Archive for April, 2013

Dennis Johnson: A Jew-Baiter in Oklahoma

April 26, 2013

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

April 21, 2013

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?

April 12, 2013

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

April 7, 2013

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