Comparison Voting

Zippy Pinhead for Vice President

Today Dems and fake Libertarian Delegates favor communist anarchism

Remember comparison shopping? You look at different product features and compare before choosing? Here is a table for voters:

 

 

Libertarian

Democrat

Republican

Aggression

No

Yes

Yes

Prohibitionism

No

Yes

Yes

Bombings abroad

No

Yes

Yes

Capitation tax

No

Yes

Yes

Race Collectivism

No

Yes

Yes

Asset Forfeiture

No

Yes

Yes

Communism

No

Yes

No

Fascism

No

No

Yes

Ballot access

Yes

No

No

Censorship

No

Yes

Yes

Anarchism

?

No

Yes

Free markets

Yes

No

No

If you are shocked to see the Kleptocracy’s own media feigning surprise at the initiation of force, aggression and violence sweeping the nation, ask yourself if the aggression you see is not what you voted for. ***

Read pro-American compulsory racial-eugenics appeals touting prohibition and collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

Anarchism, Spain, 1933

bomb-throwing commies

Socialist laborite malcontents (link)

EVERY time the word Anarchist appeared in newspapers before 1971 it meant “violent communist.” Thanks in part to Republican Party manipulation of the press, America’s illiterati suddenly decided to believe “anarchist” meant Libertarian, that is, voters who signed the non-aggression principle. But before you consider this the height of criminal stupidity, recall that the same thing happened before, in 1932.(link

Before 1932, right wing and left wing were subjective terms used to describe troop movements, and had nothing to do with mercantilism or socialism. But when the Liberal Party published its 1931 anti-Klan platform calling for relegalization of beer, prohibitionists ignored it.(link)  They struggled to ignore it until the Liberals donated the plank to the Democrats.(link) Eugenics-minded prohibitionists then adopted Hitler’s use of “liberal” which roughly meant disloyal selfish Jewish communist backstabbers.(link) Then again, in the same newspaper we see Democrats trying to redefine some of their own tarnished hero-images in the funny pages. 

Republican-Nationalsocialist redefining of “liberal” was received by repeal forces with whoops of joy as a badge of pride, and has gradually been sculpted to mean Fabian socialist by its defenders and fifth-column communist by Republicans. Teenagers look up the real meaning (libertarian-leaning) in dictionaries and decide it’s a good thing. I certainly did. The thing about generalizations is that any counterexample seriously weakens them–much the way a single dissenter drastically weakens the opinion-shaping power of majority social pressure.(link

But the dictionary and newspapers in several languages make it equally clear anarchism is a synonym for warfare in general, and communist guerrilla warfare in particular. I have been republishing news clippings like these for years. So when was the last time you saw a pre-1971 article equivocating Ancap or Antifa goons with Libertarians, objectivists or capitalists?

communist stabbers and bombers

Anarchists, violent socialists, labor goons, communists (continued)

When seventies antichoice Republicans screeched “liberal!” they meant anti-prohibition Libertarians who wrote the platform plank that became the Roe v Wade decision enforcing individual rights. In the 1980s the Republican version of the meaning shifted to include pederasts, tax-and-spend looters and all manner of godless socialists and communists. 

At about that time sabotage planks appeared in the LP platform, lending substance to those smears, while unemployed socialists, labor goons, antichoice mystics, communists, malcontents and looters in general “joined” the LP to explain that anarcho-communism is the real “ancap” libertarianism. This lot infiltrates the platform committee to twist the verbiage into something John Hospers–indeed any thinking person–could recognize as sabotage by agents-provocateur. 

Democrats today honestly identify Republicans as fascist while Republicans just as honestly identify Democrats as communist-socialists. Yet both parties hotly deny that either label applies to themselves. Impersonation and mimesis have replaced definitions and identification among parasites.

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

Populist anarchism, 1894

anarchists ruin the party

You can find the originals at Google News Archives

Two years earlier a communist manifesto People’s Party won 9% of the vote in These States, including 22 electoral votes and almost enough popular votes to THRICE cover the gap between hired and fired parties. That was clout enough to breathe new life into European communo-fascist socialist collectives that multiplied like mice in a monarchy.

Monarchies were on their way out, substituted by democracies in tight correlation with the Fisher-Pry sigmoid curve that maps the rate at which one product or political party replaces another. The graph above is on semi-log axes convenient before cheap computers replaced adding machines and slide rules. When both axes are linear these replacement curves are an S-shape to which newcomers, like cellphones or the Libertarian Party, enter at 0% of market share, accelerate to 50%, then taper up asymptotic to the 100% mark until replaced by something better. Below is how law-changing LP spoiler vote clout is growing now, with no anarchist planks to make us look bad.

 So you see that the game is played by gradual replacement that accelerates if the new product offering is better than the competition’s. Just such a hockey stick increase in 1892 caused the entrenched parties to adopt socialist planks so as to not lose the votes they needed to replace each other. Most problems resulted from those socialist and religious fanatic Comstock, prohibition, sumptuary, blue, Sunday, tax and tariff laws containing social engineering agendas. The Libertarian Party is simply reversing that trend by replacing coercion with freedom using the law-changing clout of spoiler votes.

If the kleptocracy could get rid of us by packing our platform committee with anarchists, girl-bullying zealots or child molesters, they’d do it in a heartbeat to keep the bait planks that attract single-issue fanatics. But we’re still here, and still vigilant after 48 years of finally learning to use spoiler votes to play the looters till they repeal the cruelest laws.

To understand how the Liberal Party unseated the economy-destroying Republicans using these tactics in 1931, see Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929. For the cost of a pint you will understand how cruel fanaticism destroys economies. Live on Amazon Kindle.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brought to you by

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

What is Winning?

GOPNSDAPThe key to political campaigns is in the definition of winning. Suppose someone wanted his son shot and jailed, home confiscated, unemployment up, and all markets crashed, you’d suggest he vote Republican. Same solution if they were to want a daughter to bleed to death because of medieval approaches to accidental pregnancy. To Republican, Christian National Socialist and Islamic State legislators that’s winning–provided their candidate also gets the government job. Communists and lay socialists on the other hand prefer to forego the government job but force the kleptocracy to change the laws in response to the pressure of their spoiler votes. It’s kind of like a “sacrifice” move in a chess game, in exchange for gaining tactical or positional compensation farther along. So if their platform planks seem “extreme” (meaning consistent with their ideology), that’s not a problem. Spoiler votes will gradually make those positions seem wearily centrist. That’s the strategy that enacted the 16th and 18th Amendments.

demcommieWhen socialist parties lose, it’s because (their cheerleaders feel) that particular unverifiable secret ballot election was rigged. Deep down you know this is true–or at least unfalsifiable–so the tendency is to feel a twinge of sympathy for the raw deal they got. But it’s not just ordinary socialists. Christian National Socialists, Islamic Mohammedans and devout altruistic Communists all want essentially the same thing: decisions imposed at gunpoint by the better people who know what’s good for the riff-raff. Of course they have surrogates. National Socialists of Third Reich Christian persuasions have since 1932 been the hand inside the Republican party sockpuppet. International Socialists of the East German Communist variety have lately pulled the strings that move the arms and mouths of Democratic Party spokesmen. One can’t think independently and still have faith in altruism.

But suppose a voter wants freedom? That is, not the initiation of force, but rather, voluntary cooperation? Suppose you want the Marxist personal income tax abolished, its collectors disarmed and returned to the productive labor market? What about those who want to eat, drink and smoke what they prefer–people to whom winning means becoming the masters of their own financial decisions?

Fake Trump combover?

Not a Fake Trump combover!

In that case, the recommendation can only be to vote for the LP platform Gary Johnson is standing on. It is easy to verify that, as in 1892 or 1908, each third-party spoiler vote has way more law changing power than a vote wasted on shape-shifting actors fronting for soft machines. Dry Christian Progressives backing small parties in the 1890s paved the way for Prohibition making light beer a felony. Likewise, dry Christian Socialists paved the way for Soviet Communism in Russia, National Socialism in Germany, and transfer payments to non-producers elsewhere. Yet all their parties–Greenback, Farmer-labor, Anti-monopoly, Socialist, Socialist labor, Prohibition, LOST by their candidates getting less than half the electoral vote. However, they eventually won what they wanted by changing the laws, whether through enactment, court decisions, or repeal.

I’d wager that even if Gary Johnson were to receive 60% of the votes, a way would be found to defraud the election. But the fright would nevertheless cause the looters to abolish a mess of bad laws–which is what I really want. THAT’s winning. Consider making a Paypal donation at LP.org I absolutely guarantee your donation will change 600% to 3600% as many words in laws as it would if wasted on either of the Kleptocracy soft machines.

pidotcom