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

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”.

Teller_Card_100dpi

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.

Words you can dance to

My surprising analysis of Prohibition and The Crash is available on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint of craft beer.

29coversmall

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages