The Three-Party Problem

Courtesy, Wikipedia commune

The Kleptocracy divides into two factions based mainly on who gets the pelf and the paychecks. Because they strive to finagle votes from the same voting population, they are as alike in platforms and positions as teevee stations in a regulated oligopsony. A rogue party is as disrupting as a pirate station.

This is old hat to looter gerontocracies. The Prohibition party, fueled by Dodge, Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt donations, sought the violence of sumptuary law. The proto-libertarian Personal Liberty League formed to resist in 1883 but was outgunned. Lobbies are no match for parties when it comes to determining the direction in which government service pistols are to be pointed.

Republicans became painfully aware of Prohibition party spoiler vote clout once the Democrats (the slave of the liquor party) began declaring against “sumptuary laws which vex the citizen and interfere with individual liberty” and elected Grover Cleveland–just as most voters twice elected Barak Obama after George Bush’s faith-based asset-forfeiture prohibitionism wrecked the economy.

John Sherman, whose brother had Marched Across Georgia, warned mystical fanatics “not to throw their votes away.” But communist Greenbackers carefully avoided mention of temperance-at-gunpoint, and looter parties generally dismissed prohibition as something they’d support IF… (there followed a list of qualifiers that cheerfully enraged the Methodist White Terror). Soon communists were writing tax planks for the Democrats just as mystical prohibitionists began dictating dry planks to Republican platform committees.

The Sixteenth Amendment embodies plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto while the 18th and 21st presume to empower men with guns to shoot people over sugar, yeast, grapes, plant leaves and anything mildly enjoyable or likely to reduce human suffering.

Both of these constitutional Amendments–AND the victimless crime laws that imprison far and away more people than all combined crimes violative of rights–were passed at the behest of two tiny, fanatical, but consistent and dedicated political parties. Together they elected practically nobody and between them hardly ever garnered 3% of the popular vote. But they were a thorn in the side of the Janus-faced communism of pelf that cares about nothing other than its snout in the trough and hand in the till. THAT changed the laws and Constitution!

The irresponsible cupidity of the entrenched kleptocracy was what allowed this despoiling of freedom. But today’s prevailing rule of terror is being reversed by the 3% of votes earned (and proud candidates elected) by the Libertarian Party–to the extent that its platform is not deliberately sullied with counterproductive nonsense.

If in need of simultaneous political interpreting, do get in touch.

Advertisements

Libertarian Victory in Ireland

Women before LP.org got 4000 votes

17JUN1972: We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.

Comstock laws of Panic year 1873 banning shipment of ALL contraceptives still existed alongside Dark Ages “blue laws” in These Sovereign States and Dominions in 1972. George Wallace Dixiecrats were busy passing new orders for men with guns to use censorship, fines, imprisonment and deadly force to press women into unconstitutional unwanted labor.

Repeal 13th, 14th Amendments!

LP.org message legalized abortion–nullifying Wallace!

We’ve already seen how the Libertarian Party’s Population plank became the Roe v Wade decision nullifying all anti abortion laws for 100 days plus a week. Women voters in Canada leapt into action and soon ALL such laws were repealed. There are no abortion laws in Canada today. Women even have rights in Ireland!

While Canada moved to secure freedom, huge mobs in Ireland were embarked on frenzied campaigns of bombing, arson, murder–everything you’d expect of “pro-life” mystical fanatics. Once the realization set in that women had enforceable individual rights in the US and Canada, Irish politicians reacted as the U.S. Prohibition and Republican parties had in 1976. They scribbled up Amendments to the Constitution to overrule courts and send men with guns to coerce physicians and force women into involuntary labor by threat of harmful, coercive and deadly force.

Catholic Ireland’s 1983 Amendment inserted a new sub-section after section 3 of Article 40. The resulting Article 40.3.3 read:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Such was the influence of the Papal Pederasty that the thing sailed though, passing with 67% of the vote. For comparison, Germany’s Enabling Act drafted by a child of Catholic parents required at least 66% of the Reichstag vote. It handily surpassed that figure to ban all manner of individual rights for the next 12 years–nearly as long as the Prohibition Amendment that had destroyed the U.S. economy.

Ireland’s peculiar institution of involuntary labor coerced women for 35 years before it was repealed. Having felt on their hides the pity of civilized society, and the passionate endorsement of suicide-vest and passenger-jet hijacking ideologues, Irish politicians unblocked opposition to democratic suffrage and the Force Amendment was repealed by a margin of 67%. Like the communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu that applauded its passage, Ireland’s coercive experiment in mystical eugenics will not be missed.

Anyone interested in following the decline and fall of papally-ordered coercion of women in South America might be interested in my translation services.

My other blog is in Portuguese.

Ayn Rand and Sex

Conservatives of the collectivist, chaste and “celibate” persuasions, and other socialists–especially those catasterized freaks whose reading is limited to scripts–fall all over themselves at the chance to criticize Ayn Rand’s views on sex. None leap to the fore with explanations of the value of altruism, or to castigate her views on the initiation of force.

For starters, the gal was Russian, educated, and not a congregant of mystical altruist sects. She arrived in These States a Hollywood aficionada and Pola Negri fan–but also a fully functioning young woman at a time when 99 and 44/100% of such cloche-hatted creatures watched Rudolph Valentino movies with an intensity unmanifested since Argos watched Io. American women made first use of the vote to place America’s handsomest womanizer, Warren Gamaliel Harding–he of dowdy wife and three pretty mistresses–in the Executive Mansion in Washington using their 1920 election ballots.

Ayn arrived in 1926, shortly after some 10 million young men had been killed and twice as many again wounded in the Great War to forestall ratification of the Hague opium convention in the middle of an opiate glut. There was certainly no glut of eligible bachelors as Ayn Rand surveyed the pickings in Hollywood.  She literally tripped herself a man while working as a ragged extra in King of Kings, and squired by Frank doubtless took in such flickering delights as  “Son of The Sheik” (1926).

In The Sheik, the manly Saracen Ahmed, played by Valentino, captures a white girl (Agnes Ayres) complete with jodphurs, pith helmet and scarf. He tauntingly inquires whether his coy and flighty captive she is not “woman enough to know” why he brought her to his tent. There followed this priceless repartée:

“I am not accustomed to having my orders disobeyed!”

“And I am not accustomed to obeying orders!”

“You will learn!”

But the macho Ottoman ravisher plays the nice guy and fails to make his move–to the horror and disappointment of neglected American girls smoulderingly jealous of those anorexic, à la garçonne hussies lately boosting the troops’ morale “Over There!” That fault was corrected in Son of the Sheik, which hit the silver screen just as young Ayn Rand joined silent movie audiences. In it, a reformed Valentino wastes no time having his way with an (unwitting) honey-trap Mata Hari (Vilma Banky)–by engraved invitation–in a plot twist foreshadowing Kira Argonouva’s gaining of young Lev Kovalensky. There is even some foreshadowing left over for one of Mae West’s signature quips–about a gun.

Glittering o’er his faults, Valentino lustily redeems himself in the eyes of Russian and American womanhood, performing much like Francisco D’Anconia would thirty years later in Atlas Shrugged. Similarities may not have been entirely coincidence. Francisco’s full name was Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. Rudolph Valentino answered to  Rudolfo Alfonso Raffaello Pierre Filibert Guglielmi di Valentina D’Antonguolla.

Ayn Rand was no different from the millions of young American women who flocked to Valentino movies and too soon mourned his passing. Pola Negri, young Ayn’s Hollywood heroine since childhood, made a point of swooning over Valentino’s casket at every opportunity. The Fountainhead and Atlas were devoured by Robert A Heinlein, who promptly responded with another protagonist named Valentine in Stranger in a Strange Land. That very expression was first uttered by Dracula in Bram Stoker’s allegorical endorsement of Comstock Laws and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice! Robert Rimmer novels like The Harrad Experiment, the Rebellion of Yale Marratt and Proposition 31–not to mention Grace Slick’s version of Triad, made Ayn’s unopposed and muscular dalliance with her handsome young admirer seem so tame in context that Howard Roark couldn’t help but laugh.

So 62 years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged–now selling briskly in 29 languages–Republican, Democrat, Green and Communist looters mask squirming envy with feigned shock. None dare defend altruism or the initiation of force on ethical grounds, yet Dr Tara Smith of the U. of Texas Philosophy Department has produced several alternative derivations validating Rand’s ethical and political conclusions, with likewise no response from the cognoscenti and intelligentzia. Theirs is the face of looter cowardice unmasked.

hankdotcom

If you have laws, regulations, contracts or court decisions in need of unmasking from behind a Latin American language barrier, visit my translator, interpreter or Brazilian language website.
See also my Brazilian language blog

Koerner fallacy v. Winning

Same smear tactics the kleptocracy used on the LP.org

Small Human Rights Party ad placed before the LP plank legalized women’s rights. See Original

Surrounding every small party dedicated to change–for better or worse–is a fog of panhandlers eager to bleed off donations. Those donations would otherwise go to the gatherers of leveraged, law-changing spoiler votes. FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education fits the profile for one of these panhandlers.

Robin Koerner is a British-born recent convert to the USA. Like McAfee, a likable noob to whom the LP “owed” the nomination the same year he joined, Koerner has “answers.” But Koerner’s pitch is based on appallingly false, misleading and irrelevant suppositions. Foremost among these is Koerner’s view that ethics, law, history, economics and politics don’t matter, but pop psychologizing by an altruist from fascist Spain does. For guidance Koerner looks to a Franco-era mystical looter to whom life “is cosmic realization of altruism” (Ortega y Gasset, 2012:73). The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, asks us to sign a disavowal of fascist-style aggression. The disavowal was written by Ayn Rand in February of 1947. (Letters of Ayn Rand p. 366) That was back when altruistic fascist and nazi collaborators in Europe were kind of scarce because so many had been hanged by their former victims!

Koerner’s is the thinking of marketing people in Dilbert cartoons. Koerner also believes grinning candidates matter–not platforms, that you should emulate whiners and that the medium is the message. Sound familiar?
The premise–at least the part dense enough to identify–confuses a likable and successful single-issue lobby like UKIP with a political party. The conclusion is Koerner’s assertion that “…psychology must be the focus of any political party that is serious about doing what it is formed to do—which is win elections.”  UKIP won because Brits finally understood that Brexit is the antonym of Anschluss! Having felt the familiar sensation of losing on their hides, Europeans now grasp the meaning of winning! Winning is ditching coercion and gaining freedom.

It takes one to know one?

Like any huckster, this one is attracted to marks, suckers, losers “despondent because 47 years says that your guy never gets elected.” The error is that the LP is not in business to support pop-psych cheerleaders or manufacture paycheck politicians. For 47 years the LP has changed hundreds of laws and policies so as to reduce the initiation of force. We WIN this progress with the law-changing clout of principled spoiler votes. We win because the looters that ignore us get beaten by looters less coercive.

In its first campaign year the LP wrote the content the Supreme Court used in Roe v Wade to kill coathanger abortion laws. Does Koerner mention this? Democrats sure as hell don’t, but Republicans and Prohibition Party hucksters immediately drew up Constitutional Amendments to overturn Roe v Wade. To them the good old days were when a mail order diaphragm was cause for ten years in prison. They are STILL writing and pushing amendments to force women into involuntary labor.

Remember the draft? Napalming children in ‘Nam? Dixiecrats bombing prayer meetings? Middle East invasions and Bush bawling for the death sentence for marijuana? All of those things felt the chill from fewer than 4000 spoiler votes and one electoral vote counted in December of 1972. Today we cast 4 MILLION such votes. Here’s what the logistics substitution curve fit looks like:

The LP is on track to earn 50% of the vote by 2075.

Fisher-Pry curves show democracy replacing monarchy as coal & oil replaced wood

Prohibitionists with 1.4% of the vote (assisted by venal and cowardly looter politicians) passed the 18th Amendment and Marxist income tax which wrecked the economy and brought the Great Depression. This is the power of spoiler votes cast in support of a principled (albeit idiotic) stand. All we need do is let voters know that the button next to the ones they’ve been pushing will speed up the rate at which violent laws are repealed so that freedom replaces coercion and prosperity replaces debt. We are not despondent. We are winning every election. All four looter parties are shrivelling. The growing LP record of vote share fits a logistical substitution curve that indicates the LP (or its policies) should have half the total votes by 2075.

Koerner’s whole message is designed to obfuscate that crucial point and lead confused customers down a blind alley. That the alley is full of muggers, pickpockets and predators is not news. The Human Rights Party–organized shortly before the LP (see top of this page)–found out the hard way. Its organizers knew nothing of the meaning of government or freedom, the nature of rights or the language of money! They are extinct, but the Libertarian Party is thriving despite the “help” of “friends” like Koerners and FEEs.

hank phillips

If in need of simultaneous interpreting of the sort that made the Nuremberg trials of National Socialist war criminals possible, hire a Portugueseinterpreter. For general Latin American public faith translations visit Speakwrite.
My other blog is Brazilian.

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

Brazilian polling place

I walked to the polls in the local Brazilian precinct. They used to be at the school, but this year the voting took place at the intersection of Church and State. Brazilian citizens are forced by law to subsidize, then vote for, 33 parties. Here’s the sign…

Gott Mitt Uns!

Parish of the Apostle Polling Place

When you walk inside this is what you see:

Complete with spelling errors...

1st seek the Kingdom of God… Trust Jesus, don’t give up…

Then this

So is it any wonder the party most closely resembling the NSDAP led the vote count? Oddly enough, the other party standing for runoffs has a name that (no kidding) translates as Arbeiterpartei in German!

Servers are down so the list of party coalitions is unavailable… Maybe it’s just as well. There is a special gang of election judges that decide who can organize a party. National Socialists and International Socialists have 32 parties between them, and the gatekeepers make good and sure there is no Libertarian Party. The Cuban, Venezuelan, Peruvian, Chilean and most African governments or those of North Korea, China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, et alii do not permit libertarians to organize into parties.

Here is an apropos cartoon that appeared the morning after the elections. Other countries with no LP.org are Cuba, Venezuela, post-colonial African and Asian countries and so forth. Name a country people want to move to and I’ll show you a nation with a working Libertarian Party.

Translators are aware of goings-on in many parts of the world.
My other blog, Expatriotas, is mostly read by brasileiros

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.