Government since 1908

Of cabbages and kings

Democracies were encroaching upon monarchies…

Fivescore and eleven years ago HL Mencken held forth on his interpretation of the thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche. Mencken’s parents were German. Germans had flowed into both Texas and the USA during the build-up to the Opium Wars, and published newspapers. Henry Lewis was uniquely positioned to understand, and that he did.

The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is an eight-dollar book not discussed much in objectivist circles. In it unfolds an examination of Christian beatitudes oddly reminiscent of Galt’s Speech–that part of Atlas Shrugged mystical conservatives scrupulously avoid reading and never attempt to refute. Yet the German’s perorations, as interpreted in American, shed light on the previous and upcoming elections.

Before individual rights were defined, as mankind wearily shrugged off God’s Own Papist monarchies, semi-log paper made a logistics curve appear as a straight line in which monarchies shrivel toward zero and “democracies” gain market share. The planet was approaching the point of inflection in the sigmoid substitution curve.

Government was just being defined and would in 1914 acquire stable meaning as a bounded monopoly on legitimate force. But rights, hence legitimacy, were undefined other than by Jefferson’s tentative and partial enumeration and “freak legislation” had the year previous transformed the Pure Food Law into machinery for destroying the U.S. economy.

Ayn Rand wrote fan mail to HL Mencken, obviously read his writings on Nietzsche, and just as obviously noticed the absence of individual rights. What passed for rights to the German were 1. things the individual is able to do despite opposition by his fellow men, and 2. things he is enabled to do by the grace and permission of his fellow men. Meh.

While Germans were swinging from the gallows in Nuremberg, Ayn Rand reformulated life, eudaimonia, as the touchstone standard of moral value whereby rights could be legitimized in terms of choices that make happiness possible. Another writer, mathematician Larry Niven, in Protector developed a race of Nietzschean alien supermen that were brave, competent, smart, but lacking in the happiness Jefferson associated with rights and even Nietzsche associated with philosophy.

 

New and happy replacing Old and senile parties

Votes for Libertarian Freedom replacing Collectivism and Sacrifice party votes

Rand’s Non-Aggression Pledge handily trashed Aldous Huxley’s “peace through inanition” policy and lay the ethical framework for a society unbowed by braying mystics, unsubmissive to the sacrificial demands of grim totalitarians, and unyielding in its commitment to progress toward happy freedom in the minimization–perhaps eventual elimination of the initiation of force–one war criminal at a time, if need be. In Rand’s Hollywood days, filming King of Kings while Calvin Coolidge restrained dangerous fanatical zeal, pledges were still a popular thing.

Can you explain whether Prohibition and The Crash were related by causation or coincidence? Amazon Kindle has the answer for the cost of a craft pint readable on any smartphone in either of two languages. Learn why by 1932 voters were pledging “I’ll never vote republican again!”

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

Advertisements

Ayn Rand v. Spoiler Votes

Luckily the LP is not a religion, and has no doctrine of infallibility. What it does is put into practice a suggestion made by Ayn Rand in 1947:

For a practical definition, if men merely agree that no man or number of men have the right to initiate the use of force against any human being (and that includes the forcible seizure of his property), that they have no such right for any purpose whatsoever, at any time whatsoever—that would be all we need, that would achieve a perfect Utopia on earth, that would include all the moral code we need. (LOAR 366)

Did Ayn Rand understand how spoiler votes change laws? Apparently not. Never has she explained how the income tax moved from the Communist Manifesto to the 16th Amendment. In The Fountainhead Dominique clearly opposes Prohibition, but how did it move from the Prohibition Party platform to the 18th Amendment? When asked in 1972 about the Libertarian Party she replied:

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. … (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Rand’s vote-count error is reminiscent of the socialist “fixed pie” error Peikoff pointed out in a debate. Looters imagine there is only so much wealth, and that if you gain some, it is taken from someone else. Hospers and Nathan’s LP took nearly 4000 votes from parasitical competitors. The result was that the LP platform’s plank on overpopulation was copied almost verbatim into the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court. This stopped Texas and Wallace Dixiecrat states from reviving Comstock laws to again ban all birth control, including abortion. This individual right Ayn Rand defended in keeping with the 14th Amendment.

Nixon’s party, on the other hand, got the “message” that George Wallace’s racial collectivist supporters sent to Washington with their 1968 votes (46 of them electoral votes). The Republicans imported some of Wallace’s planks and rhetoric and again scooped up the Klan vote–as they had in 1928. At 67, Ayn can’t be blamed for not realizing on October 22 that Wallace–in 1972 the leading Democratic contender–“had the sense to stay home” because he was shot May 15. Ayn hardly noticed that Bobby Kennedy (whom she doubtless saw as another heir of the Nazi Papacy) was fatally shot June 6th. When the GOP allowed Goldwater to lose to LBJ, that was NOT the republican endorsement of Jewish values or repudiation of christian naziism the author of “The Fascist New Frontier” had struggled to imagine.

Ayn Rand, born in an autocratic empire turned communist dictatorship, lacked experience with democracy. Like teevee personalities, she saw votes as vectors for hiring politicians, NOT as policy instruments with which individuals directly change laws. The idea of spoiler votes moving policy–as the U.S. Liberal Party votes did when she was 25, or as communist votes changed the U.S. Constitution when she was 8, never occurred to her then, or to most libertarians today.  But the religious Prohibition Amendment and communist Income Tax Amendment were championed by parties that averaged under 3% of the vote.

So when a brilliant ethicist opines that “taking ten votes away” from a lying, superstitious, girl-bullying fascist looter the likes of Richard Nixon is “a moral crime”, one has to wonder if philosophy, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Ayn Rand’s description of the Crash and Depression in Atlas Shrugged more closely resembles the historical record than prior theories. Republicans have managed to efface Clark Warburton’s “The Economic Results of Prohibition”.  Prohibition and the Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, takes Warburton’s work one step further. Live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

 

Republicans Fear LP Spoiler votes

Lose the looter planks or lose the election

Law-changing spoiler votes

Nixon’s Republican Party changed the tax code to pay the media to ignore the Libertarian Party in 1971, the year we were founded. Yet with its first published platform the LP parlayed fewer than 4000 votes into a win for women in the US and Canada.

The LP platform language:

“We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”

was translated by Austin attorney Libby Linebarger into the Roe v. Wade decision

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

The next election, 1972, both the Republican Party and its spoiler vote controllers demanded a Constitutional Amendment to overturn that Libertarian Party platform plank copied by the Supreme Court. The Prohibitionists have finally given up and are pushing the Global Warming Apocalypso. But Republican partisans are still in a rut as of their 2016 platform:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

The 14th Amendment, by the way, starts by protecting “All persons born”, not all ova fertilized.

God’s Own Prohibitionists have since 2013 had mystical shills penning tear-jerker insinuations at Forbes. After carpetbiting for an Amendment to undo the Libertarian Party’s 1972 plank for 46 years, Republicans now understand that the collectivism of race suicide paranoia is the anvil that is drowning their party. Global Warmunism is the even bigger anvil drowning the Democratic and Econazi parties. Good riddance!

Yet in our battleground states, where Libertarian vote counts are larger than the difference between the Nationalsocialist warriors-for-the-babies and the Soviet socialist energy slave abolitionists, we handed the election to the least coercive candidate, and the looter parties lost those about evenly. Our pro-choice candidate may win the NM senate race, and not just in the usual sense of WINNING by forcing the looters to repeal bad laws (or getting the Supreme Court to strike them down).

Whenever the need arises for a clear translation of what politicians and judges are saying in Spanish or Portuguese, ask me for a bid.

U.S. Elections, 1928=2018

May 28, 1928, H.L. Mencken on the election: “This show is good at all times, but it is best when some great combat is in progress, and I can think of no combat more likely to be violent and hence thrilling than one in which religious zealots are engaged. However trivial its actual issues, it is bound to show all the savagery of a dog fight.”

Religious zealot Herbert Clark Hoover was favored for the Republican nomination after Calvin Coolidge, convinced a crash and depression were imminent, eschewed the Republican Party nomination. The ku-klux klan was outraged at the thought of Whiskey Al Smith, a catholic, getting the Democratic Party nomination, and threatened to defect to the Republican camp.

“Both” parties wanted to use the income tax, libel and forfeiture laws to keep beer, birth control and many plant leaves illegal.  Citizens and foreigners were gunned down daily by Customs, Coast Guard, Internal Revenue, prohibition agents, municipal police and county sheriffs’ departments. European nations that had begged for and gotten war loans from the US now struggled to welch on those loans without the sort of overt repudiation that might give their colonial subjects inconvenient ideas.  Communism had earnestly begun to decimate Russia and its Soviet colonies through starvation, forced labor and firing squads, while socialists in America shrilly denied that any such thing was occurring. There was no Libertarian Party then, only socialists, communists and fascists here and in Europe.

Today both looter parties seek to use the income tax, censorship, libel and forfeiture laws to keep plant leaves illegal and cripple insurgent parties. Democrats ignore thermometer records and imagine the world is a rotisserie in an effort to close power plants, keep freon illegal, subsidize political ads for looter parties, send men with guns to kill people abroad and put a tax on carbon dioxide (not methane or water vapor). Republicans struggle to bring back the Comstock laws of 1872-3 banning birth control, keep all enjoyable drugs (except ethanol) illegal, subsidize political ads for looter parties and send men with guns to kill people abroad, prop up mystical prohibitionist régimes, and keep refugees and foreign survivors from coming to America to exact revenge.

Both want your vote to go to one or the other, either-or.

But the entrenched looter kleptocracy is faced with a hockey-stick increase in votes cast for the Libertarian Party. The LP seeks to repeal the communist manifesto income tax Amendment and stop the Nixon subsidies to looter party campaigns. The LP does not want men with guns to kill anyone over plant leaves, freon or carbon dioxide, and is certainly opposed to endangering military personnel by ordering occupation, kidnapping or murders in foreign jurisdictions.

Here is the voting trend hockey stick showing Libertarian Party growth since the campaign of 2000:

Why be a part of the undignified faecepuke-flinging match that so excites the basically identical force-initiating parties? Every libertarian vote lowers taxes and repeals onerous laws by forcing the looters to deliver on those promises or lose that hand in the till and lard on the leather upholstery. All you have to do is vote outside the line and inside the upper square of the 2-dimensional Nolan Chart box. You vote will pack at least six times the clout. Never forget that, 3674 libertarian votes cast in 1972 promptly persuaded the Supreme Court to protect the individual rights of women with its Roe v. Wade ruling.

If you need translations involving statistics, energy, pollution, climate records, immigration laws or political promises in English, Spanish or Portuguese, do get in touch.

Socialism in Amerika and Germany

Socialists are, as usual, ticked off at The Don Jr. (Disclaimer: this blogger votes libertarian). By quoting a recent comment “both sides” disclose a disconnect between reality and their own brainwashing doled out in government schools.

Here’s the quote:

“You see the Nazi platform in the early 1930s and what was actually put out there, and you look at it compared to, like, the DNC platform of today, and you’re saying, ‘Man, those things are awfully similar,’ to the point where it’s actually scary. To me, that was one of the most striking things I took from the movie because it’s the exact opposite that you’ve been told.” —Donald Trump Jr. on Dinesh D’Souza’s film “Death of a Nation”

Ayn Rand did the same thing back when Kennedy (D) defeated Richard Nixon (R). Random House refused to publish her essay pointing to the ominous parallels between the National Socialist platform penned by Hitler in 1920 and verbiage contained in the Democratic Party platform and JFK speeches. She fired that publisher.** By her lights, Goldwater’s Republican candidacy was sufficient proof that God’s Own Prohibitionists–whatever their other faults–were not out to exterminate Judaism to please the Lutherans and Catholics. In actual fact Goldwater was nominated because the Republican Party was certain the Dems would win that 1964 election, so the empty gesture cost them nothing.

Literate and rational persons who have read the National Socialist program Hitler penned in 1920, his 1924 Mein Kampf, or the 1933 Enabling Act speech to the Reichstag find religious conservative beliefs on just about every page. Germany was 98% Protestant and Catholic when Hitler took office amid applause. Big Pharma needed a belligerent madman to terrify foreign regulators seeking to curb German morphine exports and collect war reparations payments. If Germany’s political leader also frightened pharmaceutical competitors, so much the better. Hitler just happened to suit the purposes of military contractors and drug companies, and the crowds loved him.

It is a safe bet that neither Trump nor his competitors have ever read the NSDAP program which got the National Socialist party in power by 1933. Nazis, Democrats and Republicans all believe that altruism is good. They believe this not from fact, but because of a preacher invented approximately 1968 years ago by primitives writing in a language none of them can read or speak. The folk legend of an altruist purported to have been executed a century and a half earlier than the first mention of his existence suffices to establish altruism and sacrifice as the standard of value for all three parties.

Small wonder then that all three platforms are so similar. But the Democratic platform more closely resembles Norman Thomas’ christian socialism than Adolf Hitler’s version of the same thing. The Republican platform incorporates more German ideology and eugenics than does the Democratic version. But “both” parties (along with all the looter parties of Europe, Asia and Africa) seek to install themselves somewhere on a line extending from Stalinist international socialism on the “left” to Hitlerite nationalsocialism on the “right.” All parties based on altruism and the initiation of force seek to occupy the political predicament of Poland in 1939. The idea of measuring their published platforms’ demands for violence against individual rights and economic freedom on two intersecting axes shocks intellectuals of the looter persuasion.

The result is that large areas of Germany and Austria are even NOW evacuated because of bombs dropped there in the 1940s. Yet no one there understands that those bombs were dropped because of Germanys literal commitment to altruism, sacrifice and the initiation of force.

Orwell’s 1984 was a paean against cowardly acceptance of the Hitler-Stalin Pact on the part of British snobs. Its message is manifestly misunderstood by British and American readers just as the message of those bombs is evaded by Austrians and Germans. That situation is fast changing, thanks to the law-repealing power of Libertarian spoiler votes. Here is a hockey stick depicting the resurgence of reason and choice at the expense of superstition and force.

** This sort of self-censorship still happens today.

If in need of translations for agribusiness, nuclear energy, mining, the food industry or economics, look me up.

My other blog is amigra.us. If you detect an error, by all means, leave an incisive comment.

 

Suckering the Helpless

In These States, Altruist Germany and Czarist Russia there was a 97% consensus that the deadly force wielded by the Political State was precisely the thing to bring Succor to the Helpless.

The idea apparently originated about a century and a half into the Common Era. Stories were recorded of a Prophet who 150 years earlier brought cadavers back to the pink of health and ordered apostles to Give unto Caesar. That same Prophet preached altruism in simultaneous translation into Glossolalian while multiplying bread and fishes as a sort of fiat currency for huge masses of worshipping admirers. Succoring the miserable with free stuff was the idea, and the loaves and fishes were evidently pirate copies of the originals. This cloning of free stuff (if that is the proper translation of what those primitive languages claimed had occurred nearly two centuries earlier) crashed and burned in collision with conservation of mass, energy, and momentum, principles of thermodynamics and selfish ideas about the value of ownlife rather than sacrifice for others.

The dilemma was resolved 18 centuries later in Russia and Germany along altruistic principles established by the likes of Marx, Kant and Luther as reinterpreted by Edward Bellamy and Jack London for export and retranslation back into German and Russian. Everybody suffered, and millions starved–except the altruists whose bidding the men with guns obeyed. The Russian version discarded the Prophet of God part which German deontological dogma zealously preserved. Huge chemical companies provided the explosives required for the initiation of force, and refined the patented poppy drugs sold to foreigners as a source of revenue.  Empires grew fat and their subjects literally worshipped the politicians, bishops and field-marshals.

If necessary at the sacrifice of our own lives

The Common Good Before The Individual Good

In America the mystical mythos was weaker and reverence for the Almighty Dollar much stronger. Mining company lobbyists convinced politicians to convert their gold and silver into coins and force distant consumers to pay the cost via tariff revenue. By the time inconvenient supply and demand considerations revealed how dumb an idea this had been, the mining corporations could buy and sell politicians like potatoes. These corporatepreneurs found among the disciples of Bellamy, Kant and Marx the useful voters they needed to keep that money faucet open. A weaker version of the European myth did the same thing: tax the helpless to pay brutes to tax them all the harder, with as many mock trials and executions as needed to overcome resistance. The biggest difference was that American piety and guilt over extermination of natives led to a prohibitionist reaction which contrasted with Germany’s exploitation of primitives, residents and foreigners with chemical drugs.

DutchLP17

When these two systems came into conflict, intelligent persons fled in the direction of least coercion and nuclear weapons ended the war. Now would be a good time to ask ourselves whether ancient myths, dogma, charisma, mixed-economy entanglements and charisma are too sandy a foundation for a civilization that is free and not at war. The alternative, the relatively new experiment of individual rights, has been more successful than the European habits that have kept Europe and Asia in constant bloodbaths over the course of nineteen centuries.

Yet the entrenched political parties that propose to write and enforce laws still think in terms of the wonderfulness of ancient dogma rather than the demonstrated value of individual rights. Suckering the helpless with free stuff taken from others by force may no longer be worth the risks. Leaving individuals free to help themselves has produced better results than the approaches that relied on initiation of force by men with guns.

Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 tells how the initiation of force by men with guns wrecked the economy after Dry Hope Hoover applied fanatical violence in the War on Beer. Live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint, and readable on cellphones using Amazon’s free app.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

If you need translation or interpreting. look me up. My other blog is in Portuguese.

simultaneous interpreting, legal and financial

Conservative altruism versus life

Fake moral compass

Altruism is subjective, anamorphic

Genocide is a social adaptation that observably marches in lockstep with altruism. Altruism itself is variously redefined by collectivists–especially religious conservatives–to infuse it with an odor of scientific eugenics.

This manufactured reaction dates back to Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene.” The book’s introduction humbly apologizes for unwittingly validating the individualist view of life and survival, especially the way virtue ethics considers values or goodness. Fourteen years before The Selfish Gene, similar ethical conclusions were advanced in Atlas Shrugged, a book organized mysticism struggled to pretend never existed in much the way The Party members in Orwell’s novel 1984 struggled to believe an apostate or “unperson” had never existed. Dawkins, a scientist, was harder to ignore, so distortion was relied on instead.

It is informative that since Dawkins’ writings, the idea of altruists as a race that reproduces sexually is again advanced by religious conservatives as solemnly as though it were a new argument. Bonobo monkeys and other instinctual beasts incapable of conceptual thought are offered by religious conservatives as examples that “prove” that altruism–acting sacrificially to benefit others, not self–is by Revealed ipso facto Definition “the” Good. A reinforcing example is the assertion that female Bonobo monkeys won’t copulate with non-sacrificial males. Leaving aside the yearning for female monkeys as the last possible partners girl-bullying brutes can hope for, the net appeal is to collectivist reproduction increasing the subspecies. Each Selfish Gene applies game theory to survival of the gene pool as accurately as physical phenomena apply efficient paths to conservation of energy transitions.

Yet genes lack the intelligence or moral decision making ability to avoid Malthusian disasters such as occur when population exceeds food supply. Whether conservatives also lack this discernment or simply rely on the Rapture’s host of angels lifting them bodily from the jaws of overpopulation crises leading to war, etc. is not obvious. One possibility is that control over children offers organized mysticism the opportunity to cripple young minds through conditioning and indoctrination. After all, in pre-1911 China, girls were encouraged to cripple themselves by binding their own feet, and actually thought this a “good” thing according to consensus and generally accepted community standards.

A mind is a terrible thing to cripple

Bound feet, crippled from early childhood per custom

The Conservative theory is a rewarming of the old Race Suicide view held by Roosevelt Republicans in 1906. The argument was structured in much the same way Lutheran and Papist nationalsocialism characterized “juden” in Germany’s Altruria as an invasive species that cannot be “assimilated” and must instead, regretfully and with heavy heart, be exterminated like so many Apaches or Comanches. From Adolf Hitler’s Theodoric struggle to use genocide for altruist collectivist eugenics, religious conservatism has lately evolved to Trump’s offer to extirpate the families of unappreciative Semitic tribesmen whose Sharia jurisdictions Christians so eagerly tax us to bomb.

Over a century later mystical ideologues STILL Stand at Armageddon Doing Battle For The Lord, exactly like the fanatical Mohammedans of similar ideology. This is the key difference between religious socialism and individualism. Communists and nationalsocialists never tire of each declaring the other are “not really” altruists. Yet both clearly value coercion, sacrifice, death in their fundamental manifestos. This is a subjective, distorted, unreliable moral compass pointing in the wrong direction in all cases.

Letting these twin variants of the rejection of reason replace science, philosophy–especially ethics–would be suicidal.  Fortunately it isn’t happening. The genocidal rampages of communo-fascist socialism in Germany and Russia were as vivid an object lesson as the amok berserker hijackings into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Communist vote shares in elections are falling like membership in mystical congregations. The Libertarian party is gaining votes and membership while the looter parties are shrinking. You can help by studying virtue ethics, voting and making a small donation to the Libertarian Party.

Was this exposition of a commonly-used misdirection into error useful? Remember this when you want an error-free translation of important legal documents. My other blog is in Portuguese.