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

Mysticism and Fascism

Altruistic nationalsocialism

Read the original 1929 Chicago Tribune article

Remember the Lateran Agreements? The Romish Church doesn’t, but newspapers record how King, Dictator and Pope entered into another Byzantine Tordesillas pact–this one to divvy up power over the population of Italy. By Mussolini’s decree, Italian schools were required to include Catholic indoctrination of children too young to resist such conditioning.

In laissez-faire France, so many could afford cars that a movement was afoot to ban collective transportation. A decade later, National Socialist tanks rolled into Catholic (and Protestant) France and replaced Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité with Travail, Patrie, Famille. Jewish families were packed off to 40,000 Nazi camps, but every Catholic or Protestant in Germany acted surprised to learn in May of 1945 that even a single such death camp had ever existed.

Here is the current pope of Rome’s endorsement of Ecological National Socialism:

“The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast.” For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion,” whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. (Laudato Si’, 217)

Below is a sample of current papist equivocations berating libertarian non-aggression. The speech, worthy of any South-American integralista surrounds the concept of “freedom” with a Vatican-worthy wall of conditionals, adjectival qualifiers and vagueness to disguise its collectivist calls to coercion. Observe how this Argentine Holy Father rearranges the National Socialist plea to put “The Common Good before the Individual Good” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz in the 1920 original)

Calling for integral development means engaging in widening the space of dignity and freedom of people: freedom, however, not only in the negative sense of the absence of impediments, nor only in a positive sense as a choice. It is necessary to add freedom “for”, that is, the freedom to pursue its vocation of both personal and social good. The key idea is that freedom goes hand in hand with the responsibility of protecting the common good and promoting the dignity, liberty and well-being of others, reaching the poor, the excluded and future generations.

Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences on the theme Towards a Participatory Society: New Roads to Social and Cultural Integration (Casina Pio IV, 28 April – 2 May 2017). Freedom in a political context is freedom from government coercion. But in the infallible speech, coercion by harmful or deadly force replaced by the more euphemistic equivocation “impediments,” suggestive not of government action, but ordinary features of terrain.  The dictionary in Mac OS defines impediment: “a hindrance or obstruction in doing something.” The example: “a serious impediment to scientific progress.” In a very real sense, faith and initiation of force are the two primary impediments to scientific progress.

The Pope’s mystical claim that temperatures are rising and coercion must be resorted to as an emergency measure is another example. Thermometer records not tampered with clearly show that temperatures have been decreasing since the Lateran Treaty was signed, as in these measurements for Texas.

Disclosure: this interpreter was as a child enrolled in two mystical schools in a country politically subservient to Rome. The conditioning evidently didn’t “take,” and in college I took physics and math classes. Indoctrination attempts nevertheless provided first-hand experience with the conditioning whereby mystical altruism offers the initiation of force as the only acceptable solution to imaginary political or social conundrums.

I am looking for other libertarian translators. If you know of any, please let me know.

Political planks on legalization, 1932

Liberal Repeal party

Repeal party threatens to earn spoiler votes

In 1932, platform debates were aired nationwide and reported in newpapers everywhere. Here are the Democratic, Republican, Prohibition and Liberal Party planks on legalization of alcoholic beverages:

Prohibition party plank: [Invokes Almighty God and the Prince of Peace…] We unequivocally oppose the repeal or weakening of the Eighteenth Amendment or of the laws enacted thereunder, and insist upon the strengthening of those laws. …can and will coordinate all the powers of government, Federal, State and local, strictly to enforce, by adequate and unescapable punishment of all violators, this wise and beneficent law. (…) We indict and condemn the Republican and Democratic parties for the continued nullification of the Eighteenth Amendment and their present determination to repeal the amendment on the excuse that it cannot be enforced… (Johnson and Porter 1975 337-338)

Republican prohibition plank: We do not favor a submission limited to the issue of retention or repeal, for the American nation never in its history has gone backward, and in this case the progress which has been thus far made must be preserved, while the evils must be eliminated.
We therefore believe that the people should have an opportunity to pass upon a proposed amendment the provision of which, while retaining in the Federal Government power to preserve the gains already made in dealing with the evils inherent in the liquor traffic, shall allow the States to deal with the problem as their citizens may determine, but subject always to the power of the Federal Government to protect those States where prohibition may exist and safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon and attendant abuses.
Such an amendment should be promptly submitted to the States by Congress, to be acted upon by State conventions called for that sole purpose in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Constitution and adequately safeguarded so as to be truly representative. (Johnson and Porter 1975 348-349)

Liberal Party prohibition plank: We demand the immediate repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. We demand that, without modification or compromise of any kind, the entire question of liquor control shall be returned to the States, where the use of beverages can be regulated by local option in each State, county, city, or otherwise, or prohibited, according to the wishes of the people therein. With this local option, or other control established, the sale of beverages, except that saloons are permanently abolished, should be freely permitted by law. (…)
To those who say that the system should be modified so as to permit the sale of wine and beer, we answer that you cannot modify anything that is essentially wrong. You have not thought the matter through. Besides, any modification of any kind would fail to correct the central evil. The bootlegger would still rule the situation, and the traffic in hard liquors, now so universally effective, would still make it necessary to preserve the whole system of futile enforcement, together with the violence and corruption which now disgrace it. Therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment must go out of the Constitution, root and branch. (The Liberal Party in America, 1931 pp 106-7)

Democratic prohibition repeal plank: We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent the conventions in the states to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.
We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.
Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.
We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities. (Johnson and Porter 1975 332)

Observe that the Republicans copied the Prohibition Party platform (in 1928) and the Democrats copied the 1931 Liberal Party wet plank (calling for repeal of the Prohibition amendment). In both cases, small parties casting less than 1.4% of the vote caused the major parties to adopt or reject important changes in the laws. This is the spoiler vote leverage effect.

Choosing a legal translator or court interpreter is also easier when you check their credentials to see what they offer.

Kristallnacht gun laws

One of the more worthwhile translation projects I’ve seen recently has been the translation from German, French and Dutch to English of Nationalsocialist gun laws and regulations. Here is a sampling:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

No Brasil as pessoas nem conseguem imaginar a importância dada pelas ditaduras à possibilidade de o cidadão ter condições de dar o troco. A maior diferença entre os EUA e o resto do mundo é essa garantia do direito de ter e possuir armas de fogo. Se tão horrível, por que tanta gente foge dos paraísos socialistas para ser ameaçada no meio do capitalismo selvagem texano? Cadê voluntários para traduzir essa informação?