MEMBERSHIP DRIVE-BYS

The webcomic to end all webcomics

Sinfest, by Tatsuya Ishida–no holds barred!

MEMBERSHIP DRIVE-BYs: PLATFORM PLANKS & RESOLUTIONS adopted by infiltrators and useful idiots to drive away voters and supporters.

These abound in political organizations. In Republican documents, lurid reefer madness propaganda and calls to arms for Girl-Bullying Amendment (ver. 8.0) are examples. Among Democrats, shrill misquotations of evasive pseudoscientific Doublespeak and mournful cries for new and higher taxes fill the bill. Both sclerotic looter gerontocracies with only coercion to offer seek to terrify voters by casting “the other” party’s candidate as the incarnation of Satan in cloven hooves. Ah! But this is what enables Libertarian spoiler votes to maneuver those parasites into letting go of their most obnoxious laws!

Are you between these two forms of socialism?

Either-or Left-And-Right Socialism

To traditional looter kleptocracies, a key to enabling collectivism to keep on coercing is binary either-or framing: communist or fascist, left or right, Trumpista or Antifa! They NEVER publicly acknowledge the law-changing power of outside-party, neither-nor spoiler votes. This they water down by declaring themselves centrists, moderates, or some linear miscegenation of part-Hitlerite part-Stalinist policymakers–at least in America. 

Observe that U.S. looters focus on the job-seeking competition as the embodiment of absolute Evil and struggle to evade mention of law-changing libertarian spoiler votes. But the LP vote share is nevertheless increasing in hockey-stick acceleration! What’s a wilting Kleptocracy to do?

LPvotescurve16

Even looters know that ignoring a problem does not make it go away. To them, a way must again be found to cause the Libertarian Party to make really dumb mistakes–fritter away what money it can raise–and so alienate voters as to make us look bad even compared to The Kleptocracy! There’s a tall order…

The GOP and Dems would be careless indeed not to again infiltrate and sabotage the LP as they did in the 1980s. So how about treacherously poisoning our decision-making process? Here is another of the latest such efforts passed by the Libertarian National Committee:

Whereas, the plurality voting election method is the weakest voting method and a deeply flawed way of electing government representatives and officers; and Whereas, there are many alternatives to plurality elections, many of which have strong advocates promoting their specific benefits, and it is generally accepted by experts and advocates alike that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system, but each of these alternative systems is generally regarded as being superior to plurality elections; and (scolding cant omitted…)
Therefore, be it resolved, the Libertarian National Committee is committed to the widespread adoption and implementation of alternative voting methods to replace plurality voting elections.

Normal voting has been the American system for over two centuries. If it’s bad, then why is it that so many people seek to flee here that there is a movement afoot to build a wall to keep them out? The US Constitution stipulates the weakest voting system? By what standard, or compared to where? Generally regarded by whom?

There are exactly six (06) “preferential” collectivized vote countries (the same as the number of communist countries if you include Venezuela):
Australia (forced to vote at gunpoint, suffers rolling Blackouts; Only 12% of Australians enjoy being forced to vote in their collectivist system, and 19% consider it unfair),
Ireland (finally repealed 35 years of constitutionally coerced reproduction in May 2018–by normal 2/3 vote restoring individual rights for women),
New Zealand, (population similar to Alabama’s, with no LP)
Northern Ireland (there’s your ideal political State!),
Scotland (mystical girl-bullying laws eroding slowly), and
Malta (Comstock law birth control bans. A “libertarian” club with an antichoice GOP poster-child).

Of these 6 “superior” countries, only Ireland unequivocally recognizes the individual rights of women.

So if the idea is a Catholic or Mohammedan theocracy, or an anti-industrial revolution, only then does gauntlet-glob voting look better than that in the Constitution of These States. Individual reproductive rights for women are impaired in 5 of these 6 countries. Observe also that there are no swarms of refugees trying to get into these six easily-gulled countries, or the six communist countries. Of people who vote with their feet, 97% prefer elsewhere

Not so fast! Libertarians are comfortable with 3% of the vote repealing bad laws that once coerced 100%. And we’re no more popular with the Great Brainwashed than the communists were before they put the Income Tax into the Constitution. Perhaps there is some hidden advantage to collectivized gang-votes? Is there an upside for 3rd parties that only the LNC, in its majestic ideality, was able to perceive?

There are none better than the Australians to defenestrate THAT pipe-dream. Australians clearly state: 

3. It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

That anything this dumb can pass in the LNC is evidence of gross mismanagement and self-deception. Ask yourself: Is this likely to rally voters to our candidates? Cause thinking people to join and pay dues? Attract donations from intellectually honest individuals? Not from what I’ve seen lately.


Objectively Orwellian language

For transparently clear translations!
Don’t miss my foreign blog…

Integrity is their Enemy… 1

Politicians and their accomplices are fond of reciting that “Perfection is the enemy of …” of what? A look at the plug-in variables used to complete the false dichotomy turns up: good, progress, completion, and a host of similar abstract nouns with pleasant connotations. But if we translate the concepts behind the phrase, its meaning turns out to be: “Integrity is the enemy of self-deception.” This is Part One of a two-part exploration.

Libertarian spoiler vote levers (vote % * electoral votes) in LP Battleground states

Farfetched? Here is a typical dictionary definition of perfection, which in politics is a verb, an ongoing process approaching a theoretical limit:

3. The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible: e.g. Among the keytasks was the perfection of new mechanisms of economic management

Compare that with an attempted definition of integrity:

3. Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data: [as modifier] : integrity checking

Integrity checking was the approach to logical cryptographic analysis Alan Turing used to help England crack the Enigma code in the war against National Socialist Germany. Turing’s preoccupation with integrity was belittled by Ludwig Wittgenstein in prewar discussions at Princeton U. Ayn Rand defines integrity more clearly than dictionaries compiled for the Great Unwashed:

Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality.

In other words, integrity is ethical or moral perfection. Ask yourself what, then, is the meaning of political perfection as an ongoing process?  Now ask yourself: what is the definition of political corruption? The answer that comes to mind is betrayal of one’s convictions and values. You cannot translate campaign bribes paid by disparate artificial persons into platform planks and be consistent. But to use the government’s coercive power to meddle in trade and production and repay those bribes one needs to persuade voters to abandon integrity and betray some of their principles. Hence, perfection/integrity becomes an impediment to betrayal/corruption–but stating it that bluntly is politically incorrect.

The sanction of the victim must be obtained through fear or intimidation. This is why looter politicians paint “opposition” politicians as the very embodiment of impending doom. Their job is to grab at the initiation of force for the gain of their backers. The pundits and pollsters they rent are incapable of working the three-body-problem once third-party spoiler votes are involved. And no wonder! Third-party spoiler votes are investments in perfecting the rule of law and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and out posterity.

LP Spoiler Votes Repeal Bad Laws

Spoiler votes as agents of change were understood in 2007

Before 1971, small parties were without exception mystical, collectivist and/or nativist looters. Socialist populists of 1892 wanted the Communist Manifesto income tax which had been translated from German in The Red Republican in 1850. Coinciding with these mostly Christian altruists were the Prohibitionists, to whom the deadly threat of government guns would transubstantiate heathen tipplers into rum-hating fanatics all messed up on the Lord. The George Wallace and Tea Party approach meant the racial eugenics of woman-bullying Ku-Klux Christianity. Integrity in those three third-party cases meant pointing government guns at people to rob or brainwash them into submission. Their goal in every case was to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. To mixed-economy politicians, these “third parties” were full of votes which, like money, could be suckered by flim-flam persuasion. After all, they all wanted practically the same thing.  All of that changed in 1971.

To be continued…

Do you ever need Latin American or European Peninsular financial reports or analyses translated?