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.

Advertisements

Integrity is their Enemy… 1

Politicians and their accomplices are fond of reciting that “Perfection is the enemy of …” of what? A look at the plug-in variables used to complete the false dichotomy turns up: good, progress, completion, and a host of similar abstract nouns with pleasant connotations. But if we translate the concepts behind the phrase, its meaning turns out to be: “Integrity is the enemy of self-deception.” This is Part One of a two-part exploration.

Libertarian spoiler vote levers (vote % * electoral votes) in LP Battleground states

Farfetched? Here is a typical dictionary definition of perfection, which in politics is a verb, an ongoing process approaching a theoretical limit:

3. The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible: e.g. Among the keytasks was the perfection of new mechanisms of economic management

Compare that with an attempted definition of integrity:

3. Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data: [as modifier] : integrity checking

Integrity checking was the approach to logical cryptographic analysis Alan Turing used to help England crack the Enigma code in the war against National Socialist Germany. Turing’s preoccupation with integrity was belittled by Ludwig Wittgenstein in prewar discussions at Princeton U. Ayn Rand defines integrity more clearly than dictionaries compiled for the Great Unwashed:

Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality.

In other words, integrity is ethical or moral perfection. Ask yourself what, then, is the meaning of political perfection as an ongoing process?  Now ask yourself: what is the definition of political corruption? The answer that comes to mind is betrayal of one’s convictions and values. You cannot translate campaign bribes paid by disparate artificial persons into platform planks and be consistent. But to use the government’s coercive power to meddle in trade and production and repay those bribes one needs to persuade voters to abandon integrity and betray some of their principles. Hence, perfection/integrity becomes an impediment to betrayal/corruption–but stating it that bluntly is politically incorrect.

The sanction of the victim must be obtained through fear or intimidation. This is why looter politicians paint “opposition” politicians as the very embodiment of impending doom. Their job is to grab at the initiation of force for the gain of their backers. The pundits and pollsters they rent are incapable of working the three-body-problem once third-party spoiler votes are involved. And no wonder! Third-party spoiler votes are investments in perfecting the rule of law and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and out posterity.

LP Spoiler Votes Repeal Bad Laws

Spoiler votes as agents of change were understood in 2007

Before 1971, small parties were without exception mystical, collectivist and/or nativist looters. Socialist populists of 1892 wanted the Communist Manifesto income tax which had been translated from German in The Red Republican in 1850. Coinciding with these mostly Christian altruists were the Prohibitionists, to whom the deadly threat of government guns would transubstantiate heathen tipplers into rum-hating fanatics all messed up on the Lord. The George Wallace and Tea Party approach meant the racial eugenics of woman-bullying Ku-Klux Christianity. Integrity in those three third-party cases meant pointing government guns at people to rob or brainwash them into submission. Their goal in every case was to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. To mixed-economy politicians, these “third parties” were full of votes which, like money, could be suckered by flim-flam persuasion. After all, they all wanted practically the same thing.  All of that changed in 1971.

To be continued…

Do you ever need Latin American or European Peninsular financial reports or analyses translated?

 

 

 

Brennt Paris?

France, of course, surrenders to German National Socialism at every opportunity. This 1940 French Translation of Mein Kampf (as Mon Combat–My Struggle) appears in the first 5 minutes of the 1966 movie Brennt Paris? The movie shows Parisians mostly riding bicycles, with the wealthy saving gas driving those horse-drawn Hoovercarts used in America during Prohibition After the Crash. The Occupation of Paris was Ecological National Socialism in black & white.

But France’s own media set them up for permanent obloquy in the Fawlty Towers Pantheon of Pathetic Poltroons. Seen this French hagiography of the current International Socialist Chanceller of Germany? It’s not all that different from Time Magazine thrice putting another nationalistic, Socialist German Chancellor on its cover a few decades ago. At least two such Chancellors made Time’s Person of the Year. Back in 1938 the Chancellor’s crowds shouted Raus juden! Today it’s Keine Atomkraftwerks!

If votes count for anything, America still prefers to keep electric power safe, legal and abundant. No Nukes, Nuclear Disarmament, Surrender to Soviet, Ban Coal, Ban Fracking, and other Gaian collectivist shibboleths notwithstanding.

But the Democratic party digs itself deeper and deeper into the pseudoscience of ecological national socialism. This cost them the votes of many who also want an end to the Republican régime of prohibitory televangelist pseudoscience, mass incarceration, cops shooting children and asset-forfeiture looting. The Democratic Party platform committee made the bed those loser politicians and their frustrated supporters get to lie in. They lie awake hearing God’s Own Prohibitionists Make Amerika Grate Again.

This appeals hugely to Libertarians. Unlike the socialist-prohibitionist DemoGOP, our platform says to relegalize self-medication, free the victimless-yet-persecuted from prisons and expunge their records. We seek to ABOLISH most taxes & regulations and all wars soon. Every Libertarian vote forces looter politicians to repeal or modify at least 6 times as many rights-destroying usurpations now masquerading as laws–or lose their seats.  Libertarian spoiler votes cover the gap between the main looter parties, and currently swing 90 electoral votes in major elections.

So Democrats, why not heat up some tar, cut open a few pillowcases and throw an outdoor party for your former platform committeemembers? Teach their replacements to spell R-E-P-E-A-L. Who knows? Maybe you can get jobs for some of your ward heelers and a hand in the till to boot? Failing that, try voting Libertarian instead: the other parties offer you warmunists, bureaucrats and politicians, we offer you freedom.

Did this help clarify why the US  need not sacrifice taxpayer earnings on the altar of pseudoscience?  Clarity is what many people want in their translations. This is why I have repeat customers. I look out for their pocketbooks.

 

Vichy Amerika Collaborators

Haight68

DemoGOP politicians were trying to keep contraceptives illegal in 1968

How Gary Johnson’s party alienated women voters:

Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states. (Gary Johnson campaign, 2012)

Of the three Libertarian candidates left standing at the convention, one was a recycled Republican indifferent to the individual rights of women (Johnson). Another was an antichoice Republican infiltrator bent on making the initiation of force to violate rights a Libertarian policy (Petersen). The third (McAfee) was a pro-choice newcomer in his first half-year of membership who enjoyed the persona of a loose cannon.

The 2016 candidate spread is evidence of gradual infiltration by surplus mystical bigots of the sort now populating the Tea and Consta2shun parties–spoiler vote holdouts for another religious autocracy in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The result has been a crippled semi-Libertarian party, fully 2/3 male earning 3% of the vote–but with way more than half the potentially sympathetic electorate mostly alienated.

Ask yourself how you would feel if some ex-GOP “Libertarian” candidate were to smugly suggest defunding the Center for Disease control and auctioning off all vaccination and epidemic control programs to corporate bidders? The program looks less like government handouts when men are also exposed to the unplanned need for medical intervention.

Never forget that the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist parties were deeply religious organizations. But Jewish voters were a tiny minority in Germany, Austria and Italy in 1933. Non-geriatric women voters in These United States amount to well over half the electorate.

Italian fascism decrees school prayer

religious instruction in state schools particularly desired by the Vatican will be carried out to the letter… See 1929 original

The Libertarian Party was the first viable party to feature a woman vice-presidential candidate. Tonie Nathan, a founding LP member who defends individual rights (choice) for women. The Libertarian Party won a rational electoral vote on December 19, and the Supreme Court smartly decided in Roe v. Wade that women were in fact individuals with the right to make their own choices–even if pregnant–on January 22, 1973. Time elapsed between the vote and the Supreme Court decision was 31 days.

The 1972 Libertarian Party plank on women’s rights read as follows: 

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

Yes it is true that post isn’t exactly propter. “All men are mortal” was once an untested hypothesis. But by logical induction understood by all but the most superstitious of mystics the generalization became a factual premise upon which valid conclusions may be rigorously drawn. But election campaigns are statistical affairs. Both of the looter parties seeking to install their tools and puppets on the government payroll with a hand in the till understood that infringing the individual rights of all female voters would be a really stupid thing to do. Even Germany and Italy learned the hard way that mystical demagoguery doesn’t pay.

A Supreme Court decision to keep American women at the mercy of state legislatures dictated to by Klavern Christianity was one option facing the Court. But that choice made as much sense in 1973 as the 1932 Republican decision to keep light beer and wine a federal felony with a 5-year prison sentence and $10,000 (gold) fine.

As a result of the Republican party selling out the voters, backing instead the Wizened Christian Temperance Union, Anti-Saloon League and Methodist White Terror, Democrats were elected to the top offices in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948. There was the stark result of that one episode of pandering to the demagogues of the coercive imposition of Comstock Laws embodying the mandates of mystical beliefs.

The pre-urinalysis GOP was still smarting in 1973, having in the previous 40 years been defeated in 71% of all presidential campaigns since siding with the Klan and its dry cohort against “The Demon Rum.” New York repealed its liquor prohibition law in 1923, and “Whiskey” Al Smith–the NY Governor who had signed the bill into law–became the Democratic Party’s 1928 candidate. In 1970 New York–flanked by Hawaii and DC–repealed the most onerous of its antichoice legislation.  Nine male political appointees saw the handwriting on the wall, and on Roe v. Wade sided with Constitutional freedom rather than the coercive imposition of religious practices.

The Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, organized six months later, successfully pressed for repeal of ALL antiabortion laws there. More women than men have annually emigrated to Canada since its government began enforcing the individual rights of all women.  While consistent with the current published platform of the Libertarian Party, Canada’s total repeal went to the logical conclusion that follows from our Fourteenth Amendment’s introductory premise that NO State may enforce laws infringing the rights of

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…

That is the line in the sand the Libertarian Party must again draw by deleting all of the “good faith” Vichy Plank language dictated by the shrinking remnants of dogmatized Prohibitionist infiltrators. In looter party platforms, “good faith” is invariably a pretext for overlooking violations of the Bill of Rights. The current “Vichy” plank is a cowardly reproach and stands as a monument to betrayal of the individual rights of fully half the population of These United States of America.

Small wonder women voters looked elsewhere in 2012 and 2016. But they discovered that the Democratic party was about pseudoscience and the banning of electrical power generation, rather than the competent defense of individual rights. It is a safe bet that educated women voters will not repeat that mistake. We must by then offer them a clear alternative–a party eager to turn their spoiler votes into political clout that will admit of no spurious interpretation–by November of 2020.

The libertarian party needs pro-choice female candidates to help rid us of the invasion of “former” religious bigots.

Are you eager to understand the content of a political speech given in South America? Portugueseinterpreter.com offers quick sight translation, gisting, and even edited professional translations suitable for publication in English. Contact me.

Star Wars and Climate Change

sdi83

Soviet propagandists made a major strategic blunder nicknaming America’s Strategic Defense Initiative “Star Wars.” True, there were easily triggered, sensitive, concerned & aware children on campus convinced the Lucasfilm blockbuster was there “to condition the people into fighting a nuclear war.” (Sample here).

Communist intellectuals instantly snapped this up as the magic meme to counter Reagan’s project for neutralizing incoming ballistic missiles and developing traction for the Surrender Movement. It backfired miserably, and the Prez even commented the “Star Wars” monicker hadn’t been a successful move. Turco, Toon Ackerman Pollock and Sagan produced the TTAPS report.  One computer meddler nobody mentions claimed that no computer code could ever possibly track incoming ICBMs. Edward Teller commented that “Highly speculative theories of worldwide destruction—even the end of life on Earth—used as a call for a particular kind of political action serve neither the good reputation of science nor dispassionate political thought.”  Now, fast forward past the Berlin Wall and Soviet collapse…

The exact same ideology resurrected by many of the same players and NERF-herders is again upon us. Nuclear Winter gave way to the new nickname of Global Warming. The movement was organized in 1992, precisely as the Soviet empire was collapsing like a World Trade Center tower. (e.g. Science Vol 262 pp 1252-1255) The idea this time was to convince Americans that reliable electric power generation was bad–not because it complicated a Soviet nuclear attack–but because human slavery was more natural, eco-friendly and nobly altruistic than those yucky Buckminster Fuller “energy slaves” that converted horsepower into empowerment for a flourishing standard of living. Soviet socialism would be attained at last, but by conditioning and brainwashing, not nuclear brinkmanship. The alternative? Everybody dies!

The watermelon Green party formed and spewed forecasts of national socialist happiness and the spurning of material greed–a chorus picked up by the Union of Communist Scientists and CPUSA.org and imitated everywhere totalitarianism had become entrenched in the 1920s through 1992. Toppling the recalcitrant Democratic party (and girl-groper) via spoiler votes in the y2k election opened the floodgates, but instead of becoming warmer as the Prophets of the New Millerite apocalypse predicted with absolute certainty, temperatures remained constant within measurement error bars.

The prophesy was falsified by physical measurements, and satellite temperatures diverged from tamperable data as of the Y2K election. After 4 years of this the false prophets changed the narrative and began falsifying data to make the past colder and the present warmer. But EVERY momentary shift of ANY kind has since been exploited as a Sign from Heaven as curbside observations,  apocrypha and hearsay increasingly impersonate science.

The 2000 government bureaucrats infesting the IPCC were swamped by over 30,000 real scientists listed with actual degrees whose PetitionProject.org STOPPED ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the U.S. Senate. Like Millerites after The Great Disappointment, ecological nationalsocialists rebooted. They changed their icon from the Global Warming non-starter to Climate Change. This was the subject of Dr. Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.”  Just as No Nukes! had shape-shifted to Stop Star Wars!, so Global Warming underwent a makeover into Climate Change.

But as Geologist Ian Plimer of Australia, nonmystical author of Heaven and Earth testifies: “Climate always changes, always has, and always will.”

Look me up if you ever need translations from Latin America, Mozambique or Angola.

 

Appeasing religious fanatics

 

Neville Chamberlain gave Europe a good lesson on the futility of Utilitarianism. But wait a minute… Isn’t Utilitarianism a good thing? The greatest good for the greatest number sure sounds democratic. Then again,   German Democratic Republic and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also sound democratic. Enter the Utilitarian Monster. 

The Utilitarian Monster lives in a Gedankenexperiment in which an evil monster in, say, a Zeppelin, arrives at the city gate and demands the sacrifice of one individual or else the entire town will be bombed. The City Fathers vote to sacrifice you, dear reader–BECAUSE THEY LOVE YOU! Yes, true Christian sacrifice is the surrender of that which you value more in exchange for what you value less. If they valued your egotistical selfishness, they would never have surrendered you. It is precisely because altruistic collectivism says you are innocent and good that your life gets crushed. Cowardice is preserved, and everyone is happy–happy, that is, until the Utilitarian Monster returns the following day with the same ultimatum. Yes, this is headed in the same direction as those chapters on sequences and series in math class… Everyone in a utilitarian village can be wiped out, one at a time, by bluffing.

But to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, mathematics was just theory. Peace was the important thing and sacrifice by appeasement was what everyone–the teachers, reverend clergy, government school philosophy and ethics teachers, Adolf Hitler–all said was good, right, socially benevolent. The ethics was settled, and it was time to put it into practice. Unfortunately, the Czechoslovakians were the ones being pushed onto the altar of altruism and sacrifice, and the experiment was real, not Gedanken.

Not everyone agreed with Hitler, of course. The one person who had the guts to speak out against the cowardly monstrosity–against the cringing sanction of the next victim–was a young woman born in 1909 who worked in Hollywood. Her name was Carmen Miranda and she wrote a samba describing Europe’s capitulation to militant German National Socialist religious conservatism. The 1938 samba is titled “Salada Mista.”

Conservatives hate Carmen Miranda and Mae West for pretty much the same reason. Conservative ideology hates freedom and worships superstition and coercion.

If you want to replace bad ethics and politics with something better, you might want to look into the Libertarian party.

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?