Spoilers and bolters

Google does not want you to read this

See Original The National Republican 24 NOV 1872

During Reconstruction–a euphemism for military occupation of conquered low-tariff states–a bolter was a voter who a left one duopoly party to vote for “the” other party. Continue reading

Advertisements

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.

Prohibition, murder and poisoning

Religious bigotry has been declining for decades, but with lobbyists distorting the mixed economy, legalized coercion is harder to eradicate, and directed verdicts put murderers right back on the streets.

Thousands of Americans–and a few Canadians and Mexicans–were murdered during prohibition, most by religious fanatics not very different from the ones now banning beer in the Medieval Middle East. Government bureaucrats ordered alcohol poisoned with methanol, which causes permanent blindness in those not killed outright. Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals spokesmen invariably came forward to praise these killings as justified. The law, after all, is “the” law.

"...building a new race"

Meeting of Christian Altruists

The Jamaica Ginger remedy contained alcohol, but also tricresyl phosphate, which caused permanent paralysis of legs and feet. This too was viewed as a sort of Divine Retribution. Hunter’s Civic Biology–the 1914 textbook banned in Tennessee for explaining the Evolution of the Species in 1925–was steeped in prohibitionist pseudoscience.  Racial eugenics by compulsion to the extent possible was its primary message. The alternative? A degenerate race, and race suicide of the white Caucasians, the crown of Creation.  This may be what President Herbert Hoover meant when in his inaugural speech he bragged that “We are building a new race…” After all, Hoover was a great fan of Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1902 urged American women to reproduce against their will. Teddy was concerned about:

fundamental virtues, for the practice of the strong, racial qualities without which there can be no strong races—the qualities of courage and resolution in both men and women, of scorn of what is mean, base and selfish, of eager desire to work or fight or suffer as the case may be provided the end to be gained is great enough, and the contemptuous putting aside of mere ease, mere vapid pleasure, mere avoidance of toil and worry.

German National Socialists, whom President Hoover’s Moratorium on Brains helped rearm (by sparing them from repayment of war reparations), were also keen on coercive eugenics and the altruistic trappings of race suicide theories. Yet here we are in the 21st Century, caught in shouting matches between Christian National Socialists eager to ban birth control and other socialists less pious but no less coercive in their vision of the proper role of government. Both of these communo-fascist variants of Socialism share a deep desire to resort to the initiation of deadly force in their efforts to make the world a “better” place.

The Libertarian Party is fielding some 800 candidates this election, all of them committed to voting for alternatives that do NOT rely on the initiation of deadly force in order to make the world a better place.  Every libertarian vote helps repeal laws that coerce women and other individuals. We are growing, and both of the 19th Century Left&Right parties dedicated to European religious autocracies and concentration-camp dictatorships are shrinking.

This has been a Portugueseinterpreter‘s recommendation that a vote for peace and freedom might make the world a better place.  Brazilian website is Speakwrite and our other language blog for Expatriates is Amigra.

Orwell and no Libertarian Party

There are ominous parallels between “The Last Man in Europe” (published as “1984”) and “Homage to Catalonia,” which recounted Orwell’s struggles as a militiaman in the Marxist Unification Workers’ Party militia fighting christian fascism (El caudillo de Dios) in Spain. Back before there was any such thing as an aggression-rejecting Libertarian Party, intellectuals had to side with either International or National Socialism. There was no way out of that universe-of-discourse dilemma. Writer Henry Miller was one of the rare famous libertarians rejecting the entire false dichotomy, to Orwell’s shock and dismay. Ayn Rand’s “We the Living and “Anthem” and were published in 1936 and 1938, but Orwell managed to ignore her somehow.

Richard Gere look-alike

Henry Miller

Orwell contrasts Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer with a book by Louis-Ferdinand Céline, which was a “protest against the horror and meaninglessness of modern life–actually, indeed, of LIFE.” But Miller’s book “is the book of a man who is happy.” In 1936 Miller “felt no interest in the Spanish war whatever. He merely told me [Orwell] in forcible terms that to go to Spain at that moment was the act of an idiot.”

So what is fascism? Trotsky’s pamphlet offers nothing resembling a definition. Orwell, faced with the same question, likewise produced no definition. Instead, Orwell in 1944 also spouted gibberish to justify evading an objective definition certain to enrage religious fanatics:

“To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make.” –Orwell, What is Fascism? 1944

Yet the closer one looks at German National Socialism and Spanish, Vichy & Italian fascism, the more their definition converges on simplicity itself:

Fascism, (n.) Religious socialism.

Mussolini signed a treaty with the Pope to bring religious indoctrination into government school classrooms. Franco’s own posters described him as el “Caudillo de Dios,” saluted by the kiddies, and Adolf Hitler–painter of churches, Jesus and Madonnas–passed up no opportunity to exploit Christian altruism as a vehicle for demonizing “selfishness,” meaning all things Jewish and/or laissez-faire (meaning liberal).

Death to godless commies!

God’s Own Dictator!

During the Spanish revolution, Orwell reported, a sign of anti-religious “leftist” sentiment was the chiseling of religious symbols off of gravestones at the local graveyard. Yet Orwell shied from openly mentioning religiosity as the crucial difference in the late thirties or early forties.

By the 1970s, fans of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand were forming the Libertarian Party as an alternative to linear, anti-life ideologies so popular among Europeans. The first Libertarian platform included a plank the Supreme Court copied as its Roe v Wade decision striking down ku klux Comstock laws. Soon politics changed from a one-dementional line to a two-dimensional plane representing the four states available where there are two separate binary switches.

To those who, like King Solomon, recognize freedom from coercion as an indivisible whole, there is no real left or right. Both labels are the result of an assumption that freedom can safely be divided by having the right people commit just enough violence to make things better, provided their motives are altruistic. Whether such credulity is prompted by fear or hatred is irrelevant, for wherever it exists a skilled bipartisan persuader can convince both kinds of altruists that they AND their adversaries are both right, and then increase how much violent coercion is “just enough.”

This has happened in Germany, Austria, Italy, Rumania, Russia and its satellites, Japan, China, Burma, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador, all mohammedan countries and most African nations at one time or another. All of them started by assuming freedom could be “cut” with just the right amount of coercive aggression, then increased that amount until totalitarian rule became established. Observe that ALL totalitarians criticize as “anarchic” anything that offers more freedom than their armed goons have orders to tolerate. The best hedge against the abyss of totalitarianism is a functioning Libertarian Party.

Should the need arise for legal, contractual or historic translation Orwellian in its attention to detail, drop us a line or visit Speakwrite.

 

Republican and communist birth control bans

LSD held hostage for birth control

Canada works to repeal Comstock laws after Ceausescu coerced Romanian women into forced labor

The Republican Comstock law of 1873 had leaked across the border into Canada to ban all mention of birth control. Cracks developed in the censorship in November 1967 when Canada and the rest of the UK voted on the legality of birth control. A joker (rider) injected into Canadian law political power to ban drugs such as LSD. This was based on the same sort of pseudoscience and superstition that censored information on birth control in the first place. It was a tit-for-tat utilitarian monster compromise, betraying one individual right to prolong another–back before there was a Libertarian Party on either side of the northern border.

Not so long before Hitler’s National Socialism was penned as a platform in 1920, American President Theodore Roosevelt took pen in hand to argue that women ought to be forced into involuntary labor.  Roosevelt’s “race suicide letter” was the Republican inspiration for Hitler in 1920 and Romanian dictator Ceausescu in 1966. Ceausescu’s coercion of women made it urgent that Canada act to at least partially enforce individual rights. The American Libertarian Party’s surprise victory in getting the Supreme Court to use the Overpopulation plank to strike down Comstock laws on our side of the border. This set the stage for individual rights for women in the UK and Dominions. All of Canada’s remaining abortion laws were struck down soon after the Libertarian Roe v Wade decision.

Theodore Roosevelt, enforcer of Comstock legislation pleasing to the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice in the 1890s,  waxed eloquent on the subject of “race suicide” in an October 1902 letter:

But the man or woman who deliberately avoids marriage, and has a heart so cold as to know no passion and a brain so shallow and selfish as to dislike having children, is in effect a criminal against the race, and should be an object of contemptuous abhorrence by all healthy people.

This sentiment was parroted by communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu of Rumania, who saw to the prosecution of the victimless “criminals” invented by Teddy Roosevelt. Ceausescu asserted:

Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.

You know what governments do to deserters, right? The dictatorship even charged a celibacy tax, and tax evasion under communism is up there with heresy under Sharia law.

If in need of translations of historical or legal material from Spanish and Portuguese to English and back, look us up.

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

Romanian Comstock laws

Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz!

National and international socialism united!

Romania struck down its Comstock laws and legalized female individual rights back in the 1950s, before there were birth-control pills. Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1966 decreed American-style Comstock coercion of the sort President Grant had signed in 1873. Both laws banned pregnancy termination, contraceptives, publications or even private speech about such subjects and provided fines and imprisonment. The Romanian birth rate doubled in 1967, and the maternal mortality rate tripled under Ceausescu’s use of national State coercion to ward off the “race suicide” danger Republican Theodore Roosevelt penned, opening the gates for collectivist eugenics with forced labor replacing the individual rights of women.

As alike as peas in a pod

Ford, Nixon and Ceausescu, before defeat, impeachment and execution

Ceausescu immediately became the fair-haired boy of the Republican party. Nixon in 1972 made a point of aping Ceausescu’s visit to China the previous year. Dixiecrats sought to emulate Ceausescu’s Lebensborn policy of stripping women of rights and sending them into forced labor. This they accomplished by threatening (and occasionally shooting) physicians. As late as 1983, Republican Vice President George H. W. Bush referred to Ceausescu as “the good communist”.

But disaster struck in 1972 when nearly 4000 voters (and one elector) cast ballots for the Libertarian Party platform, which said:

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

After the votes were counted the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade:

“(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 Republicans and their mentors, the Prohibition Party, had by next election composed another Force Amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s repudiation of the Comstock laws they’d managed to get past the Reconstruction Congress in 1873. This demand for a force Amendment has been parroted for 45 years, since the first election following the Roe v. Wade decision. The 2016 version recites:

“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 Prohibition party has dropped this plank and opted to instead support the Gospel of Global Warming. But like Rumanian communism or an Orwellian Inner Party, the Republican party faithful look at the Fourteenth Amendment’s “All persons born” and see instead “All ova fertilized…”. No clearer example of the self-deception that forms the basis of totalitarian altruism has ever been presented.

If in need of a multilingual researcher of legal, financial and political topics, seek out a libertarian translator or two.

 

Feel free to visit my other blog.