Nix On the President: Richard Stinkhouse Obama

So he finally opened the door to the Fascist outhouse, and now all those cheering Liberals and champions of the President can smell that we were right and they were wrong when we warned the nation of the Fascist nature of President Obama. A man who could attend a church for 20 years that would give its Man of the Year award to the racist bigot, Louis Farrakhan, was certainly not fit to be President. And now the entire public, and the President’s own defenders can see why.

President Obama’s assault on Press Freedom may come as a surprise to modern Democrats in 2013, but it would have been no surprise to Thomas Jefferson, or those inflamers of the desire for Liberty, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, the authors of the famous “Cato’s Letters” that both aroused and instructed the American colonists against Tyranny.

In those “Letters”, Trenchard and Gordon wrote, ” We know, by infinite Examples and Experience, that Men possessed of Power, rather than part with it, will do anything, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it, and scarce ever a Man upon Earth when out of it as long as he could carry every Thing his own way in it…”

“It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage…” (Page Obama and Holder)

“Alas! Power encroaches daily on Liberty, with a success too evident; and the Balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at Mankind Root and Branch, makes the World a Slaughterhouse, and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is more likely, has left nothing else to destroy.”

No gullible believers, like the bulk of the modern American Public, these 18th century Libertarians knew that government is not a friendly neighborhood grocer, but a necessary evil full of power-hungry men who must be bound down by the chains of a Constitution and Bill of Rights. They knew the types of President Obama and Attorney General Holder very well, a quarter of a millenium ago.

Ron Paul and legal scholar Jonathan Turley have long warned against the encroachments on Liberty of the current administration, but Liberal Democrats have ignored these warnings and abuses, and have continued to support the President up to the current time. Now they, and the Public, can see what an individual they have put into power, and it is primarily their responsibility to control and even impeach him if he attempts any further outrageous crimes against Press Freedom.

But it’s good news for the Fascists: Nixon is back!

Hoooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww

Senator Ted Cruz: Cruzifying the Democrats

The name of Senator Ted Cruz was first known to Silverwolf when he heard that Ron Paul had endorsed him in the primary for Cruz’s Senate campaign, which he won. This caused some controversy among some of Paul’s supporters at the time, accusing Cruz of being a bit of a Neo-Con. These critics supported someone else, whose name we forget.

We didn’t pay much attention to Cruz, even after recently watching part of his interrogation of Senator Hagel, during the Hag’s confirmation hearings. He made good points in that questioning, which we adduced to our post on Obama’s horrendous Hagel nomination.

But the other day, we stumbled across a more extensive questioning of Hagel by Senator Cruz, and we were so impressed by the quickness and perceptiveness of his mind, and the clear way in which he spoke in complete sentences, that we were driven to watch another video clip of him. Once again we witnessed a logical, forceful presentation, with no verbal pauses, searching for words, or the useless and boring verbage that is the stock-in-trade of the average American politician. One was struck by how clear and forceful was the brain in the head of this Senator. This guy was bright!

Then we noticed an article by Professor Alan Dershowitz on his experiences teaching Senator Cruz when Cruz attended the Harvard Law School. Dershowitz pointed out that Cruz was a super-intellect, and even when he debated Dershowitz, and they didn’t agree, he’d come up with interesting and difficult-to-overcome arguments.

After reading this evaluation of Senator Cruz by Professor Dershowitz, we knew that our perception of Cruz’s intellectual prowess was no illusion.

When you listen to him argue a point in one of his speeches, he presents it like a good prosecutor (he was one), laying on the points, one after another, documenting each with irrefutable evidence, and then finally recapping the points so that it is virtually impossible to disagree with him (or not be outraged).

And Cruz has a speech style a bit like an evangelist, when he is up before a highly sympathetic audience. We noticed this in his address to the NRA last month. The way he moved around the stage, used his hands, and talked to the audience, reminded us very much of a preacher leading his flock into the sermon and the theme of the week.

One of political analyst, commentator and radio show host John Rothmann’s favorite political dictums is “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” In other words, if the incumbent has a certain charisma or political talent for speechmaking or simply just notoriety, even if his administration has been pretty awful, he’s not going to get beaten by someone who is like milquetoast or is unknown.”

With Senator Cruz, the Republican’s have someone who is not milquetoast, and in endorsing him, Ron Paul may have helped elect an upcoming President of the United States, and, ironically, perhaps ruined the chances for his own son, Senator Paul, to become President.

We certainly wouldn’t agree with a lot of Senator Cruz’s positions, as revealed in his campaign ad regarding the religious symbol outside the Mojave Veteran’s Cemetery, or with his support for Capital Punishment. But he strikes a lot of the same themes that Ron Paul struck in his campaign speeches, and Dershowitz described his legal arguments in their debates as being essentially Libertarian.

Incidentally, we noticed a lot of hostile debate and mud-slinging between several commenters on one of Cruz’s videos, arguing whether he could be President because he was born in Canada. One person didn’t believe it, while the other didn’t seem to realize that the fact that he was born in Canada doesn’t disqualify him because his mother was an American Citizen at the time of his birth, and so could legally choose to have him be an American Citizen. Dershowitz seemed to think Cruz could easily clear the Citizenship hurdle.

So now, when we see the dismal field of nothings that populate the American Political desert, we notice one bright oasis in that alkali wasteland.

The Republicans really have an orator now, someone who can espouse something along the lines of Ron Paul, without alienating 70% of the American Population. Cruz is so far above the opposition, like Mohammed Ali or Bobby Fischer, that he could easily win the Presidency.

The Republicans finally have “Someone”.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww — Silverwolf

Libertarianism and the Dumbing-Down of Harvard

Silverwolf was actually astonished and flabbergasted today when he stumbled across a youtube video entitled “Harvard Lecture on Libertarianism”. Astonished and flabbergasted, not because of any especial brilliance of the lecture, although it was interesting and touched on many relevent Libertarian principles, but because of the virtually-complete inanity and inarticulateness of the students when asked to argue first the con- and then the pro- sides of Libertarianism. Though these were Harvard students, supposedly amongst the brightest in the nation, virtually every student who spoke could not speak in complete sentences, seemed to wander vaguely in their answers, and could not help polluting their rhetoric with a constant dribble of “you know”s, “I mean”s, verbal pauses, and unconnected phrases.

What first astonished Silverwolf was the fact that the uploader completely failed to mention the lecturer’s name, which seems like an incredible oversight. And even more incredibly, not one of the commenters mentioned his name, nor asked who he was. That’s unbelievably negligent.

The lecturer did, however, speak in complete, holistic sentences, since he had obviously come of age before the computer, and still spoke like a Human Being. His lecture was very good, but it too was amazing and astonishing in that no where in the lecture did he mention the founder of the American Libertarian Party, Professor Murray Rothbard, nor any of the prominent Free-Market Capitalist Economists on which modern Libertarianism is based: Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek. Neither did his lecture forcefully stress the intimate and necessary connection between Libertarianism and free-markets, though free-markets were mentioned numerous times.

The lecturer also simplistically defined Libertarianism as “self-possession” or “self-ownership”, but he never once articulated the core Libertarian axiom, which states that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of any individual man.”

Finally he slipped the traditional piece of mainstream propaganda into the lecture by mentioning the “Libertarian economist”, Milton Friedman. As we demonstrated in our blog post “Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard vs. Milton Friedman and the Collectivists”, Murray Rothbard, in a 1971 interview with The Banner, clearly argues and proves that Friedman was no Libertarian, but actually a Statist, although on certain points he took a Libertarian position. And certainly, in comparison to the prevailing philosophy of big government of his time, Friedman was much more Libertarian and pro-free markets than virtually all well-known economists. He was a comparative Libertarian in a Statist age, but not a real one.

And the fact that “The Austrian School of Economics”, the backbone of modern Libertarianism, was not mentioned even once in the lecture, despite Hayek having been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, is scandalous. But it shows how even Harvard tries to mold the brains of the young.

In listening to the inarticulate students trying to explain why overthrowing property rights was OK if it “helped the poor”, and to the girl who was an outright collectivist who said that we didn’t have self-ownership, that we belonged to the society and so have to “give up” our rights, and so government could tell us what to do and extract labor from us, Silverwolf could see how Socialist propaganda has been fed to these students throughout their earlier school days, where they were probably told that “it takes a village”.

And in one sense, it does: A village of Libertarians.

For example, anti-Libertarian Raoul spouted that “we get our rights from the government”, evidently disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence of the United States, that we are endowed by our creator with certain “unalienable” rights, which means they can never be taken away. Raoul seemed to think though that the government gave us our rights, and so if the democratic majority makes a rule, even if it violates our rights, then everyone must obey, and if you don’t like it, you’re free to emigrate.

Neither the Prof, nor the three students arguing the pro-Libertarian position, seemed to catch Raoul’s initial falsehood that “we get our rights from the government”. And later, when students brought up the old Liberal illusion that “society has given you these things and so you owe back to society the taxes you pay”, the pro-Libertarians never called into question whether this fictional “society” even exists.

Notice how easily so many people accept the fictions of “society”, ” the People”, “the Nation”, when in reality there are only Individuals, with Individual Rights. This is one of the key insights of Libertarianism, and one of the reasons why the anti-Libertarian ideologues get so confused. “Society” does not exist; only you and the other individuals exists, each one, simultaneously, and it is the interactions and relationships between all these individuals that make up society. The Democrats and Republicans who believe in the income tax, or other taxes to fund programs other than the defense of persons and property (i.e. the police and courts, and the military), have had to invent this fictional idea of “society” or the Nation. But Society does not exist; only Individual lives exist.

So, the defenses of the Libertarians to these attacks seemed to constantly miss the key philosophical reason which would have clearly defended their position. That such shoddy thinking could emerge from so many students. who are supposedly top-notch intellectually, was indeed chilling. If these are the best and the brightest of this country, America is in big trouble.

These inarticulate students also seemed to conform to many of the characteristics that we read of recently on a website which responded to our discussion of the computer, and its effect on the degeneration of the Human Mind. We posited in that post that computers were subtly reconditioning the way the Human Mind functioned, and that the young who were growing up with computers were completely conditioned by this upbringing in a way which those who grew up in the pre-computer days were free of. (A computer glitch having wiped out that week’s browsing history, we are unfortunately unable to give the name of that website. which was in both English and German.)

That website discussed an article which listed 10 characteristics of these new cyber-conditioned children. For example, they pressed buttons with their thumbs instead of their index fingers. They had trouble concentrating. They couldn’t talk in complete sentences. They showed a lack of consideration of the consequences of their actions on others. It was a drearily accurate picture of the youth Silverwolf has observed being completely taken over by the computer during the past decade, so that silence, and silent meditation or long periods of sustained cogitation on one topic, become impossible for such a conditioned brain. The Harvard student’s lack of insight and inability to think in complete sentences seemed universal. Silverwolf used to hear more cogent discussions in High School.

After hearing the unthoughout blatherings of these inarticulate students at Harvard, Silverwolf is more convinced than ever that a new Human Mind is emerging which is so heavily cyber-conditioned that it is completely unaware of the way in which it has been thus conditioned, and so is virtually unable to break out of this syndrome and de-condition itself.

Can Libertarianism, the Philosophy of Natural Rights, overcome this brainwashing of the mass of young people, even the so-called brightest? We doubt it, but it had better do so or we’re doomed.

Hoooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Dennis Johnson: A Jew-Baiter in Oklahoma

Enboldened by the Democrat’s endorsement of Senator Hagel’s anti-Semitism, it didn’t take long for more cockroaches to come out of the woodwork.

In Oklahoma, legislator Dennis Johnson actually had the gaul to spread his racist dung not just off the cuff or in an private interview, but in the hallowed halls of the Oklahoma Legislature. Here, in this publicly-supported meeting-place of the People, Johnson slandered a whole segment of the taxpaying population by vomiting forth the old Nazi canard that goes back to the Middle Ages. The Racist Johnson, perhaps emboldened by the confirmation of Senator Hagel by the Liberals, knew he could get away with spewing his Jew-baiting filth in public, and his sarcastic “apology” which even went “to the Jews” instead of “to Jews”, as if they were a monolithic block instead of individuals, showed most blatantly his ingrained Racism,while the couple of grinning hyenas sitting behind Johnson, seemed to think the Jew-baiting Slander was very funny.

Perhaps they think it’s funny because they’re not one of the million children murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, which is the end result of such Slander as Johnson’s. Perhaps they wouldn’t think it so funny if they were being burned to death because of Racist comments like Johnson’s. But they’re not, so these Hyenas can laugh it off. What Trashbags these legislators are!

Remember that the end goal of all Racists is the murder of little kids and old women.

And did you notice what an obese “chazzer” Johnson is? It’s obvious that when it comes to greed, Johnson is greedy about food. So it’s not surprising that he slanders other people with his own very obvious vice. Obese people are taking the food out of the mouths of little children, driving up the cost of food for the world’s poor, and starving some kid to death in the third world, so it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t mind trying to whip up hatred and divide Americans against each other by promoting Racism, a false doctrine that has murdered tens of millions of people throughout history.

The Libertarian is an anti-Racist in the sense that he has no group image about others: he sees each man as an Individual, with Natural Law, or God-given, Rights, and knows that the prejudiced man, the man who “pre-judges” his fellow man on the basis of some bias, whether through racist propaganda or real life encounters with someone of that ethnic group or a combination of these two, — such a pre-judger is a stupid man, a boring man; a man whose mind moves in a few fixed catagories.

Have you even noticed how Racists are usually the dullest people?

Now, one supposes that in theory it is possible for someone to be a Libertarian, believing that all men have Natural Rights, but also believe that all members of some specific ethnic group are all one way or another, or are all bad, but it seems highly unlikely in a Libertarian. And even more unlikely if you consider the broad ethnic makeup of leading Libertarian thinkers, from Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand to Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. You couldn’t read much Libertarian literature if you were a bigot, because so much of its writings were and are done by so-called minority group members — minority group members to those that think in terms of groups, but only fellow citizens with equal Rights in the view of Libertarians.

And Libertarians are anti-Racists  in the sense that they will tolerate no special privileges for special groups at the expense of the Rights of everyone not in those groups, or at the expense of some other specified group. This prevents the creation of Racist laws.

One of the most difficult and most important actions in life is not to create images in the mind, either images of ones closest relatives or acquaintances or images of whole groups of people. Or even images of oneself. People, like the Cosmos, are always in flux and creating their own destinies. They are Action, not fixed Substance. And both Libertarianism and Existentialism, that wonderful Philosophy from the 50s and 60s which fully agrees with Libertarianism that one is completely responsible for ones actions and must bear that responsibility oneself — both these doctrines look solely at people’s actions, not some pre-judged image of people.

Libertarians should target such Racist Trash as Dennis Johnson for unelection, and vote such Miscreants out at the next opportunity. America should have no truck with Racists, especially in our Legislatures and National Cabinet. Let them go back to Europe and Russia, where they’ll be right at home.

And if Silverwolf ever has a store, he sure hopes Dennis Johnson doesn’t come in and try to buy something. Johnson might try to “Goy me down on the price.”

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

PM Julia Gillard and Bob Carr: Collaborators with Evil

Silverwolf could barely keep down his vegan muck, the other day, after reading about Australian PM Julia Gillard’s trip to Red China and the comments of the Foreign Minister Bob Carr. There were agreements signed on annual meetings, termed “architecture” in the NewSpeak of the modern totalitarian State, “defense”, and some arrogant and illogical doublespeak from Carr sanctioning the Chinese annexation and theft of the independent Buddhist nation of Tibet.

This Australian-Chinese Agreement is one of the most immoral actions by a Western “free-world” power that Silverwolf can remember for a long time. It ranks with President Clinton’s immoral decision to give the Fascist Chinese America’s covetted Most Favored Nation trading status, which, not only immoral, has been such a huge factor in America’s burgeoning trade deficit with China, and the making of Fascist China such a world economic power. It should have only happened when Fascist China embraced democratic elections, got out of Tibet, ended torture and mass executions after kangaroo courts, stopped the theft of land from the peasants by the Communist Party apparatchik developers, stopped raising Saint Bernard dogs for slaughter, and adopted a Bill of Rights along Jeffersonian lines.

Without those basics, no nation that America trades with should be granted MostFavoredNation trading status. How can you love Liberty and Jeffersonian Natural Rights values, and at the same time collaborate with Fascist Criminals such as the ruling Chinese Communist Party? This is a point on which Silverwolf disagrees with his candidate for President, Ron Paul, and even with Jefferson. We do not think that we should have “friendly relations” with any Fascist or totalitarian regimes, for Libertarians should view such regimes as mere gangs of Criminals, to be dealt with accordingly. Trading with a totalitarian nation strengthens that nation and its dictatorship, and so we think boycotts and sanctions are the quickest and one of the few non-violent Libertarian weapons to use against these gangs of Criminals. How many African lives did Mrs. Thatcher’s refusal to impose sanctions on South Africa cost? However, it must be acknowledged that those moral souls living under the dictatorship being boycotted may and will suffer some personal harm from sanctions against the entire nation, but we think this is a lesser evil than the fact that sanctions can bankrupt an immoral government and bring it down faster and with less bloodshed that a frontal assault. Every additional day that a dictatorship persists, there are more victims.

In the Bible, it says, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”. If you substitute “dictatorship” for witch, Silverwolf would agree.

And why is it that in the West, when someone aids or abets a murder, robbery, or kidnapping, we treat the people who helped the criminals who actually committed the criminal acts as criminals themselves? The lookout who helps the assassin carry out a murder, and aids the murderer’s getaway, is himself treated as a criminal, in part responsible for the murder, and jailed for a long time. But when it comes to National Leaders aiding and abetting Fascist regimes to continue in existence, to murder and torture, and even strengthen their stranglehold over the People, no crime is ever mentioned, and no government leader is brought to trial.

Lloyd George was never tried for the mass murder of young British men during World War I. No, rather he was hailed as a hero by the British Socialist Working Class, which conveniently never mentioned his collaboration and support for the murder of British youths by the hundreds of thousands in a war that was the joy of the munitions makers and the General Staffs of both sides.

So Gillard and Carr’s collaboration with torture and murder, in the form of support for the current Red Chinese dictatorship, is a crime in our eyes, and taints not only the Collaborators Gillard and Carr, but the whole Australian Nation, which has a responsibility to protest and overturn such immoral actions by their elected government. How can the Greens possibly support such immoral Fascist Boot-lickers?

Carr’s doublespeak on Tibet is most disgusting. This craven brownnoser had the gaul to reiterate several times that Tibet was part of China (the big lie), as if he were an expert on Tibetan history, that Australia accepted this big lie, and would support this tyranny, but at the same time Tibet should be autonomous while still remaining within China.

It’s obvious to any moron that “autonomy” means self-rule and self-determination, and how can one possibly talk of self-rule if the people of a country are forced into an unnatural confederation with a country that has oppressed them for over 60 years, tortured and murdered them, and destroyed the temples of a religion that began as a complete rejection of murder and violence? The original Buddhists were the Non-Killers; the Men who refused to kill. And now Miscreants like Bob Carr and Julia Gillard force the religious descendents of those Non-Murderers into a perverse confederation with a Government of Murderers.

And did you see the Sydney Herald photo of the Harridan Hyena Shrew, Ms. Gillard, sitting with a class of Chemistry students at a Chinese high school? Gillard had the manic smile of a hyena when it smells a freshly rotting carcass, while surrounding her were a few forced half-smiles, but also the non-smiling grim faces of rows of children growing up in a totalitarian society, where not to conform can mean torture, starvation or jail. Gillard and Carr have helped to institutionalize these children’s bondage with their support of Communist China; another crime the Ages will not forget.

 Silverwolf believes that one day Libertarian children far into the future, reading the history of the late 20th and early 21st century, will spit on the names of Bill Clinton (and the Congressmen who voted to give Red China MFN status), PM Julia Gillard, and Bob Carr, as well as all those who helped support and strengthen this Big Brother totalitarian regime of Red China. They have installed their names forever on the Wall of Infamy.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarians: Capitalists or Free-Marketeers?

In re-reading Professor Murray Rothbard’s wonderful essay, “Capitalism vs. Statism”, we were reminded that “capitalism” is a term invented by Marx and used by the Marxists. In contrast to this is the idea of the “free-market”, which arises naturally whenever men are left to their own devices, as in a peasant or jungle society. It needs no central planning, as each man produces or does what he has in abundance or trades his unique skills for the products of other producers, without any coercion. Any contractual disputes between producers and consumers are brought before the wise elders of the community or tribe, and settled.

So, this distinction set us thinking about whether we should use the term “capitalist” at all, and choose rather to employ the term “free-marketeer” in its place. Is not using a term coined by Marxists to describe the free-market  playing into their hands?

Indeed, what image does the term “capitalist” conjure up in the mind? Does it not mean someone whose one drive is to acquire capital, or money? In other words, someone obsessed with money? In getting this term dispersed in wide-spread usage, the Marxists have achieved a popular view that capitalists are money-obsessed individuals.

Now, what does the term “free-marketeer” imply? Much more that someone who is money-obsessed. Firstly, it stresses that one wants freedom not only for oneself, but for the other party in the transaction. And also, one wants freedom for everybody else doing transactions, and making markets. Freedom for all! Not just for me. Secondly, it shifts the emphasis from the money-half of the transaction to the commodity-half of the transaction. In other words, the true free-marketeer is interested in the commodity he is either getting, or getting rid of in the market, much more than the money-half of the transaction. Certainly, the seller is very interested in taking receipt of the asking price in terms of cash, but that cash is almost always as a means to some commodity or service that the seller values. The wealthy seller may find it in the added security of having his cash balance just a little bit larger, and further away from bankruptcy; the hungry seller in the lentil sandwich he just bought with the proceeds of his last sale. But in both cases there is some value, be it the elimination of the physical discomfort of hunger or the psychological gratification of being slightly more financially secure, which makes it worthwhile for the seller or buyer to engage in his action.

This emphasis on the commodity and its implimentation by the new owner for some physical or psychological value is the real meaning of the “free-market”, not two parties to a transaction who are only interested in the capital-half of the transaction. Obviously, the buyer is far more interested in the thing or service he is receiving for his money rather than just his money, or he wouldn’t have spent it. Even when one is “forced” to sell or buy, it is always to achieve a desired physical or psychological need, be it bread or selling one thing to pay off the debt on another thing. So “free-market” implies not money, but action, i.e. the action to which the acquired commodity is put.

Now, it seems to us that Mr. Libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, saw this subtle distinction between physical property and the ends to which it is put. Jefferson, in our view, was a Renaissance Man; one of the greatest. In his life’s actions, one can see the intellect of the Renaissance Man constantly at work, whether he was approaching gardening and farming, the construction of Monticello so that the U.S. Mint could put it on the back of the nickel 180 years later, playing the violin, collecting and reading books, arguing for the Abolition of Capital Punishment in Virginia, or putting forth the most lucid case ever for the Natural Law philosophy of Libertarianism in his masterpieces, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

In earlier documents the phrase “Man is endowed with certain inalienable Rights, amongst which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” had read “Life, Liberty, and Property”. But we believe Jefferson had the amazing insight to make the Libertarian leap from mere “property” to the much larger cause or aim to which it is put, that is “the pursuit of happiness”. This insight directly correlates to Ludwig von Mises subjective valuation principle which is one of the major breakthroughs in economics of the Austrian School — that the value of anything is its subjective value to the owner or purchaser, and that value can never be predicted. No wonder all the other schools of economics could never ever figure out how to measure the value of an object; it cannot be done except subjectively. It can only be measured it terms of its psychological gratification and value to the property owner.

Now, Professor Rothbard in his essay breaks Capitalism down into two breeds: “state Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalism”. State capitalism is what we have in America and the West: the government and associated industries looting wealth from individual Capitalists, a form of Mussolini’s Fascism. “Free-market Capitalism” would be — well, no one really knows exactly what it would be like since it has never really existed except in remote peasant and jungle communities that are probably unknown to modern history. Free-market Capitalism’s days as a world economic system are ahead of it, in the future, and not in the past which has never known it.

Whether we should use the rather longwinded terms “free-market Capitalism” and “free-market Capitalist” every time we want to refer to Capitalism or the Free-Market, or whether we should comply with the Marxists by using a term they coined which, as we have pointed out, has prejudicial connotations, or lastly whether we should always use the term “free-marketeer” instead  of “Capitalist”, is a hard decision which each Libertarian must make for himself. The subtle distinctions are probably beyond the comprehension (or interest) of most Socialists.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama and NATO vs Leopold and Loeb: The Afghani Child Murders

When it comes to murdering children, the contest between Barack Obama and NATO on one side and Leopold and Loeb on the other isn’t much of a contest. It looks like Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ms. Merkel, and French Socialist Hollande are way ahead of the Chicago pair when it comes to wracking up child murders in their asset column, and getting away with it too. It took all of Clarence Darrow’s verbal elegance to save the necks of the two Chicago youths for one Child Murder, but with Obama and NATO, all they have to do is issue an “apology” to the victims families, if any are left, to get away with the Murder of masses of children, and don’t expect any member of Congress or Parliament to protest the crime, now that Ron Paul is no longer in Congress. The Liberal Democrats, who are always talking about “families and folks”, have just helped Obama murder 10 more children in an bombing raid in Afghanistan, but don’t expect them to call for his trial and imprisonment, or their own.

The simple fact is that the heads of the NATO governments, who have murdered civilians in Afghanistan over and over and over in airstrikes, deserve to be tried themselves for the Crime of Child Murder, and stand in the dock at Nuremburg or the Hague. They have made themselves War Criminals, and anyone who votes for them or their supporters is aiding and abetting War Criminals and War Crimes. It’s that simple.

So, when it comes to seeing who can murder the most children and get away with it, even when everyone knows who are the murderers, it looks like Obama, Cameron, Merkel, and Hollande are far ahead of Leopold and Loeb. Such is the ”morality” of the State.

In the Leopold&Loeb trial, in the mid-1920s, the great Libertarian lawyer, Clarence Darrow saved the boys’ lives by arguing elegantly, for 12 hours, against the heinous and anti-Libertarian Death Penalty, which should be abolished world-wide, and which will be abolished forthwith when Libertarian governments extend over the length and breadth of the Planet. The State should never be given the power to murder, which is why the deadly NATO airstrikes, without any trial for the perpetrators, is as much a crime as if Leopold and Loeb had gotten away with their murder of the Frank child. One wonders how Darrow would have argued to save Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Hollande from the scaffold in Nuremburg?

Let us try these four War Criminals for War Crimes in Afghanistan and give them at least the sentences imposed on the Child Murderers Leopold and Loeb — Life in Jail without parole. Not to try them will unfortunately only serve to justify the Crimes of the Taliban Criminals in the eyes of many local people, and many worldwide.

Hoooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Euro-Socialism Unravels: The Cyprus Rip-Off

If you needed any additional proof that State Socialists are thieves, all you have to do is look to the example of Cyprus. The EU Commissioners, in their gall, have basically decreed that it is quite alright to rob outright “large depositors” of a huge percentage of their savings, although their earlier attempt to rob all depositors was so vociferously met by the Cypriot people that the Socialists had to back down. Then they “democratically” decided amongst themselves that they could pull the rip-off off if they only hit the “large depositors”, appealing to class hatreds which almost always work on Western Democratic electorates. Since they are only hitting the “rich”, those with just enough to buy a barely habitable home in Euroland, they knew that popular dissent would now not be harsh enough to be able to stop their pulling off the theft. And they have pulled it off.

As with most Socialist Bureaucrats, who have never worked in the real world where their income depended on themselves alone, or their business or employer’s business, but have had their Socialist wages paid out of the public coffers which are almost endless, they do not have any psychological conception of what their holy decisions have on those in the Free-Market economy, who have probably slaved for decades to build up their savings.

Socialist “solutions” always create additional problems which the Socialists never forsee because their thinking is mired in an economic ideology built on false and deeply immoral principles. Economic thinking needs to be based on sound principles, or it will always fail, and since Socialism is based on coercion, violence, the gun and the jail cell (try not paying your taxes and see what happens), it can never match the respect for Individual Rights, based on Natural Law, and non-aggression against Persons and Property, that Libertarianism champions.

What the EU Socialist Commissioners have done is to put every thinking Capitalist in the Western World on notice that if they live in a Socialist Economy (and who doesn’t now? Even Switzerland has vowed to inflate the CHF Franc if it gets too “strong”.), — if they live in such an economy, their savings in any bank are no longer safe, no matter what verbal “guarantees” the government officials gave the public yesterday. From Eastern Poland to Portland Oregon, all Capitalists in between now know that if their country’s banking system collapses, as all these Socialist banking systems eventually will, then their savings are subject to confiscation by the Communists, calling themselves “Social Technocrats” or EU Commissioners, or “The Democrats”.

In America, it is unfortunately comparatively common for a bank robber to be shot to death in the course of robbing a bank. But when the EU Commissioners rob thousands of people of billions of dollars of their savings, they can walk away scott free. Why aren’t they shot as bank robbers, or at least arrested, tried, and jailed for extremely long periods of time, as being a clear menace to Civil Society?

The EU Commissioners are nothing but a bunch of Socialist Looters engaged in full-scale cozenage, and the EU is nothing but a giant Socialist forced-labour, zwang-arbeit, camp, where any individual initiative and excellence is punished to curry to the self-indulgent masses and the government-allied corporations. How outrageous that vegetarians and vegans are forced to pay the medical bills for millions upon millions of meat-eating, booze-guzzling, tobacco-addicts. An outrage!

Let the Cyprus Crime be a warning to all Libertarian Free-Marketeers in the Western World: Either brake the Socialists at the polls by electing radically Free-Market Austrian-School-of-Economics Capitalist Libertarians, who will put the Individual above the State and the Corporations, or face further lifetimes of drudgery under the State Socialists in their alliance with the Corporations, not only for yourself, but also for your families and the generations to come.

So let Cyprus be a warning to all Free-Market Capitalists. And to all Socialists too, for you have forever destroyed the myth of a safe banking-system, under any Socialist Central Bank economy, like the EU, the USA, Canada and Australia.

Just try restoring “investor confidence” now by flapping your lips some more.

Hooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The Charles C. Bunkley Infallible Roulette System

The Charles C. Bunkley Infallible Roulette System

A Short Story by “Lobo Silverwolf”

Charles Bunkley stared at himself in his hotel room mirror. He looked pale around the cheeks and the chin, but his nose and forehead were a Mojave nut-brown. He’d shaved for only the first time in the last six years yesterday, as he prepared for his trip to Las Vegas. Then, early this morning, he’d began the long drive from Wonder Valley, east of 29 Palms, to Sin City, taking the back roads at 35 and trying to stay calm. Now he was finally here, and in an hour would take place the culmination of six years of study, of spinning the roulette wheel he’d set up in his cabin thousands of times a day and recording the results, of reading everything he could on roulette and its strategies, and finally, only a few weeks previously, of coming upon the idea whose result was an infallible system. For centuries men had searched for a system in roulette that would guarantee them a profit, but it was only he, Charles Calvin Bunkley, who had, amongst all men on earth, discovered that system. And now he was going to use it.

Charles dressed leisurely, putting on the unused blue suit and tie he had bought years ago for just this day. Once finished, he looked like any other nicely dressed tourist who would blend in easily with the background. There was no need to attract attention. The casino must never suspect that he had a system, or he would be banned from every casino in America once the news got out.

Instead of taking the concourse that connected the hotel to the casino, Charles went out onto the street again, to look at America one more time before he became a wealthy man. Right now, financially, he was much the same as the tourists and dressed-up single ladies that passed him in the street, but in a little while he would belong to an aristocracy that had always been worshipped in America, in spite of the lip service given to its love of the poor.

He entered the main door of the casino, detecting immediately the hated smell of tobacco smoke. It was something he would just have to put up with for a time; the money would make it worthwhile.

He went to the cashier, withdrew the 50 Franklins from his shoulder money-belt, and asked for five thousand-dollar chips. The cashier seemed unfazed by the request; she must be used to high rollers.

As Charles moved in the direction of the various gaming tables, he repeated to himself, over and over, “middle-red-28″, the three bets he must make to win, that had come to him in a flash once he’d discovered the final key to his system.

Charles went in search of a roulette wheel, looking for a table that was fairly quiet. He spotted one, manned by a young woman with such jet-black hair that Charles thought she must be partly Native American. Suddenly he felt that this was a good omen, for had not Native Americans once been referred to derogatorily as “Redmen”, and since this was not a man, the “Red” corresponded exactly to the second element in his three bets. But then he questioned why he needed an “omen”  at all to confirm the validity of his system. Did not this show a lack of confidence in the system’s infallibility, and had he not been logically sure that, willy-nilly, his system must work?

The dealer invited the few players standing at the table to place their bets, and Charles placed his five thousand-dollar chips on the middle column, which paid 2-to-1. She spun the wheel, spun the ball in the other direction, and finally called out “eight”. Of course, Charles had won, and she pushed two stacks of five similarly-colored chips next to Charles’ original five. Then Charles placed the three stacks of chips on Red. The dealer spun the wheel again and Charles watched the ball intently. When it fell onto a red number and stayed there, he didn’t even notice what number she called out; he was waiting for that fresh supply of 15 thousand-dollar chips, which were pushed towards him a few moments later.

Deftly, he crammed the six stacks of $5,000 each onto number 28. He noticed that the young woman now watched him, and the betting table, intently. He caught the pit boss, standing off to one side, eyeing the proceedings and tightening his lips slightly. The other players and spectators at the table quickly became hushed as they realized the magnitude of the bet. Then the dealer spun the wheel, and sent the ball circumnavigating the bowl in the other direction. Charles watched the ball, then looked up, repeating to himself, over and over, “My system is infallible; my system is infallible.” He closed his eyes.

He didn’t hear the color called out, only the words “twenty-eight”.

He’d done it! His infallible system had worked and he was a millionaire! He’d done what no man had ever done before!

He could not help but grin, and several spectators actually broke into a small round of applause. He supposed they thought him plucky; but Charles knew that there was no luck involved.

He tipped the young woman a thousand-dollar chip, and placed it on “seven” for her, then walked away. He had not used the system when he placed that bet, but just random chance, and it didn’t surprise him, as he moved away from the table, to hear “thirteen” called out. She must have been sorely disappointed, but at least she’d had a momentary thrill. And it was important for the casino to see him lose a bet; they must not know of the  system.

At the cashier’s window, Charles asked for 50 Franklins, which he replaced in his shoulder money-belt, and a cashier’s check for one-million and forty-four thousand dollars. Tomorrow, when he got back to 29 Palms, he would deposit the check in a large bank, and, when it had cleared, spread the money around several banks so that it was all Federally Insured. He wasn’t going to lose it after six years of struggle.

Returning to his hotel room, he took the concourse that joined it to the casino. There was no need to walk on the street now, with the rabble. Did these well-dressed couples that now passed him know that they were passing the first man in history to successfully figure out an infallible system in roulette? No, of course they didn’t, but it was a fact which he obviously must keep secret. No, he would never tell anyone.

But, now that he knew the system actually worked, he would use it again and again, until he was one of the wealthiest men in America. A wave of euphoria swept over Charles: all things were possible for him now.

Back in his room, he prepared to leave, feeling too elated to sleep, and not even considering now that he was paying for a room till tomorrow, so he ought to stay to get his moneysworth. He would never have to think in such mean terms again.

He opened his suitcase, and began to carefully pack the few belongings he’d brought. Then he noticed his large, three-ring binder notebook with his six years of statistics; within that book lay the secret of his success. He picked up the notebook with a feeling of affection; it was his old, old friend. He put it down again, and opened the front cover. Then, carefully unclipping it, he removed the essential element in his system, the element that had eluded him for six years until recently when, in a flash, he’d conceived in his mind the infallible system.

As he removed the Smith and Wesson snubnose, he smiled at it. It felt heavy and powerful in his hands, like gold. He released the cylinder catch, twirled the dial, and removed the single bullet it held. Then he went to the bathroom, and dropped the bullet into the toilet bowl, flushing it so it moved out of sight.

This time he hadn’t needed that part of the system.

The End

Hooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Silverwolf’s Short Story: “The Man Who Loved Margaret”

” The Man Who Loved Margaret”

A Short Story by “Lobo Silverwolf”

I am a murderer. I lay awake at night and think about it, over and over. I killed a man, although I know they’ll never come to arrest me. But I did it nevertheless.

I first noticed Judson a few years back, when he moved into the neighborhood with his good lady. One day I ran into Ted Bagley at the hardware store, and he told me that the property next to his had been sold, down at the end of the cul-de-sac where it hits the old abandoned City Park, and than the Judsons had bought it. Ted told me they were Rosicrusians, a sect I recalled had placed ads in most of the magazines I’d read as a teenager. “Send 10 cents for the answer to Eternity.” I didn’t think there were any Rosicrusians left by now.

What impressed me about Judson when he drove past was how spotless his truck always was, and, when curiosity sent me on a hike down to the old Park in the middle of winter, how immaculately kept his house and lawn were. There, in the midst of the pine forest, was a uniformly emerald-green lawn, with a home to match, right out of the San Fernando Valley. Not a twig was on the lawn, and those that had been were placed neatly in a stack, awaiting burning. The roof and gutters were spotless.

About a year later, it suddenly struck me that recently, when I’d seen Judson’s truck pass, he was always in it alone. Then I ran into Ted Bagley at the Senior Thrift Shop. He mentioned that the Judsons had gotten divorced, and that Clem Judson was living there alone.

I figured it must be pretty rough for a guy used to living with a wife to suddenly be on his own. Men like Ted Bagley and I were used to it, but for a man who was used to having a woman around all the time, it must have been hard.

My studies having completely absorbed me at that time, I don’t think I gave another thought to Judson for months. Then suddenly it struck me that I hadn’t seen Judson for quite a while. So, the next fine early spring day, I took old Madge Newgate’s two dogs out for a stroll to the old Park, knowing that it would score some points with Madge, since she can’t take them until she has her hip surgery, and she wouldn’t forget me when her trees started to rain apples in the fall. I figured that by walking Truman (Madge is a Democrat) and Izzy, I could get on Madge’s good side while seeing if Judson was still around.

When I got there, his truck was there sure enough, but it was caked with mud, and the windows looked dirty. Then I noticed that the roof of his house had a large patch of moss growing where the sun hit it; he’d have bear claws if he didn’t get up there soon. And the lawn was no longer green, but mottled with large brown patches, and covered in twigs and branches.

I smiled to myself: now that Judson no longer had to please his good lady, he’d let all that busy-work go by the wayside, and his place would gradually assume the well-worn look of a comfortable old shoe, like Ted Bagley’s place and my own.

Still, it bothered me a bit that Judson had let the place go like that so soon after his wife left. Had it all been her ship-shape insistence that kept the stead so immaculate, or was something else going on?

A few days later, curiosity sent me out once again to the old Park, not for the walk so much, but because I wondered how Judson was managing. I’d never spoken to him, other than the time he’d offered me a ride to town when the pump when out, having seen me walking down the street to Madge’s carrying several empty water bottles. I’d thanked him, but explained that I just had to go a block, and that had been the limit of our history of conversation.

As I passed the house, everything seemed the same. I went on, and was almost past his driveway, when I suddenly heard a yell.

“Hey neighbor!”. I turned to see Judson running down his driveway towards me. I could make out a big grin on his face, and as he approached, he had a look of pure joy on his visage.

He came up, extended his arm, and shook my hand vigorously, putting his other hand over it, like some long-lost friend. What struck me about him was the wild tousled appearance of his hair, which was greasy and matted, and plastered all over his head in clumps, as if it hadn’t been washed for weeks. A fetid odor of animal sweat hit my nostrils, such as I’d only experienced at a zoo.

He looked right at me, with a wild, joyous gleam in his eyes.

“Guess what, friend! I’m getting married! And to the most wonderful girl in the world!”

I mumbled a congratulations, but he kept on talking over me.

“I’m so glad you are the first to hear about it. So glad.” He suddenly seemed moved almost to tears, and his voice cracked a little. “You don’t know what old friends like you mean to me.” Then he brightened right up.

“I just got the news. Pa called and said that he and Ma have decided to give their approval. So now I can marry Margaret!” Judson clapped his hands together in joy, like a little kid. Since Judson appeared to be in his late 50s, I wondered how old his parents must be. “But you’ve got to come see a photo of her. Come on up to the house, and I’ll show her to you.”

The look in Judson’s eye told me that somehow it would  be a mistake not to go along, so I said “Sure, I’d love to see it.”

When we got to the house, I was struck by the huge mound of plastic garbage that lay just outside Judson’s kitchen door, as if he’d just been throwing out whatever used packaging he’d finished with. He led me into the living room, which seemed to carry the same, stale smell of sweat that emanated from Judson, and sat me down on an old sofa, in front of a computer and screen.

“Now look at this. This was taken a little while back, but my fiancee hasn’t changed a bit. Watch!”

A huge grin filled Judson’s face as he clicked the play icon. On the screen I saw an old black-and-white newsreel film. Horses were being led into a paddock, while well-dressed men stood around and talked. Then the horses were at a starting gate, and the camera showed a panorama of a large crowd watching the start of a race, and the racetrack.

The race began, and suddenly the camera shifted to several spectators in a reserved box. I thought I recognized the old Queen of England, the one before the current one.

“There she is,” yelled out Judson, so suddenly that I started for a moment. “There!” He put his finger on the screen, on the figure of a young Princess Margaret, standing beside the Queen. “Isn’t she beautiful? Isn’t she the most wonderful girl you’ve ever seen!” Judson was almost raving. “I tell you, neighbor, I can’t wait to hold her in my arms and call her my own.”

Then he looked hard at me. “Well, what do you think of her?”

“She’s charming”, I said. I noticed Judson suddenly looked at me suspiciously, and the start of a scowl crossed his face. But then he grinned broadly. “Yes, you’re right. Charming is the word. Now look at this.”

Judson let the clip play on. It showed “Monaveen” winning the race, and Princess Margaret clapping wildly, jumping up and down a little, and generally showing the camera that she was very, very pleased.

“Boy, am I glad it’s you I first get to tell the happy news to, at least in this neighborhood. But, the news is spreading fast, and the joy of my bride’s friends knows no limits. Look!”

He clicked on another clip, which showed the streets of a British town thronged with wellwishers, waving their hankies at Princess Margaret and smiling broadly. The commentator told of the Princess’ visit to Lancashire, and Judson mentioned that his bride was so well-liked by everyone she met, that she was known as a “Princess”. I tried to react normally, but by now I was deeply disturbed by Judson’s mental degeneration. The man was obviously a raving lunatic.

Finally, he put on another clip. It showed the Princess tapping a giant block of stone with two light fairy taps of a malet, and saying, “I now declare this stone well and truly laid,” which was followed by general polite applause.

“Doesn’t she have the most wonderful voice you’ve ever heard?”, he asked me. I decided, in light of his glare after my “charming” comment, that it was safer to just go “Umhumm”. This did not produce a glare. And he went on, “It’s the sweetest voice I’ve ever heard. I can’t live without it.”

Suddenly Judson stood up and said, in a most formal manner. “I’m afraid there is a great deal to do before the wedding, so if you’ll kindly excuse me.” He didn’t look at me, but strangely straight ahead as he said this. He wore a hangdog expression, as if he were so exhausted, he couldn’t move the muscles of his face.

“Of course, there must be loads to do, and I really should be getting back,” I said.  ”Congratulations once again, and I am sure you’ll both be very happy.” He looked at me suddenly as if I were a stranger, and I walked out of the house and up the drive as quickly as I could without it looking unnatural.

“The poor fellow” I said to myself, as I returned to my “old shoe”. Judson had obviously completely lost his mind since his wife left. It bothered me immensely, and I found Judson coming into my mind all evening, as I tried to concentrate on my studies. What could I do for the poor soul?

That night, I awoke after a good sleep, and found myself immediately thinking of what I could do to snap Judson out of his delusions. I was ranging around for solutions in my mind, when I recalled a book I’d read perhaps decades earlier, in which a psychiatrist was mentioning that, with certain patients, he used an approach of telling them to their face that their delusions were pure drivel, and that they had fully the capacity to be sane if they wanted to be. He would then prove to the patient beyond any doubt that they could not possibly fly through a window as they claimed they could, or be Napoleon, or signal to a passing aeroplane pilot that they had been kidnapped by Martians and needed help. He claimed a very high success rate without long drawnout analysis with his “cold bath of reality” technique.

The next morning, while putting out the cat food, a plan came to me. I would download and print out a copy of Princess Margaret’s obituary, and send it anonymously to Judson, even driving the 30 miles up to Wedmore to post the letter there, so the postmark would not look local. I couldn’t let Judson know it was I who’d sent it.

Driving back from Wedmore after posting the letter, I felt like I’d done another good deed, like walking Madge Newgate’s dogs. Judson would be very disappointed when he’d read of his bride-to-be’s death, but the shock just might bring him around from his delusions.

I figured it would take a day or two for the letter to be delivered, and on the third day, after the mail had come, I walked down to the old Park to see if I could see Judson around his place. But when I passed the house all seemed quiet. His truck still stood in the same spot, and all was silent. Then I saw Judson in the distance, on the far side of his lot, gathering pine twigs. He seemed alright, and a hope sprang up in me that somehow he’d snapped out of his condition.

That night, about 3a.m., I was awakened by the noise of a diesel truck passing, and as I awoke, another truck passed. My bedroom walls were suddenly filled with flashing red lights and dots which swirled around the walls, and which then quickly subsided as the noise of the motor began to fade. I wondered if yet another drunken teenager had slammed himself and his girlfriend into a bloody pulp against a tree, as they raced down to the old Park for some teenage hanky-panky on a Friday night. It seemed to happen about once a year, year in year out. Then my mind drifted back to my studies, and what I must accomplish the following day, and then I was out again in the outer blackness of sleep.

I was awakened early at 7 by the phone. When I answered it, it was Ted Bagley.

“I hope I didn’t call too early, but I thought you ought to know. Clem Judson shot himself last night. He’s dead. I was out at Clarendon last night, fixing a pump, but got back around 2:30. Suddenly I heard a shot, and figured it was a deer poacher, but it sure sounded close. Then half an hour later two ambulances from the fire department showed up. They’d gotten a call from someone who kept moaning that “Margaret’s dead. I can’t go on living without her. I’m gonna kill myself, so please come and pick up my body. You can find it at…” and he gave his address in a clear, calm, voice, and signed off with a “Have a nice day”. The 911 dispatcher figured it was probably one of those goofy calls they get on the weekends from someone whose had a little too much, or some mischievous kid, — you know what this valley is like —but they know the County’ll get sued if they don’t respond and it’s genuine. They found Judson with half his head blowed out.”

I was too shocked to correct Ted’s grammar, and, thanking him for telling me, I rang off.

I sat stock still in the living room for perhaps half-an-hour, thinking to myself over and over, “I killed Judson. I killed him just as surely as if I’d taken the gun and put it to his head myself. I murdered a man, another human being. I’m a killer.”

So what can I do except tell you, and tell the world. I have committed the one crime that can never be expiated. I killed a man.

The End

Hoooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf