Denier is the new Juden

Eight parties unmentioned

From the socialist Wikipedia

Ecological National Socialist candidate Albert Goracle, lost to G. Waffen Bush by three electoral votes in the Y2k election. Had voters in his home state of Tennessee backed his platform–ban electricity, continue asset forfeiture looting, jail hippies and blacks for plants–Gore’s party would have won by 16 electoral votes. The Dems could have had their hands in the till and hacks on the government payroll. Neither the Green nor Libertarian party commanded enough Tennessee spoiler votes to reverse the outcome. Still, Gore blamed Florida for his defeat.

Something similar happened to Germany and Austria back before ballots replaced bullets, Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) lost WWI and blamed Jewish politicians. Thanks to the Jo Nova blog, the pattern of collectivist self deception can be see in this example, in which I replace a single word with its conceptual equivalent. The context is journalist Ross Clark asked The Goracle a technical question about sea level rising versus land mass sinking.

When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a Jew?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a Jew?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a Jew.’

That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film’.

If Clark had tried that at an Oswald Mosley rally, he would have been beaten by goons. But the point is that the Econazi mindset is concerned not with facts, but bogeymen and strawmen. This last election had similar planks and a similar outcome. If the Dems had not copied the Green party anti-electricity agenda, and had instead copied the Libertarian party re-legalization plank, they might have beaten God’s Own Prohibitionists.

Get in touch for translations of political party platforms, nuclear reactor specifications, energy-related bills before various government assemblies or financial and economic impact of prohibition laws on national economies.

1920s Drug Fiends

Excerpted from Prohibition and the Crash, by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 18

Drug Fiends

            A five-to-four decision by the Supreme Court in Seattle’s “whispering wires” bootlegging case settled the 4th Amendment issue of wiretapping on June 4. Our highest Court on that day pronounced government skulking over phone lines legal, ethical and good.[1] The Court’s stated position in finishing the work begun with the Sullivan and Marron decisions was that the Bill of Rights was so important that only Congress—certainly not the Judicial branch—had the authority to attribute “an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment.”[2]

Thirteen Coast Guards were suspended June 2, ostensibly for accepting bribes to overlook smuggling of “liquor” from ocean liners, but that story had been suppressed for over 2 months and had developed an odor.[3] In Buffalo, June 4 was opening day for a conference between U.S. and Canadian customs officials. The meeting was organized by Assistant Treasury Secretary Seymour Lowman. This is the same Lowman, who replaced Lincoln Andrews after Andrews was forced by Elmer Irey – the heavy-artillery agent – to resign. Placed in charge of customs, Lowman’s specialties included narcotics smuggling and dismissing “dirty” agents.[4] When newsmen finally found out about this meeting nearly 3 weeks later, Secretary Andrew Mellon assured them that no railroad men had been threatened and that it “had nothing to do with prohibition or enforcement of the Volstead act.” This naturally raised suspicions about drugs, suspicions reinforced when 6 persons were shot on the floor of the Yugoslav House of Representatives. Yugoslavia was a major exporter of medical-grade opium and was reeling from widespread riots. This news hit reporters even as they tried to pry a scoop on the secret meeting from Secretary Mellon.[5]

In April 1921, the Literary Digest had run an unsigned article “Is Prohibition Making Drug Fiends?” The article raised troubling questions. The State Department understood perfectly well by 1922 that war-fed output and prohibition-enhanced smuggling facilities were thwarting all efforts at narcotics control.[6]

Repeal advocate Franklin Fabian speculated in a 1922 book that prohibition might have something to do with U.S. narcotics consumption being 6 or 7 times as high as in most European nations.[7] The very suggestion was hotly denied by prohibitionist Herman Feldman, who also denied that figures describing the true situation could be had from any source. Feldman relied on the usual apocrypha and anecdotes to shore up his beliefs, and shrugged off any hard data on arrests and convictions as proving only that enforcement was improving. Feldman’s source, a Dr. Kolb, argued that alcohol was actually a sort of gateway drug which led to narcotics use.[8] Nowhere does Feldman explain why no narcotics planks figured in U.S. political party platforms before 1924. Yet that year the Democrats—eager, of course, to exclude Asian immigration—suddenly began railing in their platform against “the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth,” while the Prohibition Party merely blinked and stood mute on the issue.[9] The sight of prisons steadily filling up with “narcotics” convicts led the Democratic Platform Committee and Herman Feldman to diametrically opposite conclusions as to why.

At prohibition hearings held during April of 1926 Congressman William S. Vare of Pennsylvania had declared the “increased use” of narcotics throughout the nation “appalling.”[10] Then on May 14, 1928, Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee reported that 28% of federal inmates were “addicts” and pushed for the Porter bill to segregate the junkies on a Kentucky “narcotics farm.”[11]

Yet the wisdom of the Harrison Act stood unchallenged even after 537 pounds of heroin and morphine were discovered in Brooklyn by New York Deputy Chief Inspector Louis J. Valentine’s staff in 1927—the year of the recent “Tong War” on U.S. soil and civil turmoil on Chinese soil.[12] Not only had alcohol prohibition increased U.S. demand for heroin and morphine, but the well-developed channels for alcohol smuggling served even better as conduits for smuggling drugs. It was probably easier to bribe a customs agent to look the other way if the agent believed that rum, not heroin, was being smuggled in.

 

[1] (NY World Almanac 1929 91)

[2] (Olmstead et al. v. U.S. 06/04/28 [465])

[3] (NYT 8/15/28 23:4)

[4] (Merz 1931 248-249)

[5] (NYT 6/22/28 31; 6/23/28 34, 52)

[6] (Taylor 1969 150)

[7] (Fabian 1922 77-80)

[8] (Feldman 1927/30 109, 113-115, 111)

[9] (Johnson and Porter 1975 246; 249)

[10] (Feldman 1927/30 101-102)

[11] (NYT 5/15/28 10)

[12] (NYT 7/1/28 14; 1/13/27 4)

Does your company ever need to come to terms with pharmaceutical suppliers south of the border? Why not hire an interpreter familiar with the history and background of many foreign products?

America Before NATO

These United States joined in WWI NOT as Allies with England, Serbia and France, against Germany, but certainly not as an enemy of Turkey.

US banks, recently united via the Federal Reserve System, went to war in 1918 to ensure the money loaned to France and England would be paid back. Russia dropped out of that European alliance after its communist revolt. That raised the possibility of the Austro-Hungary-Prussia alliance winning and giving the losers an excuse for welshing. Here’s what happened.

February 9, 1920, British Embassy in Washington to Treasury: “We should welcome a general cancellation of intergovernmental war debts.”  (Garrett 1932 148). British debt was 4.5 billion gold dollars. France owed the US $4 billion. The aggregate total Europe owed America in 1926 was $22.5 billion in gold, and nearly all European nations sought to welsh on the debt.

Then, in the fall of 1922, a nationalistic government headed by Dr. C.J.W. Cuno took command of Berlin. The Allies charged Germany with willful default and her reparations payments, and at the beginning of 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Valley of the Ruhr, attempted to take over industries, but were balked by German passive resistance.
The mark fell from 7000 to the dollar in the first days of January, 1923 to 4 trillion in November. German credit abroad was wrecked.  (Nat’l Geog December 1928 667)

Calvin Coolidge conference September 16, 1924: I haven’t any plan or policy about the settlement of the French debt at present. That is all provided for by statute law and I suppose that the only representation I would be entitled to make about it is that which I am ordered to make by law. That [obtaining approval of Congress] was what was done with the British debt. It wasn’t settled exactly in conformity with the terms of the law. (…) What we have constantly kept in mind in that policy is that the debt that is due to us from one country hasn’t any direct connection with the debt that might be due to us from another country. That is why we have not mixed up the German indemnity in any way with our own debt.  (Quint & Ferrell 1964 188-189)

Mar 31, 1927‑‑German Reichstag unanimously demands a downward revision of reparations payments. (NY World Almanac 1928 102). What follows is from Prohibition and the Crash.

Chapter 151

The Moratorium

President Hoover declared on June 20, 1931, what would later be styled the “Moratorium on Brains” by postponing all inter-governmental debts for a one-year “standstill agreement.”[1] Since the United States was owed money by just about everyone involved in WWI, this meant a drying up of what revenue had been forthcoming, mainly interest at $250 million a year. Its real effect was to strengthen the debt repudiation movement, jeopardize private loans to Germany and even the loan principal owed the Treasury by the Allies.

Veterans stared in bewilderment and wondered how a government too broke to advance a couple of billion on their bonus bonds could casually toss away over $20 billion with a wave of the hand—and for the accursed Hun! The total amounts involved in all the major war debts ran into some $22 billion divided among five countries in 1925, and had changed little since then.[2]

A much more pressing concern, however, were the private loans which Dr. Hjalmar Schacht had assured Americans would be repaid as soon as the Allies’ reparations monkey were lifted off Germany’s back. Hoover, determined at all hazards to convince voters that the world economic crises did not originate in America, had no choice but to again direct attention “over there.” If Schacht were right, at least the bulk of the money owed to American investors might actually arrive. Reversing this flow was important, since Europe had put the touch on Americans for over forty billion dollars in private loans in less than fifteen years. The moratorium did get people’s attention, but not in any way that would redound to Hoover’s credit. Latin-American politicians, impressed by the largesse with which El Presidente altruista dispensed other people’s monies, began sidling up for a moratorium on their arrearage. Already Hoover’s move was backfiring. There was something of a stock market rally in New York when the news hit, but U.S. government bonds all closed behind minus signs.[3]

[1] (Hoover 1931 1976 325)

[2] (Time Capsule 1/12/25 105-6)

[3] (Hoover 1931 1976 331) (Garrett 1932 57, 67)

In today’s looter press the NATO parasitism situation is depicted as stingy selfishness on the part of the DemoGOP Congress that passes laws the President is required to enforce… exactly as when FDR was Prez. Europeans also whine that American voters do not buy their doomsday beliefs. US voters came out against the latest doublethink version of European National Socialism–a pogrom against electric generating capacity–and scientists specifically rejected all eugenic and pseudoscientific theories claiming industrial society causing global broiling, 31,000 to 18. As for nuclear energy, Econazi Germany is acutely aware that the atom bomb was developed to broil its socialist government. Germany managed to escape through surrender and suicide. Americans have no reason to fear nuclear power plants or weapons… except in the hands of socialists or religious fanatics.

Looting is Generosity

The Repo Man

League of Looter Nations, 1929

After President Harding and the Senate said no, the League of European stupefacient warmongers limped on without us. So what happened? Here is an excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 12

The League of Nations

            On the international front the State Department Division of Far Eastern Affairs had approvingly read the Geneva Opium Convention of 1925, and lent a sympathetic ear to the so-called Scheme of Stipulated Supply. The idea was to use futures trading for all legal narcotics procurements. The effect would be to greatly limit production for the illegal market.[1] The World Anti-Narcotic Union had held a gala meeting early in March and obtained verbal support from Governor Al Smith, Mayor Jimmy Walker and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini—but nothing was actually done.[2]

Since 1924 Pennsylvania Congressman Stephen G. Porter had been an influential figure in U.S. drug negotiations with the League of Nations. But the man was a mystical pedant and alienated League members (See and compare A.G. Sessions). Indeed, it was on Porter’s motion that the American delegation to the Geneva conference had petulantly withdrawn from the Convention of 1925. The truth was that delegates from India, Turkey and Persia understood perfectly well that any sudden curbs on opium production would bring on acute economic crises and political instability in their countries. Porter understood none of this and stormed out in a huff, convinced of the foreign delegates’ insincerity. Even before the Great War German chemical interests had struggled against curbs on drugs, and not without reason.[3]

 

[1] (Taylor 1969 211, 228) (Eisenlohr 1934 129)

[2] (NYT 3/8/28 8)

[3] (Taylor 1969 178-9, 184; 193, 201, 107-8, 213) (Eisenlohr 1934 227, 231, 256-7)

 

Soviet Anthropomorphic Climate Change, 1960

A Soviet Russian slideshow precursor to The Jetsons  predicts egotistical capitalists will alter the climate for selfish profit, causing storms everywhere in the year 2017. 

This jewel turned up at The Independent Institute blog, and is sure to delight fans of Boy-meets tractor Soviet nostalgia kitsch. The Great Disappointment that troubled anti-industrial Millerites when the Mayan Calendar Cassandras failed to deliver Armageddon, The Rapture, Tribulation and Left Behind in 2012 may well have been a slight miscalculation. Here is Soviet prophesying at its finest, crafted back when John Futuristic Kennedy debated Richard Madhouse Nixon.

The best part is reserved for last. Egotistical madmen are hiding out on an island much like Hawaii–or perhaps Aldous Huxley’s Pala. Naturally, they resort to terrorism as the civilizing forces of Ordered Liberty close on on them and cause… (drumroll, Maestro…)

You guessed it! CLIMATE CHANGE! The whole enchilada, folks, complete with tidal waves, sharknados and you-name-it ecological horrors. Will Their Brothers’ Keepers–the wise and benevolent authorities on settled science–manage to use carbon taxes and a recent breakthrough in nuclear energy to save the planet from the folly of irresponsible greed? Stay tuned…

Instead of watching the idiot box, Libertariantranslator roams the historical past in many countries but just a few languages. Here you find new perspectives on old problems and old perspectives on new ones…

Global Warming Math

 

Individualism?

Sinfest, the webcomic to end all

Does the USA need a State of Fear?

Fact: A = A
Inference: 2A = 2A
This is the way algebra works, like the scales of justice. It you add to or subtract from both sides of the equality equally, the truth value of the equation is unchanged.

Datum: over 31000 degreed scientists signed and mailed in the PetitionProject.org petition successfully urging the US Senate NOT to ratify the unconvincing Kyoto hara-kiri “agreement”.

Father of Anti-Nazi Bomb

See the original PetitionProject.org lists.

Datum: Sierra Club president statement before the Senate, “97% of the scientists” believe the Earth is “cooking and heating up and warming.”

Programmed True Believer

President of Sierra Club before US Senate. See the video.

Assume both data are true, we can calculate the minimum number of people who earned science degrees from colleges and universities and believe the Earth is “cooking and heating up and warming.” Let’s do that.

100% minus 97% is 3%, and a percent sign % stands for 100 in the denominator or divisor.

Let x equal only those 31000-and-change scientists who do NOT believe the Earth is cooking and heating up. Those 31000 are 3% of what number?

3x/100 = 31000. Multiply both sides by 100, and
3x = 3,100,000 Right? Next we divide both sides by 3, so that
x = 3,100,000/3 Still with me? Now we simplify the fraction on the right by dividing, and
x = 1,033,333 scientists. That is five times the combined membership both the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society.

So supposing the 31000+ Petition Project American scientists alone are the entire dissenting 3%. Algebra tells us the 97% has to comprise at the very least 1,033,333 scientists. That is five times the combined membership of both the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society. Enrico Fermi would ask: Where are they?

Where is the list of these “consensus scientists” listed by name and by state? 

Q.E.D. = Quod erat demonstratum

If you ever need a technical translator with an adequate command of Junior High math, search me out.

Voter Comparison Shopping

When was the last time you saw political party platform planks compared? The entrenched Kleptocracy parties both claimed to be different in 2016. Are they?

The Democrats still want your kids incarcerated for marijuana, only now they want to class it in the same category as methamphetamine and cocaine instead of heroin. The Libertarian Party is against sending men with guns to kick down doors–especially when no harm has been done to merit such violence. The Republican Party wants that Old Testament Prohibitionism that caused most of our financial crashes and economic depressions. Sound farfetched? Exaggerated?

Here is the 2016 straddle plank the Democratic party added to its lengthy platform by the narrowest of margins before choosing a candidate:

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1″ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.

Here is the Libertarian plank that covers policy on marijuana:

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. [Banned from televised debates]

Here is the Republican plank on some drugs:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long- range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences.

True, the Dems pretend to believe they can repeal the Second Amendment, enact Kristallnacht laws, abolish guns and turn These States into a banana republic or European satrapy. And the GO-Pee platform flatly asserts it wants to change the 14th Amendment so that “All Persons Born” will again be interpreted to mean “All Ova Fertilized,” everywhere, not just in Dixieland as it was before the Libertarian Party electoral vote earned in December of 1972. That vote led to the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing that pregnant women have individual rights in January 1973. (Yep. Libertarian spoiler votes have been vacating bad jurisprudence for 45 years). Their biggest mistake was to cave in to Green Watermelon spoiler votes aimed at making electricity generation more difficult and expensive than it already is. That is the only real difference between the GOP-Tea Party-Klan and the DEM-Green-CPUSA United Fronts.

There is no difference between being flung in jail or shot by conscience-stricken Democrats or lustily bragging Republicans.  Both want hemp users arrested by the violence of law–that, fines and imprisonment are what their platforms offer voters–and visit upon those too young to vote or buy beer. Prohibition laws are marketing tools passed and enforced for a profit that is well-hidden from view. They distort the supply and demand curves to raise prices; that is the purpose of all marketing.

If you are surprised that these precursors to legislation are what make the laws, try not to be surprised by bad translations of legal material in court.  A competent court interpreter can be as valuable as a competent attorney in defense of your rights.