Meaning

SMASH YOUR TEEVEE!

Free yourself from Nixon-law-subsidized fake campaign news and find out about law-changing spoiler votes

Translation has to do with the meaning of concepts encoded as language for transmission. If the receiver does not comprehend meanings, the signal fails to impart information. Pertinent questions make this clearer.

Ask people who seek to regulate, tax, curb or abolish economic freedom or energy:

What is force?
What is energy?
What is Work?
What is power?

The response in most cases is either bovine incomprehension or a frantic outpouring of gibberish. Every one of the answers requires familiarity with dimensions of mass, length and time and interrelatedness of their units not easily mastered without some effort, typically near the age of suffrage.

Now ask anyone who wants to abridge, infringe, restrict or regulate individual rights:

What is government?
What is freedom?
What is a right?
What is political power?

And the response is again bafflement or barking. Indeed, the very act of asking anyone committed to the initiation of force a simple question immediately elicits suspicion. A robber, kidnapper or thief rightly fears prosecution, and the first thing a prosecutor does is ask questions. Similarly a stupid lout even fears questions on a test sheet for fear of being confronted with its own ignorance. Self-deception is key to imagining that you can initiate the use of force against others and gain by it.

Ask freedom-divvying kleptocracy voters (the 96%) those eight questions. The ones with any notion of energy, work and power have less inclination to send men with guns to beat you out of your earnings because of “inequality” or impending doom by electrical stations you should fear, not examine. But they can be enlisted in a witch-hunt against birth control or personally enjoyable plant leaves.

The ones that grasp some notions of government, rights and political power but balk at physical reality are easily convinced that the End is Nigh because of an insufficiency of taxation and related government coercion. This lot is always ready to send armed men to ban electrical generating plants or try to repeal the Second Amendment. Republican, Democrat, Communist and Green voters can be counted on to get most of those questions as wrong as 2+2=5.

But if you ask a Libertarian–someone who actually pays dues and votes–chances you will get meaningful answers to most of those questions. As a kicker, you might ask: By what standard shall we distinguish between right and wrong?

For translations that convey information in its original meaning, look for a degreed and certified professional willing to show you the evidence.

Advertisements

Second Amendment Antinuclear Weapons

Go ahead, make my day.

By 1992 preemptive surrender wasn’t a thing, and the SALT treaties were wastebinned. This is the Second Amendment in action. SEE ORIGINAL

The nationwide defense debate best represented in Physics Today had by 1982 descended into plans for surrendering to the Soviet Union based on Pascal’s Wager and Ignoring Kennan’s Long Telegram.

Science advisor George Keyworth built on Sam Cohen and Edward Teller’s ideas, then stepped out of the conflict spotlight, which was taken over by William Robert Graham and Gen’l Daniel Graham. The foolishness of Robert Strange McNamara’s insane policy of mutual civilian genocide with nuclear weapons sank in after Dr. Strangelove, and Sam Cohen’s defensive strategies developed a large following–and some pro-surrender opposition. The Libertarian Defense Caucus organized by LP Presidential candidate John Hospers, Michael J Dunn, Virginia Postrel and others favored defensive weapons policies. One LDC member questioned assertions by German-American physicist Wolfgang HK Panofsky in Physics Today regarding treaties under the Constitution.

Dr Panofsky’s statement that “Nothing in the U.S Constitution dilutes the responsibility of a president to comply with existing treaties in force.” [Physics Today, June, 1985, p. 37] ought to be evaluated in light of the actual text of the Constitution itself. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifies, in clause 15, that “Congress shall have the power…To provide for calling forth the militia to… repel invasions;”. Article IV, section 4 charges the United States with the responsibility to protect each of the States from invasion. Finally, Article II of the Bill of Rights guarantees that our right to “keep and bear arms”, within the context of a well regulated militia, “shall not be infringed.” While it is true that Article II of the main body of the document grants the President the power to make treaties (Section 2, clause 2), and it is also true that these treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land” (Article VI, Section 2), it is nowhere stated that this treatymaking power shall override the Bill of Rights or the main body of the Constitution. In fact, Article VI, Section 2 specifies only that the treatymaking power takes precedence over “…anything in the Constitution or laws of any STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis mine). In fact, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article 1 allows the States to defend themselves if “…actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Nothing in the Constitution supports the conclusion that the treatymaking power is arbitrary and unlimited and supersedes all individual rights guaranteed us by the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One can readily infer, however, that all arms limitation treaties which infringe on our right to have our military forces keep and bear defensive weapons of our choosing are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. This would apply specifically to the ABM treaty as well as both versions of SALT. Because I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution would have subordinated their rights or those of their countrymen and descendants to any arbitrary power, foreign or domestic; and because the legal language supporting this conclusion is clear and precise, I submit that the ABM treaty is unconstitutional and illegal.

This issue, it turns out, had been addressed by President Calvin Coolidge when Panofsky was not quite five years old. At a news conference on November 2, 1923, Coolidge tried answering a question about a prohibition-enforcement treaty with wet Great Britain changing the definition of international waters. (…) “The question here is raised as to whether this treaty would be in conflict with the Constitution or the present Volstead Law.”

Coolidge improvised an answer that reporters thought missed the point entirely, and so the press insisted:

PRESS: Mr. President, some of the editorial writers seem to think that the proposed treaty would contravene the Constitution–not the Volstead Law, but the Constitution itself. Do you believe it within the power of the government to make a treaty that would contravene the Constitution itself?
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE: Of course not. The only power the government has to make a treaty comes from the Constitution, and there wouldn’t be any question about it, for any treaty that might be made, that was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, would be absolutely void.

Panofsky’s immediate reply, like Coolidge’s did not satisfy all readers:

J. H. Phillips raises the interesting point whether any arms-control treaty violates the Constitution of the United States. He agrees that Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution states that treaties entered into by the United States preempt the constitution or laws of any state that might have contrary provisions. Indeed, the United States Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief and gives him responsibility to conduct foreign affairs and thereby provide for the national security. Yet one must recognize that increased armaments and increased national security are by no means synonymous; in fact post-World War II history has amply demonstrated the contrary. The power of the President to negotiate treaties, even if they conflict with private rights involving arms or ownership of property, has been confirmed by numerous Supreme Court decisions.
Negotiated arms control is rightfully considered a component of the conduct of foreign affairs. According to Article VI of the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, subject only to other provisions of the Constitution. They can be modified by mutual renegotiation or abrogated unilaterally under specific provisions that provide for prior notice and invoke the supreme national interest of one of the signatories.
The specific claim by Phillips is that arms-control treaties are in conflict with the provision of Article II of the Bill of Rights that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No court has ever held the Second Amendment to impose any limitation on the President’s power to conduct foreign affairs, but the specific relation of arms-control treaties to Article II has, to the best of my knowledge, never been explicitly litigated. In view of the foregoing it seems to me to be patently absurd to claim that the US President and Executive Branch cannot negotiate and sign a treaty that limits weapons by all signatories if the President believes this to be in the security interest of the United States, and I see nothing in the Constitution that would prevent such a treaty from entering into force once the Senate, by a two-thirds majority, has recommended its ratification to the President and the President has then executed the instruments of ratification. The Constitution has done well in weathering the transition to the nuclear age. If Phillips were correct in his interpretation it would be a sad day indeed.

Some real attorneys were also attracted to this questioning of authority and chimed in:

The letter by J.H. Phillips and the response by Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky (April, page 90) raise interesting issues regarding the relationship between the Federal treaty-making power and the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Although both Phillips and Panofsky deal solely with issues arising under the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment and with alleged infringements of this “right of the people” by arms control treaties, the issues are significantly broader in scope and deserve more careful analysis. According to Panofsky, the constitutional authority of the executive branch to conduct foreign affairs extends to the power of the President to negotiate arms control treaties, and such treaties when ratified by the Senate may abrogate any provision of the Bill of Rights. Although Phillips disagrees, both Phillips and Panofsky limit their discussion to consideration of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, there is nothing in the underlying issue that should limit the argument to the Second Amendment; rather, the issue should be treated more broadly for a better understanding. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a treaty with the following provision: Due to the utmost importance of this arms control treaty and the practical reality that it cannot be successfully implemented without mutual trust and harmonious relationships between the signatory nations, any critical or derogatory remarks, oral or written, against a signatory shall constitute a criminal offense against that signatory, and such signatory may search for and seize any offending writings, as well as punish the person making said criticism, in such manner as it deems appropriate, including trial by judge without jury in the courts of the signatory as it deems appropriate.
Of course, such a treaty would clearly abrogate the provisions of the Bill of Rights contained in Amendments I (free speech and press), IV (unreasonable search and seizure), V (due process of law), VI (right to counsel) and VII (trial by jury). But in spite of the fact that the constitutionality of treaties that conflict with the Bill of Rights has never been litigated, some obvious conclusions as to how the US Supreme Court would treat this sort of treaty can be drawn.
Moreover, that the precise issue has never been litigated does not justify Panofsky’s conclusion that it is “patently absurd” to claim that the treaty-making power cannot supersede the Bill of Rights. It is true that a treaty can override a state constitution or a state statute, but a Federal statute passed at a later date than a treaty prevails over the treaty, according to a line of US Supreme Court cases beginning with Head Money Cases, 112 US 580, 598-590 (1884). It is also well established that even Federal statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be declared null and void by the judiciary. Thus, since Federal statutes can abrogate treaties, statutes have at least as high a dignity as treaties, and since statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be invalidated by our courts, so can treaties.
Panofsky’s conclusion that arms control treaties can abrogate the Bill of Rights is thus, fortunately for America, clearly unwarranted. –David Caplan, NY & Richard Laumann, NJ

Panofsky of course denied having come to that conclusion, but the legalistic house of cards which Soviet weapons specialists had hoped would bluff These United States into submission came tumbling down. Soviet planners realized not even a single American State could be disarmed while the Second Amendment remained intact. The Strategic Defense Initiative grew, a German lad landed a Cessna near Red Square, and Soviet Socialist totalitarianism collapsed as entirely as German National Socialism had collapsed in May of 1945.

Having felt it on their hides...

Logarithmic decay of Communist vote, Russia

Prospects for resurrecting Soviet Communism are as hopeless as for bringing back the German National Socialism that prompted development of modern weapons in the first place. Russian voters are shrinking the communist party even faster than American voters are chipping away at the Dem & GOP kleptocracy. But the shrieking against the Second Amendment is today much shriller than in the 1980s, when gun violence was high but already eroding thanks to decreased initiation of force. Whether that–coupled with the feverish falsification of science by a tiny group of scientist-impersonators and former scientists in concerted efforts to lay an Energy-Conversion Tax on everyone except Not-Exactly-Communist China–is some sort of desperate comeback attempt by intellectuals of the looter persuasion, is unclear. After all, Republicans have published platforms for 46 years to Amend the Constitution to overturn the results of the 1972 Libertarian birth control plank–a fixation no less fanatical and hopeless.

There is, however, no question that infiltration of the Democratic Party Platform Committee by Socialists Against Buckminster Fuller Energy Slaves (and power plants in general) cost Democrats the Executive branch, both Houses of Congress, and appointments to the Judiciary, together with all associated pelf, paychecks, funding, graft and boodle. Now that Americans have notebooks and iPhones, getting them to ban electricity–even for Altruria–is as Quixotic a chimera as has ever before been dreamt up. The current war on energy is the one significant difference between the platforms published by the Dem and GOP factions of the ruling kleptocracy.

If the research that went into this article on legal questions was surprising, just imagine how surprised your competitors could be.  The author can be hired to translate materials pertinent to international legal cases involving your law office.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.

Why mystical conservatives hate liberals

"Crime is increasing."

“Steadily building a new race–“

To organizers of the Liberal Party of America, the situation in 1930 was intolerable: 

Hypocrisy is in the saddle. Mercenary religion is throttling the nation’s life. Paid preachers, quartered in magnificent offices, and working for large salaries, are stifling the life of the people. Some of them are laughing in derision when the poor and the weak are convicted and sent to prison. Some of them are advocating the poisoning of alcohol, so that those who are tempted may die—the sooner the wretches are out of the way, say they, the better for Prohibition. And the Sunday laws—these mercenary preachers are spying around corners to trap the unwary and to fill the jails. –1930 Platform

Condoms and diaphragms were as illegal as light beer in Prohibitionist Amerika. Indeed, such things were banned in Communist Rumania as late as 1966, and still illegal in Catholic Ireland in 1992! Comstock laws and Prohibitionist Blue Laws made a crime of baseball, movies, many kinds of work and all manner of purchases on Sundays. The Liberal Party directly challenged the Klan, the Lord’s Day Alliance and Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and sought to restore freedom and individual rights. One of its organizers remarked:

How shall this great aim be accomplished? Not by the Republican Party, of which I have been a member all my life, sitting as a delegate in one of its National Conventions and speaking in every one of its campaigns from McKinley to Hoover. … Not by the Democratic Party, for that Party, equally high in its ideals, equally illustrious in its history, is at this moment notable for its bigotry and intolerance. In Congress, where many men in both Houses who voted for the infamous Jones Law are known to be drinkers and the constant patrons of bootleggers, there is a bill pending and possibly soon to be enacted which will fine and imprison every man who takes a drink.

The Jones Law in question, also known as the 5 & 10 law, made light beer a five-year felony and imposed a fine equivalent to fifteen pounds of solid gold just hours before Herbert Hoover was sworn in to enforce it. That fine comes to over $307,000 at current gold prices. Still, men with guns could waylay a lad barely 18 and slap him in prison till age 22, burdened with debt equivalent to two 30-year mortgages, yet with nothing to show for it but seething resentment and loss of voting and Second Amendment rights. Such “felons” and their repentant parents were the voters the Liberal Party attracted.

The potential of those spoiler votes led the Democrats to abandon the Klan and declare for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment in 1932. The economy–though still burdened with the Communist income tax–began a slow recovery and the Democrats occupied the Executive Branch for the next five presidential terms. The Dems of that era also defeated the National Socialist Christian government of Germany, with its eugenic campaign of racial extermination carried on in the name of mystical altruism. The Nationalsocialist government was also organized, as in Hoover’s Inaugural Address, for purposes of “steadily building a new race.”

The defense of individual rights is today carried on by the Libertarian Party by a passing of the torch of liberty. With 4 million votes covering the spoiler vote gap in 11 states, the LP has lately swung a total of 124 electoral votes. That’s nine times the number of electoral votes the entire State of Virginia controls with its 4 million individual votes. Here’s the LP hockey stick in a sigmoid logistic substitution curve fit for LP votes beginning with the Y2k election.

Religious fanatics encouraged to initiate force...

Libertarian Party vote share since the fascists beat the socialists in Y2k

Not bad for a party that is just now as old as President John F. Kennedy, eh? Join the Three Percent! Give your vote nine, 21 or 10,000 times the law-changing clout. Be your own spoiler vote lobbyist and frighten the crap out of those looters in Congress and their codgers on the Supreme Court. You’ll never regret winning by repealing bad laws!

This inspirational message was brought to you by Brazilian Translated, run by an independent contractor degreed and certified from Portuguese and Spanish into English and from English into Portuguese. I’m the 1% that passed the tests when it comes to translations.

Legalize Peyote, LP.org

Peyote was banned by H.R. 13645 legislation was passed by the U.S. 70th Congressional session and enacted into law by 30th President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, on Saturday, January 19, 1929.

For fuller context on those trying times, Coolidge signed the Jones Five and Ten law the day before Herbert Hoover was sworn in. This law made light beer a federal felony.  That meant as many as five years in the penitentiary and a $10,000 fine, an amount that would buy 15 pounds of gold worth $297,000 at today’s prices.  A week before the law passed, Representative Emanuel Celler [Dem. NY] sarcastically offered to “satisfy the fanatical cruelty of the professional prohibitionists, who are apparently drunk with power,” and offered to propose that violators should be punished by “hanging, the body to be cut down while still alive, and the accused, to be disemboweled, his head cut off and his body quartered.” (Chicago Tribune  2/23/29 6) Here’s what resulted (besides the collapse of the economy):

Nixon, also a Quaker, made this worse...

This does not include people on State chain gangs or held in foreign dictatorships

The Libertarian Party has since 1972 demanded the repeal of victimless crime laws prohibiting peyote, mescalin, psilocybin, LSD, birth control pills and other relatively harmless (compared to beer) drugs. Your vote can frighten looter party politicians whose paychecks hang in the balance between legalization and continued cruel robbery. Every spoiler vote for the libertarian party carries on average the law-changing clout of 21 votes wasted on the nearly identical kleptocracy parties. This is because what kleptocracy parties care about is getting their gang on the payroll with a snout in the trough. As long as sending your kids to prison gets them votes, they will keep sending your kids to prison. Remember attorneys fees and bail bonds when you see LIB on the ballot!

The Libertarian Party just won nearly 4 million votes–way more than the 3 million the Democrats claim to have “won” by in 2016. The changed the outcome of 127 electoral vote counts in 13 states. There we got more than the difference between the winning and losing looter politicians. Those politicians remember this and will change their platforms and many laws before the next general election.

Voters remember that thousands are rotting in prison or living in fear–stripped of rights–because of cruel bipartisan prohibition laws. You must choose whether to betray these innocents branded as criminals into continued suffering or to make known you want America to be free. Losing is what happens when cowards endorse the two prohibitionist soft machines instead of loudly and unequivocally casting a multiply-leveraged vote for individual rights and freedom. Repealing bad laws, THAT’s winning!

If you need translations to keep a loved one out of prison, visit my websites.

 

The Antichoice, then and now…

Romanian Communist Dictator via unanimous single-party “election”, tried and executed December 25th 1989:

NICOLAE CEAUȘESCU: I repeat: I am the president of Romania and the commander in chief of the Romanian army. I am the president of the people. I will not speak with you provocateurs anymore, and I will not speak with the organizers of the putsch and with the mercenaries. I have nothing to do with them.

Republican U.S. President, via campaign subsidized by Nixon Anti-Libertarian Law of 1971, quoted August 2018:

“I view it as an illegal investigation…There should never have been a special counsel.” —Trump on Mueller inquiry

Both politicians suppressed individual rights, especially of women, but were deified by fanatical cliques.

If you need a libertarian translator experienced in historical documents for the U.S., Central and South America, Angola, Mozambique, the Azores, do get in touch.

My other blog

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.

 

Individualism vs. Socialism

This is a Letter to the Editor of Physics Today from during the Cold War, March of 1982. Background as a letter from another subscriber urging preemptive surrender to the USSR, which Petr Beckmann, on the Reason Board at the time, believed was the real purpose of all such defeatist whimpering. At that time I was a dues-paying member of John Hospers’ Libertarian Defense Caucus, not the regular LP.  Here’s the letter:

I’ve enjoyed reading the articles and letters addressing the topic of nuclear weapons in recent issues. There is, however, one point which has been conveniently ignored by both sides during the debate: the difference between the philosophic bases upon which the Soviet and American governments are based.
Capitalism is rooted in individualism, and is retaliatory in nature, as can be seen in our code of laws. Socialism is altruism applied to government; its collectivist and egalitarian aspects can be traced to that basic premise. All socialist states, whether communo-fascist or redistributionist, depend on the initiation of force to achieve their goals. This basic difference is generally omitted in the course of “scenario building,” and the result is that the conflict is viewed as though both nuclear powers had similar goals.

During the second World War, no American strategist would have considered the extermination of the Jews as a tactic and many were surprised when Germany’s National Socialist government embarked on that very program. Today we tend to think that the Soviet Socialist government would not target civilians because we ourselves see no strategic benefit in such a course. The fact is that we have different goals and different philosophies. The possibility that the Soviet state might regard us as the National Socialist state regarded the Jews cannot be dismissed by any who have compared the original documents on which those systems were built.

It is possible, therefore, that the option of surrender may no more exist for Americans than it did for the Jews during the last war.

Our best option seems to be to follow the advice of Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov and increase our defenses to the point at which we can sustain a first strike and still defeat the aggressor. Any less of an effort will simply serve to reinforce the tendency to fire on warning and thus increase the possibility of an accidental war.
J. H. PHILLIPS 3/82 Austin, Texas
PHYSICS TODAY / MAY 1982 131

 

This letter was written 36 years ago this month. As I look around I still see many of the same things.

Many at the time urged surrender to the communist dictatorship whose policies they literally worshipped. Even this issue included a hand-wringing appeal from Italian “scientists.” Those “peace” appeals relied on a Pascal’s Wager form of intimidation and never (except for a letter in a preceding issue of Physics Today) advocated surrender to totalitarianism in so many words. Propagandists for looter statism simply blocked off all other alternatives as insane, misguided, ill-informed or unrealistic, and let the reader arrive at the only alternative left standing.

Those same people today urge totalitarian control of the economy and impoverishment of every aspect of life on the strength of the Millerite supposition that another trace gas (carbon dioxide, not freon anymore) stands poised to wipe out humanity. The only country not required to give up a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy to please the Vichy Paris Accord proponents is itself a communist dictatorship. Search Google News Archives for members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, Stockholders for Corporate Responsibility, _X__ Anti-Pollution League, _X__ for Social Responsibility and you will find today’s CO2ercion advocates among the survivors. The phenomenon is a political 5th Column meme that worships slavery and death as alternatives to the delusions of Armageddon and Rapture that “the left” (correctly, in my view) attribute to “the right”. (The Libertarian theory of  non-aggression and individual rights is completely different from the European politics of 19th-Century political parties).

That same issue of Physics Today raised the question of whether a bolide impact might have–in a matter of hours–so completely changed the climate as to wipe out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If such a danger arises again–and a look at the Moon clearly shows hundreds of thousands of such events–only an advanced energy-converting industrial civilization would stand a prayer of warding off or surviving such a  test of humanity’s competence to survive. This is the test the dinosaurs failed.

Co2ercion advocates have nothing to say about that proven scenario. The article on the Monte Carlo algorithm in that issue of Physics Today, incidentally, relates to a mathematical technique developed by designers of thermonuclear weapons (Nicholas Metropolis, John von Neumann and Stanislau Ulam). The purpose of those weapons was to defeat National Socialist Germany and their Japanese allies in the 1940s.

Bolide impact is the “Alvarez Theory” because geologist Walter Alvarez asked his physicist father Luis why the clay boundary? Luis Alvarez designed the geodesic detonation cord for the plutonium bombs used at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. These competent people whose technology defeated National Socialism and held off International Socialism until it rotted and collapsed are the ones whose ideas make sense to me. The Fifth Columnists still recite the exact same totalitarian formulas and slogans, and care nothing for measurement data, definitions or conceptual clarity. They are the villains in Atlas Shrugged.

The Libertarian Party had by 1982 already seen to the repeal of cruel, Medieval laws against birth control, and provided the philosophical and ethical arguments that toppled totalitarian parasitism. I’m proud to be a Libertarian Party member and supporter, and hope we can count on your spoiler vote to repeal another mess of really cruel and unusual laws the kleptocracy and its lobbyists use to eat out our substance. That’s winning!

If you need technical translations (oil, mining, power dams, reactors, agribusiness, and yes, contracts, laws and environmental regulations) from or for Latin America, check out my websites.