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.

Advertisements

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.

 

World Health Organization killers

Remember this argument? “We can’t stop arresting people for plant leaves; the country would lose its membership in the World Health Organization!” Yet when you visit the WHO website, there is no FAQ, paragraph or line in evidence about how wonderful it is for taxation to send men with guns to shoot and arrest teenagers and minority citizens as an example to would-be plant leaf aficionados. Portugal, Uruguay and Mexico–now joined by Canada, have decriminalized plant leaves. Women just recently achieved individual rights in Ireland! Yet there is little mention of these facts in the looter press or soi disant “World” organizations.

But the disinformation is still there in Animal Farm format: plant leaves baaad! The altruistic reader, however, is now expected to independently conclude: therefore weaponized prohibition goood! The conditioning method more closely resembles what Aldous Huxley wrote while living in Fascist Italy than the methods his student Eric Arthur Blair included in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  To induce politicians to order police to “regrettably” shoot our children, these tax-subsidized bureaucrats publish the following propaganda:

Chronic health effects of cannabis use (propaganda alert!)

  • selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
  • prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
  • development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
  • cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
  • epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
  • airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
  • heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
  • cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
  • cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

The health consequences of cannabis use in developing countries are largely unknown beacuse (their spelling) of limited and non-systematic research, but there is no reason a priori to expect that biological effects on individuals in these populations would be substantially different to what has been observed in developed countries. However, other consequences might be different given the cultural and social differences between countries. (end propaganda alert)

Do the brainwashers apologize for the thousands of persons zealously shot to death? for the tens of thousands of man-years of prison sentences imposed? for the economic collapse brought about when prohibitionist asset-forfeiture raids on banks, brokerages, homes and automobiles cause money to flee into hiding, thereby contracting the money supply into liquidity crises? Not a word about that. The formula is the cowardly smear-by-association exemplified in Atlas Shrugged:

She saw at a glance what they (the State Science Institute) had done. She saw the sentences: “It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted. . . . The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted. . . . Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out.

The same sort of superstitious innuendo serves as pretext for the initiation of deadly force against anything suspected of bringing a smile to someone’s face or being of some utility to the living of their own lives. The World Health Organization–like all products of National or International Socialist coercion–is haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

For certified translations from Spanish and Portuguese visit.

 

Dawn’s Early Light

By Dawn’s Early Light was a Cold War propaganda movie. Much of the contest between Communism and Religious Mercantilism played out in movies. Amerika and Red Dawn were stories about These States occupied by godless commie invaders eager to rape blonde, freckled Iowa girls and steal everything not nailed down–like in Berlin in 1945. Tools and manipulees of the looter persuasion shrieked like Body Snatchers whenever one of the regulated networks aired something critical of the Soviet Altruria. Retaliation took the form of surrender movies like The Day After, Countdown to Looking Glass, Threads

Yet nuclear-tipped Soviet Altruria was falling apart, with real danger that some faction might attack These States hoping the lightning sword of Justice and the SAC might smite their internal rivals. The plot in By Dawn’s Early Light was a flip-around of Dr Strangelove laced with Pascal’s Wager. The message in all these movies was that defeating altruism–or rather, the more consistently altruistic of two antagonists–is evil, wrong, socially suicidal–so you should surrender instead.

The same tactic was repeated when Donald Trumps Republicans won the 2016 election. Democrats could not understand how anyone would prefer to have electric power to ending up like Puerto Rico. So in the lame-duck interregnum–after the vote missiles were already launched but had not yet separated from their second stage electoral votes–the Democratic party and CPUSA ran Nixon-law-subsidized commercials urging electors to switch votes the way Roger MacBride had done in 1972 for the Libertarian Party back when we had but 4000 voters.

Of course the scam backfired. Way more Democrat electors defected from voting for Bill Clinton’s wife than defected from voting for The Don, but the pattern, the meme that repeats itself, is the thing to notice. One woman made unverifiable allegations at Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, and the same thing happened again just recently. Though not a supporter of the Republican party, the recent hearings looked like a teevee rerun to me.

If you need political material translated, look us up.
Blog for brasileiros

Divide and Conquer

Totalitarians and Libertarians understand that freedom is indivisible. Those that value it seek to preserve it intact, and those that despise it try to extirpate it root and branch. Yet there are many who struggle to evade this realization. A single example will suffice.

16 Then came there two women, Equality and Faith, that were voters, unto the Chancellor, and stood before him, one on his Left and the other on his Right

17 And the leftmost woman, Equality said, O my lord, I and this woman Faith dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child, named Sharing, with her in the house.

18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.

19 And this woman’s child, named Righteousness, died in the night; because she overlaid it.

20 And she arose at midnight, and took my Sharing from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child, Righteousness, in my bosom.

21 And when I rose in the morning to give my Sharing suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my Sharing, which I did bear.

22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my Righteousness, and the dead is thy Sharing. And this said, No; but the dead is thy Righteousness, and the living is my Sharing. Thus they spake before the Chancellor.

23 Then said the Chancellor, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

24 And the Chancellor said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the Chancellor.

25 And the Chancellor said, we must compromise. Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

26 Then spake both women and said, Let this be settled by unselfish compromise, the common good before the individual good, and divide it, for half of Sharing or Righteousness is better than none at all. Any other view is unequal and extreme

27 Then the Chancellor answered: divide the child in half.

28 But another woman, Liberty, protested this was monstrous, saying Equality had no more just power to deprive Faith of her precious child than Faith had to deprive Equality of hers. Then all three turned to Liberty. The Chancellor told her she was not invited to the debate–and the child was cut in half.

29 And all Germany heard of the judgment which theChancellor had judged; and they feared theChancellor: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment with integrity, as in the Twenty-Five Points, and that he would relentlessly seek the implementation of these points, if necessary at the cost of their lives.

Totalitarians (no rights or freedom) & Libertarians (yes rights & freedom) are consistent

Mixed economy advocates (yellow) believe freedom is divisible

I hope you understood this parable on how the mixed-economy, Left&Right socialists sacrifice all principles and integrity to take from others what they value, and the Libertarian Upper quadrant and Totalitarian Lower quadrant remain true to their values and principles. Remember that clarity next time you need a translator. Oh, and be SURE you remember what the Left-Right Socialist parties say about each other when you see LIB on the ballot.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.