Political Contributions for Freedom

Once all the Germans, were warlike and mean, but that couldn’t happen again,
We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then…

My father kept the household well-supplied with Songs by Tom Lehrer, nurturing in his offspring an appreciation of mathematics, the arts, and the importance of keeping an eye on the brainwashees of totalitarian ideologies. This training in youth paid off handsomely when routine scrutiny of today’s econazi Germany turned up a philanthropist with a cause–Nina Rosenwald. Her foundation is reportedly a major contributor to “political parties,” but her advocacy focuses on the so-called “rights” of “religious minorities.”

Nina’s website is dedicated entirely to bashing Mohammedanism, as if all other forms of mysticism were neither coercive nor deadly. Religious minorities and majorities alike traditionally regard non-mystical individuals (and each other) as mere rightless infidels. Yet the website belongs to someone whose relatives were hunted down and murdered by Germany’s 98% Catholic and Protestant voters and government–a government popularly elected and overwhelmingly re-elected beginning in 1928. Her Foundational prescriptions extoll “individual rights” without getting too specific about the nature of those individual rights. Her lessons on the difference between freedom from coercion and the bloodbaths brought about by the initiation of harmful, coercive and deadly force rely on examples without explicit generalization by induction. Her funding goes to German political parties, all of which embrace the exact same mystical altruism that prompted genocide as the eugenic solution for making the world safe for altruist collectivism.

Science and reason are receptive to observable and measurable reality. Superstition and mysticism absolutely reject all reason, logic and verification that conflicts with blind determination to interpret mythological fiction as Revealed Truth. One current example is the mountain of well-documented evidence showing that German National Socialism is a Christian movement. Its 25-point Program explicitly endorsed religious Christianity as faith. Its motto, “The Common Good Before the Individual Good” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz) extolls altruist collectivism as the ethical basis for distinguishing right from wrong. Those words and God Is With Us (Gott Mitt Uns) were engraved on their coins. Its legislative “solutions” advance the initiation of naked force as the preferred method of correcting traits altruist ethicists imagine breed political incorrectness.  The outcome of all this was demonstrated in evidence presented at war crimes trials in Nuremberg and elsewhere after May 5, 1945. The True Believers’ reaction? Disbelief!

Socialist and altruist websites flatly assert that Hitler was a religious conservative, which he was. “Reds” depict that famous politician as the “right-wing” Christian he himself claimed to be. Catholic and Protestant websites, however, deny as fabrication all evidence that any German and Austrian nationalsocialists were ever Christians™ and produce tortuous argumentation to the contrary. Both of these factions of communo-fascist totalitarianism evade discussion of ethics (what distinguishes good from evil) but unanimously support altruism.

Mystical conservatives “just know” that Hitler’s followers “weren’t really” altruists. Looters less impressed by Divine Revelation are equally sure that Hitler’s followers “aren’t really” altruists, but are Christian. (NSDAP is both).  Their own lists of which communist dictators were “really” altruists vary, but ALL are in agreement that National Socialists are selfish “right wing” fascists. Just as correctly, National Socialists (and other Christian Conservatives) regard socialists of other parties as extremists. Each accuses the other of lying hypocrisy, never admitting that their ideal is the same: altruist collectivism achieved by the initiation of deadly force.

The Republican, Democratic and Green platforms are perfect examples of activated altruism indistinguishable in kind from other totalitarian faiths. In fact, Ayn Rand fired Random House for refusing to publish her essay quoting the Nazi platform alongside excerpts from Kennedy speeches.  Nina Rosenwald could avoid the errors* Ayn Rand committed in her dotage (when both Ayn and Hillary Clinton were Goldwater Republicans). Nina’s support for selected candidates running on Libertarian Party platforms in any of two dozen countries would to more to dismantle National Socialism and Islam than any volume of well-translated tu quoque.

**Supporting Nixon’s war to recapture the French opium regie of Cochin China; flying into a carpet-biting rage against the Libertarian Party that she herself designed.

If you understand the importance of ethical values crossing the language barrier, support your friendly neighborhood Libertarian Party in its efforts to repeal bad laws. This public service announcement by was brought to you by www.portugueseinterpreter.com

Advertisements

Altruism versus logic

The initiation of force is good by the standard of altruism, but not as a generalization because generalizations are useful in logic. So what are the special cases altruists prefer?

Democratic and Communist party members agree that to send tax agents with guns to confiscate people’s homes, guns and tools is a good and necessary thing, even if the people voted libertarian and are not represented by the looter politicians declared victorious by secret ballot. This lay coalition does not, however, want men with guns to threaten doctors who safely care for pregnant individuals–even individuals who choose to not be pregnant.

God’s Own Prohibitionists (Rep, Tea, Const, Prohi parties) agree that to send drug agents with guns to confiscate people’s property, and police agents to arrest (or shoot) doctors who enable individuals to safely not be pregnant are good and necessary things.

Clearly, both agglomerations of special interests believe in altruism. Each agrees that the initiation of force is good when the deadly force threatens THE OTHER coalition. This happened in Germany when lay looters wanted to tax and nationalize everything and religious looters wanted to nationalze and tax everything EXCEPT CHURCH property. Conservative socialists wanted religious laws to force people to be christians–and disarm non-christians. Other socialists wanted tax laws to strip wealthy christians of their property through taxation and forfeiture. Adolf Hitler’s national socialists told both coalitions they were right and used he government monopoly on force to eliminate all individual rights. That is the logical altruism that so impressed Hanna Arendt, but not Ayn Rand.

A much better solution would be to agree with today’s lay and religious socialists, but let each faction initiate its own deadly and coercive force against the other, without involving the Political State at all. All each would have to do would be waive its own rights, which is what each asks of the other anyway. If they lack the courage to act on their convictions, then they are parasitical cowards who want us to do their killing for them. There is no sensible reason why we should sacrifice freedom so cowards can use us to bully each other. Instead of war, the President could proclaim a Roman Holiday and stadium owners sell tickets and cable transmission rights to the melée.

I pledge to buy a ticket, no questions asked. Until then, my libertarian spoiler votes will repeal laws rooted in altruism and superstition.

Religious conditioning v. science, by Ron

The confirmation hearings with questions from global warming zealots reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. The notion of global warming/climate change resembles closely that mythical teapot. People like Lewandowsky and Oreskes psychoanalyze unbelievers. And public hearings are conducted to uncover unseemly heresy inside political appointees. At least when religion is recognized as such, and […]

via The Climate Change Teapot — Science Matters