and officers; and Whereas, there are many alternatives to plurality elections, many of which have strong advocates promoting their specific benefits, and it is generally accepted by experts and advocates alike that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system, but each of these alternative systems is generally regarded as being superior to plurality elections; and (scolding cant omitted…)
Therefore, be it resolved, the Libertarian National Committee is committed to the widespread adoption and implementation of alternative voting methods to replace plurality voting elections.

Normal voting has been the American system for over two centuries. If it’s bad, then why is it that so many people seek to flee here that there is a movement afoot to build a wall to keep them out? The US Constitution stipulates the weakest voting system? By what standard, or compared to where? Generally regarded by whom?

There are exactly six (06) “preferential” collectivized vote countries (the same as the number of communist countries if you include Venezuela):
Australia (forced to vote at gunpoint, suffers rolling Blackouts; Only 12% of Australians enjoy being forced to vote in their collectivist system, and 19% consider it unfair),
Ireland (finally repealed 35 years of constitutionally coerced reproduction in May 2018–by normal 2/3 vote restoring individual rights for women),
New Zealand, (population similar to Alabama’s, with no LP)
Northern Ireland (there’s your ideal political State!),
Scotland (mystical girl-bullying laws eroding slowly), and
Malta (Comstock law birth control bans. A “libertarian” club with an antichoice GOP poster-child).

Of these 6 “superior” countries, only Ireland unequivocally recognizes the individual rights of women.

So if the idea is a Catholic or Mohammedan theocracy, or an anti-industrial revolution, only then does gauntlet-glob voting look better than that in the Constitution of These States. Individual reproductive rights for women are impaired in 5 of these 6 countries. Observe also that there are no swarms of refugees trying to get into these six easily-gulled countries, or the six communist countries. Of people who vote with their feet, 97% prefer elsewhere

Not so fast! Libertarians are comfortable with 3% of the vote repealing bad laws that once coerced 100%. And we’re no more popular with the Great Brainwashed than the communists were before they put the Income Tax into the Constitution. Perhaps there is some hidden advantage to collectivized gang-votes? Is there an upside for 3rd parties that only the LNC, in its majestic ideality, was able to perceive?

There are none better than the Australians to defenestrate THAT pipe-dream. Australians clearly state: 

3. It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

That anything this dumb can pass in the LNC is evidence of gross mismanagement and self-deception. Ask yourself: Is this likely to rally voters to our candidates? Cause thinking people to join and pay dues? Attract donations from intellectually honest individuals? Not from what I’ve seen lately.


Objectively Orwellian language

For transparently clear translations!
Don’t miss my foreign blog…

Advertisements

The Vigilante Execution plank

Superstition requires initiation of force

Dry Killers and Prohibitionist Executioners?

After the LP earned a 328% increase in vote share in the 2016 election, the initiation-of-force parties had to find some way to turn voters against us.

The method adopted, as in 1982 and 1986, appears to be the injection of platform planks and resolutions guaranteed to drive way voters. No amount of donations or contributions can overcome such sabotage, the past effect of which was to freeze the growth of the Libertarian Party’s vote share for nearly 30 years. Here is another such plank:

1.8 We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

It does NOT say “we” are opposed to the death penalty for deadly crimes. Nor does it contradict Republican efforts to institute a death sentence for plant leaves. It most certainly does not follow from the Non-Aggression Principle. That agreement’s author, Ayn Rand, was not an abolitionist of capital punishment. She simply argued that robbing the innocent to house and feed murderers was no improvement. In fact, the NAP was written while our Government of Occupation was busily trying, hanging and shooting genocidal war criminals in Europe and Asia.

Nor is the plank a proposal for letters of marque against amok and berserker terrorists. Those are already in the Constitution (Article I section 8) near the power to repel invasions. The LP needs add no plank demanding something that is already in the Constitution all officeholders are sworn to uphold.

What the plank means is that “we” libertarians prefer vigilantes extrajudicially putting people to death rather than judicial killings of dangerous criminals by officers of the law, courts and penal system.

Is this a wise plank that will attract the support of voters?  

Before you answer, ask yourself if the plank shouts to the world that “we” are useful idiots or communist anarchists.

Visit my expats blog.

For every action force…

...curse, when first we practice to coerce!

…there is an equal but opposite reaction force. –Isaac Newton

Since the Republican Party’s Comstock Laws of 1873 crashed the economy while making a chain-gang offense of so much as talking about birth control, mystical Republicans have marveled at the uppity reactions of the women so coerced. Women, you see, had no enforcement of their right to vote in 1873.

Womens’ right to vote was finally enforced by the 19th Amendment, and by 1932 women–especially the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform–exercised that suffrage to throw Hooverville-generating prohibitionism out of the saddle and into the ditch for five elections in a row. One hundred years after the Comstock Laws banned ALL birth control (including condoms, diaphragms and pamphlets describing the rhythm method), the 1972 Libertarian Party plank:

“We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”

suddenly became the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision ordering men with guns to start backing away from pregnant women and their doctors:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

Republican and Prohibition Party attempts to rewrite the Constitution, bring back Comstock laws, infiltrate the LP.org and force women into involuntary labor have garnered nearly enough votes to threaten the Libertarian Party plank that is Roe v Wade. These coercive pressures engendered an almost Newtonian reaction to the attempted initiation of force. Fully half of U.S. voters in 2016 supported planks to tax, prohibit and hobble energy generation. This is coercion every bit as ignorant, superstitious and drastic as Republican attempts to create new legislation to single out and bully women–calling them selfish. Surprised?

So shall ye reap!

As ye sow…

German voters in 1933 supported planks to tax, deport, disarm, disenfranchise and bully everyone they imagined might be selfish by birth. They too were surprised when bombs rained down–some 15 of which bombs are even NOW being found every day in German soil. Their Christian altruist politicians, officers and leaders were just as surprised when dropping trapdoors tightened nooses about their throats at Nuremberg–in accordance with international law and Newton’s law involving mass and acceleration.

If you need surprising news translated, get in touch.
See my foreign language blog.

Who defeated Hillary Clinton?

In a Reason article by Cathy Young, American women are depicted as angry because “the expected victory of America’s first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women’s genitals.” This, I’ll wager, is absolutely wrong. Hillary was defeated by her own platform committee–to the joy and delight of Antichoice televangelists, Dixiecrats and mystical fanatics in general.

Pedants and mystics have since 1945 bemoaned their impression that “our moral progress” hasn’t kept up with our technological progress. And through and beyond 1948 many nations busily captured, tried, shot, hanged and imprisoned the Christian National Socialists responsible for the World War and their government’s genocidal efforts to exterminate all persons even somewhat Jewish. Mendelian genetics at the time caused Germans to presume there is a gene for selfishness. Their industrialized murdering was their effort to make the world safe for altruism. Only Ayn Rand realized during the Nuremberg Trials that altruism is the problem–the ethical error that breeds self-deception and undermines rationality. That error was adopted within and amplified by These United States.

True, Communists were horrified at Ayn Rand’s depiction of their ideal, but National Socialists in These Sovereign States and dominions were just as shocked, appalled and resentful as the communists, for theirs is the same ideal. After all, both parties to the Hitler-Stalin Pact regarded themselves as the real altruists, and the other as the impostor. Since 1957 considerable resources of nazified American political parties and the now-defunct Soviet Union have poured into the problem of trying to make “that woman’s” ethical framework go away. Moral progress is what the Kleptocracy is against!

Christian altruism and communist altruism, one and the same

William Shatner and Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg, 1961

It’s working. Hostile infiltrators have caused the Libertarian Party–the party whose 1972 platform is the key verbiage in the Roe v. Wade decision–to impale itself on suicidal planks since its 2016 victory. But similar infiltration by nationalsocialist fanatics first led the Democratic Party to adopt suicidal planks. The party that once elected JFK is now reduced to attacking and weakening America’s economy, defensive capacity and energy infrastructure in preparation for attack by a communist dictatorship that has already collapsed. Pseudoscience elevated to superstitious hysteria wrote those planks, defeated Hillary Clinton, and now endangers the individual rights Libertarians managed to secure for women since that 1972-73 court case.

Men have no business voting on birth control

 

Republicans are no less guilty. Their party created the Comstock Laws, then copied communist taxation and mystical prohibitionism until it was able to completely destroy the economy from 1929 through 1933, then repeated the process in 1987, and again with gusto in 2008. So OF COURSE the Democrats won, and began pushing a Soviet socialist agenda as avidly as the GOP pushed a Nationalsocialist, Comstock Law, prohibitionism and asset-forfeiture agenda until the collapse resulted.

In 2016 the GOP had to hire a former Democrat to defend its platform eschewing a Carbon Tax and de-industrialization, and heartily defending electric power generation and transmission. The prohibitionist mystical bigots they ran in 2008 and 2012 were rejected by voters just as prohibition-weary voters rejected Hoover, Landon, Willkie and Dewey. The Dems–already compromised by lay looter altruism–were induced to promise to strangle electrical generation and impose a carbon tax on the air we breathe. Whoever wrote those planks defeated the Dems, not Donald Trump. Trump (who I do not support) has turned out way less fanatical a prohibitionist, and far less inclined to coerce women and doctors in order to ban birth control than any Republican in recent memory. This is due in part to the millions of libertarian spoiler votes cast in support of individual rights for women.

Women have met the enemy, and that enemy sits on the Republican, Democratic, and sometimes (it hurts to admit this) Libertarian platform committees.

Do you need audiobook recordings of Gordon D. Shirreffs novels? Translation of laws or interpreting of political speeches?

Vote Repellent

Alabama and Louisiana both gave their electoral votes to George Wallace’s platform of de jure racial segregation and forcing women to reproduce in 1968. In the 2016 election both States went heavily for the party with the platform most resembling the Dixiecrats’ racial collectivism and planks urging the initiation of force against women and physicians.

Alabama gave the Republican Party a 15% overkill victory, and netted the Libertarian ticket 36% fewer votes than the reported national average. Libertarian votes there amounted to only one-seventh the amount needed to cover the gap between the two Kleptocracy parties. Alabama plainly needed seven times the libertarian voter turnout to qualify for message-sending, law-changing spoiler vote clout status in the rough-and-tumble earning of respect as a force to be reckoned with in George Wallace territory.

Louisiana voters handed antichoice prohibitionist Republicans an 11% lead over the other looters, and dismissed Libertarian candidates even more brutally than Independent American Party fans in Alabama. The LP ticket there got 42% fewer votes than we earned on average in These Sovereign States.  That’s less than an eighth the turnout needed for the law-changing spoiler vote status that forces Kleptocracy parties to drop cruel planks to keep from losing perks, paychecks and political power. 

Commies for McGovern!

Message: The Libertarian Party demands uninspected entry of strangers!

So where would you look to recruit false-flag infiltrators to make libertarians look like the kind of fools that have never read the Constitution, worked under oath or even bothered to learn the definition of government, rights or law?

Here is the text of a “resolution” sent to the National LP by persons claiming to represent what few libertarians voted for our unadulterated 2016 platform in those states:

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Alabama believes that the only proper role of law is in the protection of the natural rights of individuals from the initiation of force or fraud;

WHEREAS, no individual has a natural right to prohibit consensual visitation to or consensual habitation on the private property of another individual;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party believes that eminent domain is a violation of private property rights;

WHEREAS, we affirm the right of individuals to set whatever standards they wish for entry onto their own private property but not that owned by others;

WHEREAS, we believe that all individuals have the same natural rights regardless of their citizenship;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party acknowledges that economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama condemns and opposes efforts to build a governmental border wall.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama supports open borders.

Maybe it’s not brazen sabotage at all. Perhaps open borders means what the US currently has: ports of entry at which travelers may produce visas and inoculation documents and be inspected by Americans against lists of persons known to be violent or dangerous–as in the LP Migration plank before it was gutted by Platform Committee personnel AFTER our record-setting capture of national spoiler-clout status. But what would be the point of that? Indeed, what was the point of damaging the plank to make voters perceive it as an enticement to uninspected entry? What better way is there to repel voters than setting us up as anarchists aiding and abetting reckless endangerment?

Would it not be more honest to say that they who presume to speak for those scarce LP voters want uninspected entry to not be a deportable offense? That would be easily understood as pressure to change federal law. Pitifully hopeless pressure, true enough, from states that were utterly lacking in libertarian spoiler votes even when our platform was mostly sensible–but clear enough to understand as a demand from Whitney Bilyeu, Thomas Knapp, Alex Merced and C.A. Harlos that any and everyone walk or climb right in. Even the locust-swarm of illiterates that recently attempted uninspected entry at the California stretch of the U.S. border at least had the courage to say what it is they figure the world owes them. 

For clear and accurate simultaneous interpreting of Latin American news, legislation, contracts or court cases, get in touch.

 

Koerner fallacy v. Winning

Same smear tactics the kleptocracy used on the LP.org

Small Human Rights Party ad placed before the LP plank legalized women’s rights. See Original

Surrounding every small party dedicated to change–for better or worse–is a fog of panhandlers eager to bleed off donations. Those donations would otherwise go to the gatherers of leveraged, law-changing spoiler votes. FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education fits the profile for one of these panhandlers.

Robin Koerner is a British-born recent convert to the USA. Like McAfee, a likable noob to whom the LP “owed” the nomination the same year he joined, Koerner has “answers.” But Koerner’s pitch is based on appallingly false, misleading and irrelevant suppositions. Foremost among these is Koerner’s view that ethics, law, history, economics and politics don’t matter, but pop psychologizing by an altruist from fascist Spain does. For guidance Koerner looks to a Franco-era mystical looter to whom life “is cosmic realization of altruism” (Ortega y Gasset, 2012:73). The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, asks us to sign a disavowal of fascist-style aggression. The disavowal was written by Ayn Rand in February of 1947. (Letters of Ayn Rand p. 366) That was back when altruistic fascist and nazi collaborators in Europe were kind of scarce because so many had been hanged by their former victims!

Koerner’s is the thinking of marketing people in Dilbert cartoons. Koerner also believes grinning candidates matter–not platforms, that you should emulate whiners and that the medium is the message. Sound familiar?
The premise–at least the part dense enough to identify–confuses a likable and successful single-issue lobby like UKIP with a political party. The conclusion is Koerner’s assertion that “…psychology must be the focus of any political party that is serious about doing what it is formed to do—which is win elections.”  UKIP won because Brits finally understood that Brexit is the antonym of Anschluss! Having felt the familiar sensation of losing on their hides, Europeans now grasp the meaning of winning! Winning is ditching coercion and gaining freedom.

It takes one to know one?

Like any huckster, this one is attracted to marks, suckers, losers “despondent because 47 years says that your guy never gets elected.” The error is that the LP is not in business to support pop-psych cheerleaders or manufacture paycheck politicians. For 47 years the LP has changed hundreds of laws and policies so as to reduce the initiation of force. We WIN this progress with the law-changing clout of principled spoiler votes. We win because the looters that ignore us get beaten by looters less coercive.

In its first campaign year the LP wrote the content the Supreme Court used in Roe v Wade to kill coathanger abortion laws. Does Koerner mention this? Democrats sure as hell don’t, but Republicans and Prohibition Party hucksters immediately drew up Constitutional Amendments to overturn Roe v Wade. To them the good old days were when a mail order diaphragm was cause for ten years in prison. They are STILL writing and pushing amendments to force women into involuntary labor.

Remember the draft? Napalming children in ‘Nam? Dixiecrats bombing prayer meetings? Middle East invasions and Bush bawling for the death sentence for marijuana? All of those things felt the chill from fewer than 4000 spoiler votes and one electoral vote counted in December of 1972. Today we cast 4 MILLION such votes. Here’s what the logistics substitution curve fit looks like:

The LP is on track to earn 50% of the vote by 2075.

Fisher-Pry curves show democracy replacing monarchy as coal & oil replaced wood

Prohibitionists with 1.4% of the vote (assisted by venal and cowardly looter politicians) passed the 18th Amendment and Marxist income tax which wrecked the economy and brought the Great Depression. This is the power of spoiler votes cast in support of a principled (albeit idiotic) stand. All we need do is let voters know that the button next to the ones they’ve been pushing will speed up the rate at which violent laws are repealed so that freedom replaces coercion and prosperity replaces debt. We are not despondent. We are winning every election. All four looter parties are shrivelling. The growing LP record of vote share fits a logistical substitution curve that indicates the LP (or its policies) should have half the total votes by 2075.

Koerner’s whole message is designed to obfuscate that crucial point and lead confused customers down a blind alley. That the alley is full of muggers, pickpockets and predators is not news. The Human Rights Party–organized shortly before the LP (see top of this page)–found out the hard way. Its organizers knew nothing of the meaning of government or freedom, the nature of rights or the language of money! They are extinct, but the Libertarian Party is thriving despite the “help” of “friends” like Koerners and FEEs.

hank phillips

If in need of simultaneous interpreting of the sort that made the Nuremberg trials of National Socialist war criminals possible, hire a Portugueseinterpreter. For general Latin American public faith translations visit Speakwrite.
My other blog is Brazilian.

Left and Right Phantasms

altruism, collectivism, coercion

National Socialist platform word cloud

European speech habits place altruistic Soviet communism on the “left” of a line with no dimensions, and altruistic German nationalsocialism on the “right”. The only measurable difference between the two is the relative amount of praise/contempt each has for mystical notions of gods & demons, churches, revealed faith and invisible miracles that defy physics. Both credos define altruism (the benefit of others instead of oneself) as the standard of goodness and sacrifice (betrayal of values) as commendable. None of the “left” and “right” jargon shortcuts became widespread before 1932. Why?

Small wonder, then, that Libertarians who assume none of that, regard the one-dimensional distance distinction much like a Lineland, foreign to reality. Yet the denizens of the said Lineland have completely lost sight of the crucial, so to speak, distinction between the 20th Century Left&Right and its 19th Century predecessors. Most Germans and Americans are indoctrinated from birth to believe that altruism (the common good over the individual good) is good, and that selfishness (concern primarily with one’s own life) is bad.

Here’s how German journalist Karl Marx put politics and religion in 1843:

In Germany no one is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How then could we liberate you? You Jews are egoists if you demand for yourselves, as Jews, a special emancipation. … The political state, in relation to civil society, is just as spiritual as is heaven in relation to earth. On the Jewish Question, 1843.

Here is how Adolf Hitler published his view in the National Socialist Platform of 1920:

The party as such subscribes to a positive Christianity without binding itself to a specific denomination. It opposes the Jewish materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery can only come about from within based on the principle: THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.

U.S. President Herbert Hoover, Quaker enforcer of National Prohibition who referred to laissez-faire as dog-eat-dog, declared on  March 10, 1930:

The idea that the Republic was created for the benefit of the individual is a mockery that must be eradicated at the first dawn of understanding. (Hoover 1930 1976 p89)

We see then that the communist view is of government itself as god or religion. The nationalsocialist view is of a socialist nation of christians. Republicans who elected Hoover were clearly at least as opposed to egoism, individualism, ownlife, selfishness or independence as Hitler and Marx, who themselves differ mainly on whether government is god or simply god’s handmaid. Yet todays politicans and shriekers of political dogma claim that there is a straight, dimensionless line such that Marxist communism is at one far extreme, Hitlerite national socialism at another, and Herbert Hoover’s prohibitionism somewhere in between, on the yellow stripe, closer to where they say YOU belong. But if freedom were divisible into individual and economic, and mixed economy mavens could be for or against either, there would have to result four category areas–much like a Venn diagram–with only the top and bottom squares containing any integrity at all.

freedom, objectivity, reason, individuality, self-respect at top

Nolan chart compiled from the above original documents, plus Ayn Rand’s non-aggression principle

Libertarians, who regard freedom as indivisible, and individual rights as natural, do not fit anywhere on this strip. Why? Because to totalitarians any system that offers more freedom than theirs is, ipso facto anarchism, which, again, is communism, in a perfectly circular argument with no dimensions meaning, sense, values or definitions–only an imaginary, notional gradient. Nameless experts describe that as a sensible plan for comparing what politics and law are all about, with no standard of comparison included.

jhpdotcom

If you require translation or writing that makes objective sense visit Speakwrite.
My other blog is in a different language.