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

Advertisements

Meaning

SMASH YOUR TEEVEE!

Free yourself from Nixon-law-subsidized fake campaign news and find out about law-changing spoiler votes

Translation has to do with the meaning of concepts encoded as language for transmission. If the receiver does not comprehend meanings, the signal fails to impart information. Pertinent questions make this clearer.

Ask people who seek to regulate, tax, curb or abolish economic freedom or energy:

What is force?
What is energy?
What is Work?
What is power?

The response in most cases is either bovine incomprehension or a frantic outpouring of gibberish. Every one of the answers requires familiarity with dimensions of mass, length and time and interrelatedness of their units not easily mastered without some effort, typically near the age of suffrage.

Now ask anyone who wants to abridge, infringe, restrict or regulate individual rights:

What is government?
What is freedom?
What is a right?
What is political power?

And the response is again bafflement or barking. Indeed, the very act of asking anyone committed to the initiation of force a simple question immediately elicits suspicion. A robber, kidnapper or thief rightly fears prosecution, and the first thing a prosecutor does is ask questions. Similarly a stupid lout even fears questions on a test sheet for fear of being confronted with its own ignorance. Self-deception is key to imagining that you can initiate the use of force against others and gain by it.

Ask freedom-divvying kleptocracy voters (the 96%) those eight questions. The ones with any notion of energy, work and power have less inclination to send men with guns to beat you out of your earnings because of “inequality” or impending doom by electrical stations you should fear, not examine. But they can be enlisted in a witch-hunt against birth control or personally enjoyable plant leaves.

The ones that grasp some notions of government, rights and political power but balk at physical reality are easily convinced that the End is Nigh because of an insufficiency of taxation and related government coercion. This lot is always ready to send armed men to ban electrical generating plants or try to repeal the Second Amendment. Republican, Democrat, Communist and Green voters can be counted on to get most of those questions as wrong as 2+2=5.

But if you ask a Libertarian–someone who actually pays dues and votes–chances you will get meaningful answers to most of those questions. As a kicker, you might ask: By what standard shall we distinguish between right and wrong?

For translations that convey information in its original meaning, look for a degreed and certified professional willing to show you the evidence.

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.

Second Amendment Nuclear Weapons

Since the dawn of collectivism humankind has engaged in biological, chemical and conventional warfare. The bloodiest wars have always been between collectives that believed almost the same thing. Union versus Confederacy, Christians v. Jews, Protestants v. Catholics, Mohammedans v. Christians, Communists v. National Socialists… these mystical hatreds underlie the deadliest wars of recent millennia. These international wars are all gone now.

Chemical weapons were gasped at in 1916 because they made young men appreciate the 13th Amendment–the one that outlawed involuntary servitude. American conscripts were ordered to shoulder clumsy arms and march into louse-ridden foreign trenches to save the Federal Reserve banks from war loan defaults after Russian communists quit the opium war. The war stopped efforts to use the Hague to curb heroin dumping, so it was a war to make Bayer Great Again–at least in Germany. American youths faced with the prospect of being sprayed like cockroaches in those foreign trenches might prefer imprisonment in support of the 13th Amendment. That’s the Amendment where the Supreme Court “could not see” the military draft as coercive, but COULD cancel the First Amendment right to hand out copies of Amendments from the Bill of Rights. Being blown to bits in distant trenches to protect the French opium regie in Vietnam or morphine acetylizing plants in Marseilles or Scotland was different from being gassed. High explosives were ‘murrican! Artillery shells were okay to politicians on the Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle. Poison gas, however, was baaad. Germs and nukes are also baaad, perhaps because they might muss the hair of the politicians and lobbyists who order attacks. That kind of hair-mussing is “mass destruction.” 

So it was that things muddled along until a nuclear physicist named Sam Cohen worked out ways to make small H-bombs allocate less energy to explosive force and more energy to the production of neutrons. Sam found that neutrons could penetrate an incoming warhead and cause a premature chain reaction to melt an incoming bomb. Neutron-induced chemical reactions in the lensed explosive jacket could likewise be counted on to damage those enemy bombs. Sam Cohen briefed then-candidate Ronald Reagan on this class of weapons and how they might be deployed.

To Soviet military planners this was really bad news. Fighter pilots could not be trusted with enough fuel to cross borders. A Soviet pilot with plenty of fuel could defect and exchange the plane for a good reception from immigration authorities. Bombers and submarines presented that same vexing problem, plus the possibility their crews might nuke the Politburo or Soviet military installations instead of their intended victims.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles were naturally the communist weapon of choice. Fire them off and relax, with no chance of human meddling–until Ronald Reagan as President realized that Sam Cohen’s neutron bombs could cook those incoming ballistic warheads on their simple and predictable paths. Stinger missiles were doing pretty much that to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. To Soviet partisans, a way had to be found to stop America’s militias from keeping and bearing arms that could intercept and ruin incoming nuclear missiles.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was the first such attempt, signed by Quaker Prohibitionist President Richard Nixon. Nixon was promptly ousted, but Soviet Socialists pushed Strategic Arms Limitation talks for a SALT treaty to really disarm These Sovereign United States. Debates in Physics Today were, in 1982, discussions of the virtues of preemptive surrender to communist regimes. That changed in 1986, with the possibility that any such treaty might infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, in the Bill of Rights–a thing that makes These States different from all the ancien régimes of Europe and Asia and their colonies in Africa and Latin America.

What happened next changed the Cold War. Stay tuned…

When the need arises for translations involving nuclear energy in South American or African Portuguese, look me up.

Prohibition, murder and poisoning

Religious bigotry has been declining for decades, but with lobbyists distorting the mixed economy, legalized coercion is harder to eradicate, and directed verdicts put murderers right back on the streets.

Thousands of Americans–and a few Canadians and Mexicans–were murdered during prohibition, most by religious fanatics not very different from the ones now banning beer in the Medieval Middle East. Government bureaucrats ordered alcohol poisoned with methanol, which causes permanent blindness in those not killed outright. Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals spokesmen invariably came forward to praise these killings as justified. The law, after all, is “the” law.

"...building a new race"

Meeting of Christian Altruists

The Jamaica Ginger remedy contained alcohol, but also tricresyl phosphate, which caused permanent paralysis of legs and feet. This too was viewed as a sort of Divine Retribution. Hunter’s Civic Biology–the 1914 textbook banned in Tennessee for explaining the Evolution of the Species in 1925–was steeped in prohibitionist pseudoscience.  Racial eugenics by compulsion to the extent possible was its primary message. The alternative? A degenerate race, and race suicide of the white Caucasians, the crown of Creation.  This may be what President Herbert Hoover meant when in his inaugural speech he bragged that “We are building a new race…” After all, Hoover was a great fan of Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1902 urged American women to reproduce against their will. Teddy was concerned about:

fundamental virtues, for the practice of the strong, racial qualities without which there can be no strong races—the qualities of courage and resolution in both men and women, of scorn of what is mean, base and selfish, of eager desire to work or fight or suffer as the case may be provided the end to be gained is great enough, and the contemptuous putting aside of mere ease, mere vapid pleasure, mere avoidance of toil and worry.

German National Socialists, whom President Hoover’s Moratorium on Brains helped rearm (by sparing them from repayment of war reparations), were also keen on coercive eugenics and the altruistic trappings of race suicide theories. Yet here we are in the 21st Century, caught in shouting matches between Christian National Socialists eager to ban birth control and other socialists less pious but no less coercive in their vision of the proper role of government. Both of these communo-fascist variants of Socialism share a deep desire to resort to the initiation of deadly force in their efforts to make the world a “better” place.

The Libertarian Party is fielding some 800 candidates this election, all of them committed to voting for alternatives that do NOT rely on the initiation of deadly force in order to make the world a better place.  Every libertarian vote helps repeal laws that coerce women and other individuals. We are growing, and both of the 19th Century Left&Right parties dedicated to European religious autocracies and concentration-camp dictatorships are shrinking.

This has been a Portugueseinterpreter‘s recommendation that a vote for peace and freedom might make the world a better place.  Brazilian website is Speakwrite and our other language blog for Expatriates is Amigra.

Orwell and no Libertarian Party

There are ominous parallels between “The Last Man in Europe” (published as “1984”) and “Homage to Catalonia,” which recounted Orwell’s struggles as a militiaman in the Marxist Unification Workers’ Party militia fighting christian fascism (El caudillo de Dios) in Spain. Back before there was any such thing as an aggression-rejecting Libertarian Party, intellectuals had to side with either International or National Socialism. There was no way out of that universe-of-discourse dilemma. Writer Henry Miller was one of the rare famous libertarians rejecting the entire false dichotomy, to Orwell’s shock and dismay. Ayn Rand’s “We the Living and “Anthem” and were published in 1936 and 1938, but Orwell managed to ignore her somehow.

Richard Gere look-alike

Henry Miller

Orwell contrasts Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer with a book by Louis-Ferdinand Céline, which was a “protest against the horror and meaninglessness of modern life–actually, indeed, of LIFE.” But Miller’s book “is the book of a man who is happy.” In 1936 Miller “felt no interest in the Spanish war whatever. He merely told me [Orwell] in forcible terms that to go to Spain at that moment was the act of an idiot.”

So what is fascism? Trotsky’s pamphlet offers nothing resembling a definition. Orwell, faced with the same question, likewise produced no definition. Instead, Orwell in 1944 also spouted gibberish to justify evading an objective definition certain to enrage religious fanatics:

“To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make.” –Orwell, What is Fascism? 1944

Yet the closer one looks at German National Socialism and Spanish, Vichy & Italian fascism, the more their definition converges on simplicity itself:

Fascism, (n.) Religious socialism.

Mussolini signed a treaty with the Pope to bring religious indoctrination into government school classrooms. Franco’s own posters described him as el “Caudillo de Dios,” saluted by the kiddies, and Adolf Hitler–painter of churches, Jesus and Madonnas–passed up no opportunity to exploit Christian altruism as a vehicle for demonizing “selfishness,” meaning all things Jewish and/or laissez-faire (meaning liberal).

Death to godless commies!

God’s Own Dictator!

During the Spanish revolution, Orwell reported, a sign of anti-religious “leftist” sentiment was the chiseling of religious symbols off of gravestones at the local graveyard. Yet Orwell shied from openly mentioning religiosity as the crucial difference in the late thirties or early forties.

By the 1970s, fans of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand were forming the Libertarian Party as an alternative to linear, anti-life ideologies so popular among Europeans. The first Libertarian platform included a plank the Supreme Court copied as its Roe v Wade decision striking down ku klux Comstock laws. Soon politics changed from a one-dementional line to a two-dimensional plane representing the four states available where there are two separate binary switches.

To those who, like King Solomon, recognize freedom from coercion as an indivisible whole, there is no real left or right. Both labels are the result of an assumption that freedom can safely be divided by having the right people commit just enough violence to make things better, provided their motives are altruistic. Whether such credulity is prompted by fear or hatred is irrelevant, for wherever it exists a skilled bipartisan persuader can convince both kinds of altruists that they AND their adversaries are both right, and then increase how much violent coercion is “just enough.”

This has happened in Germany, Austria, Italy, Rumania, Russia and its satellites, Japan, China, Burma, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador, all mohammedan countries and most African nations at one time or another. All of them started by assuming freedom could be “cut” with just the right amount of coercive aggression, then increased that amount until totalitarian rule became established. Observe that ALL totalitarians criticize as “anarchic” anything that offers more freedom than their armed goons have orders to tolerate. The best hedge against the abyss of totalitarianism is a functioning Libertarian Party.

Should the need arise for legal, contractual or historic translation Orwellian in its attention to detail, drop us a line or visit Speakwrite.

 

Why mystical conservatives hate liberals

"Crime is increasing."

“Steadily building a new race–“

To organizers of the Liberal Party of America, the situation in 1930 was intolerable: 

Hypocrisy is in the saddle. Mercenary religion is throttling the nation’s life. Paid preachers, quartered in magnificent offices, and working for large salaries, are stifling the life of the people. Some of them are laughing in derision when the poor and the weak are convicted and sent to prison. Some of them are advocating the poisoning of alcohol, so that those who are tempted may die—the sooner the wretches are out of the way, say they, the better for Prohibition. And the Sunday laws—these mercenary preachers are spying around corners to trap the unwary and to fill the jails. –1930 Platform

Condoms and diaphragms were as illegal as light beer in Prohibitionist Amerika. Indeed, such things were banned in Communist Rumania as late as 1966, and still illegal in Catholic Ireland in 1992! Comstock laws and Prohibitionist Blue Laws made a crime of baseball, movies, many kinds of work and all manner of purchases on Sundays. The Liberal Party directly challenged the Klan, the Lord’s Day Alliance and Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and sought to restore freedom and individual rights. One of its organizers remarked:

How shall this great aim be accomplished? Not by the Republican Party, of which I have been a member all my life, sitting as a delegate in one of its National Conventions and speaking in every one of its campaigns from McKinley to Hoover. … Not by the Democratic Party, for that Party, equally high in its ideals, equally illustrious in its history, is at this moment notable for its bigotry and intolerance. In Congress, where many men in both Houses who voted for the infamous Jones Law are known to be drinkers and the constant patrons of bootleggers, there is a bill pending and possibly soon to be enacted which will fine and imprison every man who takes a drink.

The Jones Law in question, also known as the 5 & 10 law, made light beer a five-year felony and imposed a fine equivalent to fifteen pounds of solid gold just hours before Herbert Hoover was sworn in to enforce it. That fine comes to over $307,000 at current gold prices. Still, men with guns could waylay a lad barely 18 and slap him in prison till age 22, burdened with debt equivalent to two 30-year mortgages, yet with nothing to show for it but seething resentment and loss of voting and Second Amendment rights. Such “felons” and their repentant parents were the voters the Liberal Party attracted.

The potential of those spoiler votes led the Democrats to abandon the Klan and declare for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment in 1932. The economy–though still burdened with the Communist income tax–began a slow recovery and the Democrats occupied the Executive Branch for the next five presidential terms. The Dems of that era also defeated the National Socialist Christian government of Germany, with its eugenic campaign of racial extermination carried on in the name of mystical altruism. The Nationalsocialist government was also organized, as in Hoover’s Inaugural Address, for purposes of “steadily building a new race.”

The defense of individual rights is today carried on by the Libertarian Party by a passing of the torch of liberty. With 4 million votes covering the spoiler vote gap in 11 states, the LP has lately swung a total of 124 electoral votes. That’s nine times the number of electoral votes the entire State of Virginia controls with its 4 million individual votes. Here’s the LP hockey stick in a sigmoid logistic substitution curve fit for LP votes beginning with the Y2k election.

Religious fanatics encouraged to initiate force...

Libertarian Party vote share since the fascists beat the socialists in Y2k

Not bad for a party that is just now as old as President John F. Kennedy, eh? Join the Three Percent! Give your vote nine, 21 or 10,000 times the law-changing clout. Be your own spoiler vote lobbyist and frighten the crap out of those looters in Congress and their codgers on the Supreme Court. You’ll never regret winning by repealing bad laws!

This inspirational message was brought to you by Brazilian Translated, run by an independent contractor degreed and certified from Portuguese and Spanish into English and from English into Portuguese. I’m the 1% that passed the tests when it comes to translations.