With Friends Like These…

A typical email asking for money begins: Together, we’re forging ahead and navigating toward even greater accomplishments. Every step we take building party resources and infrastructure, all the hours of hard work put in by our dedicated volunteers, all the battles for ballot access and fair election procedures—(the message could end)… go down the toilet every time an infiltrator pimping for a hostile ideology penetrates the platform committee to poison our platform with nonsense! Today’s story is about a recent bit of… of what? sabotage to LP goodwill? clumsy incompetence? that could easily wipe out our 328% increase in ballot share earned in the November 2016 election.

Hearsay, apocrypha, curbside speechifying

LP News August 2018 p 5

Knapp then lays on some self-administered back-patting, flattery, apocryphal storytelling, hortative pseudo-ethics, hearsay, but no factual data. Formulated on false premises and hearsay, Knapp’s entire argument is fallacious. Candidate Trump said he likes libertarianism and was overwhelmingly elected on the promise to build the Republican platform fence.  True, Trump lost in the popular vote, but largely because the LP got four million of those votes–well over the Hillary-Trump gap.

Trump’s most popular move was the entry ban on “individuals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,”  meaning suicide-vest terrorist ideologue brainwashees that crash planes into skyscrapers, machine-gun Paris nightclubs, run down pedestrians en masse in London, Nice and elsewhere, and today specialize in stabbing sprees much like the anarchist communists of a century ago–whose entry congress banned by law. As for borders, the first clear definition of government is an “entity which has a monopoly over the use of legitimate coercive power in a given territory.” Lack of borders typifies anarchy or war.

Knapp proceeds to assert that based on his reading of “the public mind” and his unmeasurable perception of the motion of “America’s political center of gravity” the “principles” of the LP needed “to move.” Libertarian principles in 1972 supported “laws that prohibit trespass” and urged “the maintenance of a sufficient military establishment to defend the United States against aggression” including “sufficient nuclear capacity.” The LP does not even want to recognize totalitarian governments. Nowhere in the principles or planks on which the Party was founded is there any restriction on Knapp himself buying land on the border and declaring it an entry point for jihadists and locust-swarms of refugees from unlibertarian satrapies. Knapp’s arm-waving assertions as to bedrock LP principles are fiction.

Knapp´s perceptions of principles only he sees, coupled with his public-mind-reading, his imaginary schedule of when things should happen and his sensing of massless gravity culminate in doublethink changes in the meaning of our original and recent platforms. His explanation? He “heard people.” Knapp claims he heard people “assert” that the platform plank he sought to savage might be invoked in support of a spurious and totally imaginary claim that the LP supports “collective immigration bans based on nationality, ethnicity, or religion.” Hearsay and fiction don’t get any more obvious than this.

First of all, federal laws prohibit those, but toothily demand bans on individual violent criminals. The Kleptocracy and its majority of voters have not yet changed that law, and the hearsay invoked is irrelevant even if true. Unlike Knapp, the federal government produces data its agencies claim are factual:

True? False? Exaggerated?

Enforcement and Removal Operations Report p 4. This is where el Presidente gets his figures.

This is last year’s list of what ICE claims are individual criminals they caught and turned over for prosecution or deportation. The second-largest item is Republican and Democrat sumptuary legislation banning enjoyable plant leaves, etc. Libertarian spoiler votes–to the extent we can still get any–are repealing this category of victimless “crime” even when we do not get our candidates elected. Assault, burglary, spouse-beating, robbery, rape, theft and vandalism, kidnapping, homicide and menacing are what the Republicans are mainly talking about, but Knapp never mentions. These acts are a far cry from worshipping a spaghetti monster, being brown or having a non-American passport–things Knapp imagines “some party members” associate with  a “credible threat to security, health or property.” But even Donald Trump welcomes individuals who “enrich our society and contribute to our nation.”

What has happened are visa restrictions against such People’s States as Cuba, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone for refusing to accept back their nationals deported from the USA. Even those are not blanket visa restrictions, but country-by-country restrictions on the more troublesome categories of visas.  These five exemplify the sort of country the 1972 LP platform urged us not to even recognize–much less reward with visas.

But as long as we’re on the topic of threats, observe in the LP News article that Knapp postures defensively at imagined menaces to nationality, ethnicity, or religion, then warns that “my fellow Libertarians will never allow” the imaginary hearsay threat to materialize. Knapp boasts that the LP “never has” supported such fictional nonsense, which is true enough. But thanks to hostile infiltrators, nobody can say that no past LP platform has ever asked voters to enshrine molestation or child prostitution.

With friends like these...

Pimp, by Tatsuya Ishida

Libertarian Party platforms and spoiler votes have overturned cruel laws banning birth control, interfered with tax hikes, and drawn the boiling wrath of fanatical looter ideologues. Naturally these ideologues will pass up no opportunity to sully our platform and make us look bad. Then again, we should expect no less–and certainly not expect honesty. Constant vigilance is due diligence.

If in need of a translator or interpreter for Latin America, look me up.
My other blog is foreign.

 

Advertisements

Ayn Rand and Sex

Conservatives of the collectivist, chaste and “celibate” persuasions, and other socialists–especially those catasterized freaks whose reading is limited to scripts–fall all over themselves at the chance to criticize Ayn Rand’s views on sex. None leap to the fore with explanations of the value of altruism, or to castigate her views on the initiation of force.

For starters, the gal was Russian, educated, and not a congregant of mystical altruist sects. She arrived in These States a Hollywood aficionada and Pola Negri fan–but also a fully functioning young woman at a time when 99 and 44/100% of such cloche-hatted creatures watched Rudolph Valentino movies with an intensity unmanifested since Argos watched Io. American women made first use of the vote to place America’s handsomest womanizer, Warren Gamaliel Harding–he of dowdy wife and three pretty mistresses–in the Executive Mansion in Washington using their 1920 election ballots.

Ayn arrived in 1926, shortly after some 10 million young men had been killed and twice as many again wounded in the Great War to forestall ratification of the Hague opium convention in the middle of an opiate glut. There was certainly no glut of eligible bachelors as Ayn Rand surveyed the pickings in Hollywood.  She literally tripped herself a man while working as a ragged extra in King of Kings, and squired by Frank doubtless took in such flickering delights as  “Son of The Sheik” (1926).

In The Sheik, the manly Saracen Ahmed, played by Valentino, captures a white girl (Agnes Ayres) complete with jodphurs, pith helmet and scarf. He tauntingly inquires whether his coy and flighty captive she is not “woman enough to know” why he brought her to his tent. There followed this priceless repartée:

“I am not accustomed to having my orders disobeyed!”

“And I am not accustomed to obeying orders!”

“You will learn!”

But the macho Ottoman ravisher plays the nice guy and fails to make his move–to the horror and disappointment of neglected American girls smoulderingly jealous of those anorexic, à la garçonne hussies lately boosting the troops’ morale “Over There!” That fault was corrected in Son of the Sheik, which hit the silver screen just as young Ayn Rand joined silent movie audiences. In it, a reformed Valentino wastes no time having his way with an (unwitting) honey-trap Mata Hari (Vilma Banky)–by engraved invitation–in a plot twist foreshadowing Kira Argonouva’s gaining of young Lev Kovalensky. There is even some foreshadowing left over for one of Mae West’s signature quips–about a gun.

Glittering o’er his faults, Valentino lustily redeems himself in the eyes of Russian and American womanhood, performing much like Francisco D’Anconia would thirty years later in Atlas Shrugged. Similarities may not have been entirely coincidence. Francisco’s full name was Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. Rudolph Valentino answered to  Rudolfo Alfonso Raffaello Pierre Filibert Guglielmi di Valentina D’Antonguolla.

Ayn Rand was no different from the millions of young American women who flocked to Valentino movies and too soon mourned his passing. Pola Negri, young Ayn’s Hollywood heroine since childhood, made a point of swooning over Valentino’s casket at every opportunity. The Fountainhead and Atlas were devoured by Robert A Heinlein, who promptly responded with another protagonist named Valentine in Stranger in a Strange Land. That very expression was first uttered by Dracula in Bram Stoker’s allegorical endorsement of Comstock Laws and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice! Robert Rimmer novels like The Harrad Experiment, the Rebellion of Yale Marratt and Proposition 31–not to mention Grace Slick’s version of Triad, made Ayn’s unopposed and muscular dalliance with her handsome young admirer seem so tame in context that Howard Roark couldn’t help but laugh.

So 62 years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged–now selling briskly in 29 languages–Republican, Democrat, Green and Communist looters mask squirming envy with feigned shock. None dare defend altruism or the initiation of force on ethical grounds, yet Dr Tara Smith of the U. of Texas Philosophy Department has produced several alternative derivations validating Rand’s ethical and political conclusions, with likewise no response from the cognoscenti and intelligentzia. Theirs is the face of looter cowardice unmasked.

hankdotcom

If you have laws, regulations, contracts or court decisions in need of unmasking from behind a Latin American language barrier, visit my translator, interpreter or Brazilian language website.
See also my Brazilian language blog

Brexit or Anschluss?

Crowds are 97% catholic and protestant

Crowds cheer as Austria is annexed by engraved invitation into Reich

Anschluss was the eagerly consummated annexation of Austria by National Socialist Germany into the Third Reich. The Reich replaced the League of Nations, whose purpose was price fixing of “chemical drugs” (mostly heroin and morphine) confiscated from Germany by way of war reparations–and the collection of cash war reparations payments. This is in Article 23 of both the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(cwill entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs;

http://ddees.com/

Fool me twice, shame on me!

Brexit was a voted election whereby Britain decided to reclaim its sovereignty and extract itself from the Fourth Reich dominated by ecological National Socialism and taxes, fines and suffocating regulation of the very energy conversion required for the survival of an industrial society. Booty snatchers shriek “we wuz robbed” and seek to overturn the vote–just as their U.S comrades sought in December to convince State electors to vote against electric power and for carbon taxes instead. This is a repeat of 1990s propaganda urging bomber crews to surrender instead of retaliating against a Soviet nuclear attack.

In the USA, when voters rejected Democratic planks promising to make electricity generation as illegal as possible–complete with carbon taxes on everyone except the Communist Chinese dictatorship, ecological national socialists ran expensive advertisements pressuring electors. Electors were urged to vote against the pro-energy candidates–especially the party that actually won the greatest number of counties, hence states, in electoral college votes.

True, the Republicans LOST in the popular vote, because the pro-energy Libertarian Party earned 4 million votes. This is a vote total equal to the votes cast by the entire State of Virginia, and WAY more than the difference between the Democratic and Republican popular vote count totals. When was the last time you heard THAT on corporate teevee or radio?

Nobody in the Kleptocracy is eager to mention this because 1) the Democratic candidate’s husband also lost the popular vote but was elected President by the electoral college, and 2) the Libertarian Party influenced the casting of 90 electoral votes in 13 states. Last month, 27 Libertarians were elected to public office, for a total of 52 for the year. That’s a 53 percent increase over 2016! It wouldn’t do for The Great Unwashed to discover the sort of law-changing clout those spoiler votes wield. Here is the sinusoidal replacement curve fit that shows our hockey stick growth in law-changing votes. Ladies, looking for the party that values your rights more than carbon taxes? Here it is!

A fluke perhaps? The Libertarian Party fielded 827 candidates, 47 of whom were elected. That’s a 5.6% success rate at our secondary task, but still twice the candidates we elected in 2016. We are not in the business of converting people into politicians. Our main purpose is causing entrenched, subsidized looter politicians to change their votes and platforms by deleting planks that call for violation of individual rights by the initiation of force. Every time a duopoly politician loses to another, that loser will wish their platform committee had not alienated the 4% or so of voters that rallied to the Libertarian standard. We are closely tracking the Fisher-Pry logistical replacement curve, an instrument which–unlike GISS tampered-data temperature projections–has enormous predictive power, predictive power such as would do Hari Seldon proud in an Isaac Asimov trilogy.

Need a translator? Laws, lawsuits, contracts…
Seen my foreign blog?

Spoilers and bolters

Google does not want you to read this

See Original The National Republican 24 NOV 1872

During Reconstruction–a euphemism for military occupation of conquered low-tariff states–a bolter was a voter who a left one duopoly party to vote for “the” other party. Continue reading

Border Wall, ergo, México Libre?

Trump rhetoric is different from Bush rhetoric. Bush offered to have some hemp kingpins executed by firing squad, electric chair or lethal injection. Trump grins and waves toward plans for “The Wall” with promises that nobody will be able to find drugs way less deadly than alcohol or tobacco. So why should These States continue to prop up shoot-first prohibitionism in Mexico?

Americans unable to connect for weed, X or coke in the Islamic Christian Republics of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho…  could have some quality vacation time in Los Estados Libertários de México. Like all prohibitionist kleptocracies, there are two gangland political parties in a bloody struggle for power in Mexico. This has been so since the Opium Wars in which Great Britain bombarded Mexico’s trading partner, China. Spoiler votes, however, easily change the laws in kleptocratic 2-party power oligopsonies.

Mexico is at last freeing itself from narco-state dependency and become an oasis of freedom-from-coercion by legalizing enjoyables following the example of Portugal. Portugal decriminalized everything a decade and a half back, and has the most successful banking industry in the EU to show for it. Mexico has clearly had its fill of shoot-first prohibitionism, US meddling and gang warfare rivaling that of Chicago when Herbert Hoover was president. All Mexico needs is un partido libertário the people can choose on their ballots. About 4% of the vote will suffice to make all kinds of rights and freedom into jurisprudence and reality.

When the Celestial Emperor ordered the deportation of British opium traders (and Americans the like of Warren Delano), Texans were quick to exploit the misfortunes of China’s trading partner, Mexico, and attack to seize everything between Louisiana and the California gold digs. The British decision to invade and rob China, and continue dumping Indian opium there led to America’s First Great Depression. The onset of the Depression coincided exactly with China’s deportation order, and the Mexican economy was likewise ruined, its army soon humiliated in defeat by gold-digging gringos. By offering the sanctuary of freedom to refugees from Junta-style fascismo–as France welcomed beer-swilling Americans in the 1920s–Mexico could do well by doing good. The entire border area facing The Wall, from Brownsville to Tijuana, could be transformed into a revenue-generating hipster Cancun.

With the northward-bound locust-swarm of less-than-literate wretches conducting its Marcha Sobre Roma on the Texas border, now would be a good time for Texans to airdrop or catapult some primo confiscated weed into now-decriminalized Mexico. That and some maps of how to make it to Puerto Vallarta from Mexico City, then north along the Baja coast to Mexicali, Tijuana, LA and San Francisco. SoCal beats the heck out of a barbed-wire-surrounded tent city in Texas, crawling with rape-murdering border guards. If I were a Guatemalan bracero fleeing Lateran-Treaty fascismo I’d march West then hitch a tramp steamer north to LA or SF and get in on some of that paradisical sanctuary for the homeless. The California minimum wage is about 800% of what goes down in the papal Bandana Republics, and that gradient exerts a tremendous attractive force. 

Ever need translation of historical accounts from Latin America? Get in touch.

Blog in Portuguese

Brazilian polling place

I walked to the polls in the local Brazilian precinct. They used to be at the school, but this year the voting took place at the intersection of Church and State. Brazilian citizens are forced by law to subsidize, then vote for, 33 parties. Here’s the sign…

Gott Mitt Uns!

Parish of the Apostle Polling Place

When you walk inside this is what you see:

Complete with spelling errors...

1st seek the Kingdom of God… Trust Jesus, don’t give up…

Then this

So is it any wonder the party most closely resembling the NSDAP led the vote count? Oddly enough, the other party standing for runoffs has a name that (no kidding) translates as Arbeiterpartei in German!

Servers are down so the list of party coalitions is unavailable… Maybe it’s just as well. There is a special gang of election judges that decide who can organize a party. National Socialists and International Socialists have 32 parties between them, and the gatekeepers make good and sure there is no Libertarian Party. The Cuban, Venezuelan, Peruvian, Chilean and most African governments or those of North Korea, China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, et alii do not permit libertarians to organize into parties.

Here is an apropos cartoon that appeared the morning after the elections. Other countries with no LP.org are Cuba, Venezuela, post-colonial African and Asian countries and so forth. Name a country people want to move to and I’ll show you a nation with a working Libertarian Party.

Translators are aware of goings-on in many parts of the world.
My other blog, Expatriotas, is mostly read by 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.