Herbert Hoover’s hashish hookah

So was Herbert Hoover stoned on hashish just before losing the election? This pre-elections Letter-to-the-Editor says:

Listened last night to President Hoover’s Speech at Madison Square Garden. I was so dumbfounded by his tirade against the Democrats that I read his entire speech once more this morning to make sure that I heard the things I thought I was hearing. After reading it I can come to only one conclusion, and that is: Hoover must have written that speech after smoking an unusually strong pipe of hashish. And he must have been under the influence of the drug when he delivered it.
By no stretch of the imagination (undrugged imagination, that is) can he or anybody else accuse the Democratic Party (either by what they have been saying or doing in the past 20 years) of all the things Hoover accuses them of intending to do. As a matter of record, the most constructive piece of legislation passed during the last 50 years–The Federal Reserve Act–originated with and was enacted by the Democratic Party.
If this Madison Square Garden tirade had come from a Ward-heeler, we would consider the source and let it go at that. But coming as it did from the President of the United States, it only adds one more reason to the many already existing why he should be retired next week. DISGUSTED REPUBLICAN, November 1, 1932

Back then there was no Libertarian Party for which to cast a law-changing spoiler vote.  Like today, Republicans were sending men with guns to shoot people in their homes for suspicion of enjoyable plant leaf products and grain products. They seized cars, shipping, and bank accounts using tax laws to batter past the 4th and 5th Amendments. Banks folded as money was removed before looters-by-law could confiscate it–just like in 1987 and 2008.

In 1932 you either voted for dry killers and asset confiscators or crooked machine politicians of another stripe, piggybacked by socialist orators, union goons, and till-tapping brain trusts. In Hoover’s NY speech  he admitted that “many of our citizens sought flight for their capital to other countries; that many of them attempted to hoard gold in large amounts.” Why? “We have more nearly met with a full hand the most sacred obligation of man, that is, the responsibility of a man to his neighbor,” confessed Hoover, letting his altruist ideology as jailer of men shine forth for all to see.

Mimicking fiscal parsimony, Hoover groaned that the average citizen “works for the support of all forms of Government sixty-one days out of the year.”** Nowhere does Hoover mention prohibition, beer becoming a felony, or admit that his party’s policies made a train wreck of the economy. 

Today you may invest your law-changing vote in a competent alternative to both geriatric parties: LP.org

** Nowadays that’s 106 days a year of involuntary servitude to those same political parties.

For a close-up of how legislating religious fanaticism destroyed the economy, see Prohibition and The Crash: live in 2 languages on Amazon Kindle, each for the cost of a pint.

Coercion causes economic collapse

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

simultaneous interpreting

Brought to you by…

Visit my foreign blog…

Advertisements

The Anarchy Fallacy

division by zero is wrong

Approaching 0 is different from putting 0 in the denominator.

A theory popular among folks who never cracked a logic or math book was that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of communism. That changed in 1972 when under 4000 Libertarian votes for John Hospers and Toni Nathan generated one consistent and uncorrupted electoral vote and changed important laws. Nowadays, intellectuals of the looter persuasion din everyone within earshot with the amended revealed truth that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of liberalism or libertarianism. Orwell commented on this sort of flip-flop when he explained how English socialists abhorred nationalsocialism until the Hitler-Stalin pact–AFTER which they promptly granted that fascism was, after all, a form of socialism, hence not all that bad.

Before trying to axiomatize a thing, it pays to examine what the thing does and doesn’t mean to begin with. There were communist anarchists all over the map, firing shots and exploding bombs in crowded places, when Max Weber spun off an objective and useful definition of government as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”.

The typically Germanic purpose Weber attributed to this “community,” however, was “the use of physical force as a means of domination”–the opposite of what libertarians want. To be legitimate, our use of force ought to be retaliatory–the response to aggression, to menacing–rather than initiated. The idea is to defend the rights of individuals, their moral claims to freedom of action, and nothing else. Weber also took pains to remind his students: “Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state.” Looters are apt to grasp this precisely because they are the ones bent on domination by force. Weber also makes clear that “expropriation” is part and parcel of the domination by force he described in 1919.

The Libertarian Party was founded by admirers of Ayn Rand’s ideas, in particular, her ethical approach to the use of force within the context of limited constitutional democracy. In April of 1942 she wrote the non-aggression principle, which in 1971 was distilled into a pledge required for membership in the Libertarian Party. Every libertarian partisan has signed this Non-Aggression Pledge:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

The objective definition of government, including its territoriality feature, survived, but the purpose Weber wrote down–which Hitler exploited to form the NSDAP a year later–is today discarded. After all, most German voters were convinced National Socialism was successful after 18 years, but that theory did not survive past 25 years of age.

America’s lasting success comes from the word “free.” In the First and Second Amendments, free means free from aggressive coercion in a literal sense. This also symbolizes right (as opposed to wrong) in an ethical sense. In These States, an individual life worth living is the objective standard of value. Hence, the forcible defense (enforcement) of individual rights–thwarting their forcible violation–is the sole purpose of legitimate government. The LP’s growing success stems from this demonstrably desirable standard of ethical value.

You cannot divide by zero instead of using the definition of a limit to find a derivative for the slope of a curve. On these sigmoid curves the derivative exists and changes sign at the halfway mark. Nor can you reduce to zero the territorial jurisdiction or definition of government and still enforce the rights of individuals. Rand said to ask yourself what competition in the forcible restraint of men has to mean. The answer, the monstrous answer which all communist infiltrators pretending to advocate for freedom struggle to evade, is war. War and death are what every anarchist seeks. So why else, other than hostile mimesis, would they infiltrate the LP?

If sabotage weren’t the motive, anarchists could be expected to organize the Anarchist Party of America, offer to legalize murder, robbery extortion, rape, slavery and disfigurement. Members could be encouraged to burn their voter registration cards. The party could field candidates who declare themselves opposed to the Constitution of the United States and eager to overthrow it by force rather than uphold it per an oath of office. I seriously wish more anarchists would clearly state their purpose. Their comrades could no longer infiltrate gullible parties, point to their own 5th-column provocateurs embedded within the the LP, and hiss “anarchists!”

When not infiltrating the LP, looter intellectuals wriggle to infiltrate pacifist movements. These are populated by folks who promise not to forcibly resist “domination”, nor to capture, try and punish those who aggress against them. In theory this leads to Aldous Huxley’s Island of Pala being invaded and dominated. In practice you observe it in the streets of India, Pakistan and Portland.

Our spoiler vote method of bringing pressure to bear paid off when the LP platform stopped Dixiecrats from restoring laws banning all birth control. Still, the momentum behind the population curve, though decelerating since that time, was huge. Hence the delay in reversing population growth, even though the derivative of the population curve has been negative since the late sixties.

Since 1972, socialism–especially in its communo-fascist variants–is reversing in these States because of Libertarian candidates supporting our platform and offering to support (but repair) the Constitution. Spoiler votes entrusted to these candidates cause entrenched “vocational” politicians of the kleptocracy to repeal brutal laws and lower parasitic taxes–that or be unseated by other looters quicker on the uptake. Our candidates don’t even need to be elected in order to change the laws. The Nixon law bribing the media to ignore us has slowed the process, but the replacement is going on with mathematical inexorability as the libertarian vote share increases.

See how the Liberal Party of 1930 gained enough spoiler votes to sell the Democrats on its repeal plank–after Republican fanaticism wrecked the economy. Prohibition and The Crash is live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brought to you by…

simultaneous interpreting

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Violent Shooter Manifestos

fake news vidiot

Result of the Nixon anti-libertarian law

Like the Unabomber, Patrick the El Paso shooter wrote a manifesto. The Unabomber manifesto helped identify and arrest the violent anarchist. The El Paso amok’s confession includes Ecological National Socialist declarations of altruistic (not personal) motives in defense of the environment, and against being assimilated by foreigners. The thing even drips Dixiecrat eugenicist preaching agin’ shameless race mixers, oozes altruism, racial collectivism, and appeals to the initiation of force. Why? Because “we” need welfare, universal health care, and because racial mixing is SELFISH!

 

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1903 letter against “race suicide” (women practicing birth control) set the stage on paranoid racial collectivism when Adolf Hitler was an impressionable 14-year-old. Roosevelt 5 years earlier fired live ammo at Hispanics in Cuba, where he was resented as an invading foreigner. Hitler’s 1920 platform is a rich source of material for G.O.P. planks.

Democratic politicians and media groupies quote Patrick’s immigration rants with whoops of joy, but their silence on his econazi manifestations is as deafening as the vacuum of space. Quoting Al Gore for his title, under ECONOMIC REASONS the berserker praises “The Lorax“, claims “Water sheds… are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations” and bemoans “unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste” and a shortage of “recycling”(!)

Under POLITICAL REASONS, this troubled son of a coddling psychologist mimics the Unabomber’s “centrist” stance as if channel surfing between Fox News and CNN. “The Inconvenient Truth is that… Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us…”  Patrick expressly fears “the Democrat party will own America,” ignoring the fact that the Dems LOSE every election by promising to tax the air we breathe and ban electric power the way Republicans try to ban plant leaves and birth control. Dems win after God’s Own Prohibitionists shatter the economy. This was so in 1932, 1992, and 2008.

Bill Clinton won because Reagan and Bush wrecked the economy, invaded other countries with impoverishing asset-forfeiture prohibitionism, and caused the Exodus Northward. Obama’s election was a remake.  Bush Junior packed DC with faith-based prohibitionist fanatics whose orgy of asset-forfeiture looting, like Herbert Hoover’s, wrecked the economy. Absorbing Dixiecrat racial collectivism after the 1968 election mongrelized the GOP.

I’d lay odds this initiation-of-force manifester has never heard of the Libertarian party, much less knows how libertarian spoiler votes have efficiently repealed bad laws since 1972. Thanks to Richard Nixon’s use of the IRS as a mechanism paying the media to ignore the LP, teevee-inculcated youngsters haven’t a clue there exists an effective mechanism for peaceful change that begins by choosing the new party on the ballot or by signing:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

Find out how Temperance Pledge prohibitionists wrecked the U.S. economy in Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929. Live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Legal and immigration documents translated

Legal and Financial document translations

The Panic of 1857

Looter historians explain away financial panics, crashes, collapses and depressions the way their government sponsors expect them to. After all, who who pays the piper, calls the tune. Governments also pay for the public notices sections in the newspapers, and it pays a pauper paper to please petty politicians. Continue reading

Tax Revolt Alternatives

Spoiler votes that entrenched can uproot socialism

Governments never learn. Only people learn.

Milton Friedman made it impossible ignore that there are two ways of dealing with people: voluntarily, or by force.

Tax collectors and the parties that send them out to collect more and higher taxes invariably choose the second option. Of course they paper it over with sanctimonious doublespeak. At every turn they liken their men with guns to acceptors of voluntary contributions. Media outlets are all tax-subsidized since 1971 (thanks to Nixon). This anti-libertarian subsidy doles out influence to entrenched gerontocracy election campaigns and helps sell an image of eleemosynary voluntarism through the initiation of force.

But what of the people at whom their guns are pointed? Thanks to the Nixon anti-libertarian law, many voters are completely unaware of the existence of a political party whose members seek to gradually replace coercion with voluntary cooperation wherever possible. Here’s what happens when media subsidies–designed to favor entrenched parties–interfere to produce uninformed voters.

Is taxing people at gunpoint worth it? As a Libertarian voter I just say “no” every time I cast a ballot. No, I do not expect all taxation to disappear by the time I unchain my bicycle to return home after voting. But I know for a fact that my LP vote will pack the clout of at least six votes in favor of reversing the trend toward increased taxation. In the case of individual rights for women, fewer than 4000 libertarian votes handed the Supreme Court the language they used in the Roe v. Wade decision, a relative vote clout of 10,000 for 1 if you believe it takes 50% of the total to get anything done. That’s winning!

Forcible expropriation leads to situations like the Bay District standoff. People follow good or bad examples, depending on what they can see. This guy observed the use of force and imagined two could play.

Richard Nixon and Congress changed the tax code in 1971 to keep you from finding out about the no-guns alternative. Like the snake tossed into baby Hercules’ crib, it was an attempt to kill off the Libertarian Party.

But here it is, 46 years later, and we’re still here. What’s more, four million voters–as many as voted in the entire State of Virginia–stood with us this last presidential election. Our vote share is up 328%, and we got way more of the popular vote than the difference between the two looter parties dedicated to the initiation of deadly force. Here’s the sigmoid political party substitution curve, the hockey stick Republican Dixiecrat fascists and Democrat communists do not want you to see:

So, which will it be? If you like what you see, by all means listen to what the Republicans and Democrats say about each other. If you would rather take a positive step to increase freedom by reversing the growth of coercion, read the Libertarian Party platform and vote with us.

If you need a website localized into Brazilian Portuguese, look us up at http://www.falascreve.com Falascreve is how they translated Orwell’s speech recognition neologism http://www.speakwrite.com.br in South America.

Try my Amazon Kindle explanation of Prohibition and The Crash and see how a small party wrote the plank that brought repeal.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

 

Independence under Prohibitionists, July 4

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 make that 88 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 way they pronounced “Jew.” Conservatives do this today. Democrats were beset by the pro-choice, antiwar Human Rights Party and Buffalo Party, and treacherously crushed both before the Libertarian Party was organized in 1971.

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. They also helped lead America out of the Republican-induced Depression.

Prohibition and The Crash explains the causal connections between asset-forfeiture prohibitionism and economic collapse. Live in July 2019 on Amazon Kindle for the average cost of a pint of craft beer. Read it on your phone or tablet.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

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.

Ethics for Translators

The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band

A Child’s Guide to Good and Evil, recommended, from Amazon

This 1998 relic is as good as any code of ethics I’ve ever seen. Indeed, ethics itself does not vary among professions. Right and wrong are fairly simple, as generalities go.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES

Competent Translators agree:

1. To translate with the greatest fidelity and accuracy we can command, endeavoring always to give the readers and audiences the impression they would have if they could understand the original.

2. To maintain professional discretion by respecting our clients’ rights, by divulging no confidential information we may have acquired in our professional capacity under nondisclosure agreements, and by refusing assignments we believe would violate contractual rights of third parties.

3. To turn down assignments for which we believe ourselves to be less than qualified in either language or understanding of the subject, except with the prior knowledge of clients or employers; and to turn down assignments that we believe we cannot properly complete within the time allowed.

4. To settle professional differences by arbitration whenever possible, and to seek and accept work only on virtuous or honorable terms.

5. To defend all individual rights of translators, including their right to exercise the profession freely, unvexed by coercive restrictions.

This part about coercive restrictions is apropos in view of current hubris in the ATA Chronicle, published by the American Translators Association (May-June 2019 p. 2). The current ATA was assimilated in the 1990s by the American Society of Association Executives through voter suppression, and revamped so that anyone joining could vote on policy. Before, as of 1981, only those able to pass a translation test could vote or run for office. Since the change, the association has morphed into an expensive lobby for barriers to entry into the profession.

Most vocal among those lately importuning the Texas Legislature to keep interpreters scarce and expensive are folks who have never passed an ATA translation test. Nor have the bulk of them passed a Texas court interpreter test. A large number of incumbents, myself included, were for the longest time “grandfathered” in on what amounts to a bribes-for-work-permits racket, but even that was a farce disguised by tortuous legalese. That law stopped nobody from interpreting in the courts.

Many grandfathered incumbents for over a decade lied about the nature of the law. Those worthies told newcomers the law required them to buy the license in order to interpret in court. In fact, the original Texas law existed only as a pretext, making it easier to dismiss an obviously incompetent impostor during proceedings. It was only repealed after the truth was broadcast, then replaced with an even worse law.

Similar rackets sought in the past to prevent Texas roofers from bidding against corporations. Those were repealed. Spurious and parasitic extortion rackets organize, under color of altruism, to erect barriers to keep young interpreters from working in the courts–except as disposable contract labor on behalf of companies with political pull.

The whole point of ethics–a code to guide your choices and actions–is to thwart such impairment of individual rights.

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Don’t miss the Kindle version of my book on the Crash and Depression! For sale on Amazon Kindle

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages