Dry Killers, 2020

PERP NOT SHOWN, REDACTED

FEDERAL Prosecutor initiates deadly force against wife, self. (link)

Dry Killers was the term The Chicago Tribune used to describe government agents and their hangers-on who routinely killed unarmed boys and men in the 1920s and 30s. Anyone who thinks this is a prohibition phenomenon that’s over and done with might care to explain today’s news–or news of the past century.

Federal Prohibition and Second Amendment Kristallnacht infringement mouthpiece Timothy Delgado turned up dead just north of Folsom Prison in California, where police say he apparently killed his wife, then himself. Whether the reporting is accurate or not, it is typical of fanatical prohibitionism–which after the complete economic collapse of 1929-1933 shifted from beer, wine and Demon Rum to coercion over plant leaves and their extracts. The other big change is that big shots at the Chicago Tribune had a lot invested in alcohol precursor chemicals during national prohibition. They evidently have no such stake in Post-Nixon avatars of Satan. Fanatics infiltrating federal agencies, on the other hand, most certainly have a serious stake in the initiation of deadly force.(link)

Tribune reporters back then tracked down and reported on every storeowner, housewife and boat operator murdered in cold blood by prohibition agents. Nowadays such events are typically reported only by Reason Magazine writers. Prohibition killings are masked as “resisting arrest” and other such euphemistic camouflage, and a way is in every case found to minimize their impact on public perception. But America was not always so like a Christian National Socialist Democracy.(link)

Chicago was then and is now home to the largest glucose corn sugar plant on planet Earth. Yeast and sugar companies bankrolled bootleggers who installed refinery-grade continuous stills in bankrupt three-story mansions after The Crash. These outfits could afford to repay the political State in its own coin. This actually happened twice. In 1921-22 civilian posse comitatus‘ hunted down killers with badges as the economy collapsed, then a truce was established. The economic effect can be seen in this graph for hops, a precursor plant used to brew Beelzebub’s beer.(link

Nullification of felony beer prohibition laws

The 1923 Gentleman’s Agreement shifted enforcement away from beer until March 2, 1929, after which the economy lasted another 6 months

The truce broke down when the Klan defected from the Dems in 1928 and helped elect Herbert Clark Hoover. Prohibition related murders–including the killing of federal agents–immediately filled all the papers, and books appeared right after the Crash–itself caused by withdrawals of money from banks to avoid federal asset-forfeiture confiscation. That is a little-appreciated aspect of a fractional-reserve banking system after a looter takeover. Here is an excerpt from Before and After Prohibition, a 1930 compendium by Maryland Senator Millard Tydings:

ONE of the most shocking results of the ten years of effort to enforce national prohibition is the long record of killings by prohibition and other Federal law enforcement agents. Even among some of the strongest advocates of the “noble experiment,” there have been widespread expressions of revolt at this bloody spectacle. Information regarding many of these killings has occupied much space in the public press, and editorial comment upon them has been most denunciatory. Yet they continue—apparently an almost inevitable accompaniment of the enforcement of this law.

Senator Tydings managed to uncover some 1300 suppressed killings committed by prohibition agents that were kept out of the papers and seldom discussed–including cases of federal gangs gunning down each other! Here’s a fratricidal example from Tydings’ collection: 

George Ball and William Porter, State agents, killed in battle with Federal Revenue officers at Camp Creek, West Virginia, June 20, 1925. (Each band of dry raiders thought the others were bootleggers, and they opened fire simultaneously.)

So this pattern of superstition, pseudoscience and political asset-forfeiture looting requires the initiation of force. This in turn requires killing people so that the law is taken seriously. Who advocates these murders? The answer is politicians who, like Germany’s NSDAP, represent Christian altruism–except for the part about how “thou shalt not kill.”(link

Thus, mystical collectivist cheapening of gratuitous murder stimulates demand for revenge and counterexamples, and the sort of agents and prosecutors attracted to this line of work do not even value their own lives, much less those of others. Remember this when next you hear one of God’s Own Prohibitionists seeking to pervert the Constitution and coerce women for “the unborn.” Just as Republican and Democrat prohibition fanatics cannot see “thou shalt not kill” in a book that does not condemn enjoyable substances, just so they cannot grasp “All Persons born” in the U.S. Constitution, or the absence, nay, denial of any federal authority for enactment of sumptuary laws.(link)

Incidentally, Millard Tydings was reelected over and over and served 44 years in the Senate.

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.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brazilian blog

Pro-life or Anti-life?

Speaking in tongues

Yes, many, many languages…

Anti-Life is a chapter in Ayn Rand’s 1957 best-seller Atlas Shrugged, in fact, it’s the chapter that follows Anti-Greed.

Anti-Greed is foreshadowed as part of a newspaper item so distorted as to upset Hank Rearden’s secretary, but

He laughed aloud. “I can see where such a distortion of the English language would make you furious”

It turns out that Anti-Greed is a chapter about Project X, a weapon that broadcasts death.

PRO-LIFE COP-KILLER

Colorado Clinic Shooter

Conservative altruists still advocate sending men with guns to threaten doctors and coerce pregnant women into back-alley surgery. Impressed by that good example set by elected officials, some superstitious characters did indeed march out and murder unarmed doctors by shooting them in the back, or from outside their windows. This trend began shortly after the LP platform of 1972 demanded and got enforcement of individual rights for women. The latest in the long list or religious conservative assassins was Robert Dear, who is now under indictment on federal counts, several of which invoke capital punishment by a just society.(link) The most recent amendments to infiltrate the LP platform call for letting religious terrorists enter the U.S. uninspected, (a Democratic Party idea) then protecting them from the death sentence (a Republican idea) with taxpayers billed for room and board for life. Those planks are an example of how hostile ideologies are again boring in to make Libertarians look like fools to voters.

These are the people Ayn Rand preferred when she declared voting for the Tonie Nathan-John Hospers LP ticket “immoral.”(link) So what? We all make mistakes–and Tricky Dick wouldn’t wreck the economy for another year yet. At age 67, few of us are at the top of our game, but the ability to learn from mistakes is a valuable skill at which Ayn Rand did not excel. Unlike Nixon’s party, she did advocate individual rights for women. The LP did write the boilerplate the Supreme Court used as its Roe v. Wade decision, blocking race-suicide Dixiecrats from sending men with guns out to cause women bleed to death. When was the last time you heard about that in a Republican publication?

Why not delve into what sort of voting caused the 1929 Crash? Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 does exactly that, matching newspaper accounts against stock market reactions and competing theories. It is live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

My other-language blog, Expatriotas.blogspot is amigra.us

 

 

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

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).

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

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.