Archive for the ‘history’ Category

Three Political Suicides: Thatcher’s Poll Tax, Gillard’s Carbon Tax, Obama’s Obamacare

November 11, 2013

How the mightly are fallen, and all because they wanted to mulct that little bit of extra out of the golden goose of the Public. When we look at political collapses we can see how taxing the people at the wrong point and in the wrong way quickly leads to political death for the arrogant politician, and no better examples serve to illustrate this truism that those of PM Maggie Thatcher of the isle of Great Britain, Julia Gillard of the isle of Australia, and Barack Obama of the isle of Chicago.

Thatcher’s Poll Tax was a valiant attempt to impose the fairest tax of all, the Poll Tax, on long-suffering British property owners, on whom, as in America, the whole cost of local government fell. The Poll Tax is the fairest tax because it hits every citizen equally, and excludes none from the depredation. But the fact that millions of people. who previously never had to worry about paying tax, now had an annual financial burthen on their hands, was too much for the general public, and Thatcher’s Guy Fawkes explosion of British Politics was soon over.

Julia Gillard, always trying to sound like a cross between Winston Churchill and Richard Nixon, put her 30% carbon tax on mining just at a time when commodity prices had already peaked, and were obviously due for a huge “correction”. You’ll notice that Gillard never once called for an end to logging in Australia, or pressured the Indonesian Forest Rapists to curtain their destruction of the planet, but she thought she could mulct 30% out of the commodity corporations to shore up her huge Socialist bureaucracies. A few months later, and Ms. Gillard has crashed, and Tony Abbott is the new archdeacon of Aboriginaland, now called Australia after the Theft.

Finally we come to the current example, as arrogant President Obama, who thought he could ram Obamacare down the throats of the American People, and did so, has to back up his blatant lies about people being able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them, with a Clintonesque addendum explaining that people didn’t really hear what they heard the first time. We saw an initial report from NBC that 7 million Americans would lose their current plans and have to pay higher premiums, folks who undoubtedly thought that Obamacare wouldn’t touch them. When we saw that, we knew Obama’s Party had probably lost the next election. Obama won by about 1 million votes, but raising the premiums on 7 million “folks” who didn’t expect it is going to lose Obama and the lying Democrats far more. His popularity has plunged in the last few weeks to a reported 39% approval rating. People know when they’ve been lied to, and they don’t forget hits to their pocketbook.

But that was a week ago. Yesterday we read a report that over 50 million Americans could lose their current insurance and be forced to pay higher premiums for “better coverage”. What do you think that is going to do when those angry millions visit the voting booths in ’14 and ’16?

Three arrogant politicians: Thatcher, Gillard, and Obama. Three beautiful Political Suicides.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Advertisements

Mussolini’s Triumph: Obamacare, America Goes Fascist

October 17, 2013

Benito Mussolini must be smiling in the ash pile, 68 years after his death,  as the United States of America goes Fascist, forcing its citizens to buy insurance from private corporations.

Mussolini summed up Fascism in these words, “Il Fascismo e il Corporatismo”, Fascism is Corporatism, and today, October 17, 2013, with the failure of the Senate to stop the implimentation of Obamacare, Fascism has been firmly established in America.

No longer will a citizen be allowed to just exist on his own, violating nobody’s property rights, and not demanding that anybody else’s property rights should be violated for his benefit. The Constitution acknowledged the Human Being’s “inalienable” Right to his Life and Liberty, and to be left alone in privacy, but now Obama and his Democrats have finally overthrown those Rights, and turned all Americans into the slaves of the corporations — either that or live in poverty and let someone else slog all day to pay for your insurance, a kind of forced corruption of the Individual by the Government — or else pay the fine/tax, which of course forces you to dedicate your life and liberty to getting the money to pay the fine, a form of involuntary servitude. Clearly this is not only grossly Immoral, but also Unconstitutional, and no matter what the supreme court says, 5 to 4, it is clear to any logically thinking American that it is Unconstitutional.

It has taken 237 years for the overthrow of the Jeffersonian Constitution by the Corporate Fascists. Jefferson said that government, though a necessary evil, was essentially an evil because of the massive power it placed in the hands of individuals in the government, and that only the chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could hold it down.

It took the Totalitarians 237 years to overthrow the Constitution of Indiviidual Liberty. Today they are laughing, and Jefferson is crying.

And on the ash pile, Mussolini is smiling.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Socialist Democracy Leads to Nazism: Germany, Greece, the U.S.

October 12, 2013

Unfortunately, one of the most consistent correlations we see is that Socialist Democracy ultimately leading to Nazism.

This has happened over and over again, first in Germany in the 1920s and early 30s, and now in Greece, where a blatantly Nazi party, Golden Dawn, had approx. 15% support in the recent past, although the murder of an anti-racist rap musician, and the government arrest and crackdown on the party, seem to have lowered the support level in recent polls. 

However, the BBC in 2012 reported that while support for the party was in the low teens at that time, support in the police force was at 20%, and the Beeb gave details of multiple incidents of how opposition activists had been arrested, beaten and stripped naked, and nothing was done about it. They reported over a hundred attacks on immigrants in the last year, but again nothing was done until this popular musician was murdered by the Nazis. So when 15% of your populace and 20% of your police are Nazis, you can see the results of the Sociaiist overspending that went on for years, that finally led to a debt crisis, which in turn demanded austerity measures if the entire economic system and currency were to remain functioning, which in turn led to social grumbling that finally manifested itself in the doctrines of hatred put forth by the Nazis.

In Germany, the story is well known and has been told by countless historians. We think Norman Mailer put it best when he said that what brought Hitler to power was inflation. Inflation is the robbing of purchasing power from the people by the government; it affects all classes and produces prodigious social turmoil.

But inflation is the exact policy that the Federal Reserve, and the Democrats have been pushing for years, using every gimmick to revivify their rotten Keynesian economy, along with all the Keynesians in Euro-nirvanaland and Japan, and nothing has worked. On the contrary, the poor have been hit by both massive price increases in their cost of living, while having any savings they might have earn nothing, instead of 5%. Now Obamacare will further economically weaken the middle class, and the slaving youths, while flooding what doctors we have left with millions of new, usually quite sick, indigents. Many elderly who supported Obamacare because they are Democratic Party ideologues will die off as they find they cannot find a doctor to serve their Medicare, and the Medicaid people will get the very worse doctors and the trainees, if they wait for months. Thus will Obama and the Corporatists reduce the elderly and sick-poor population, although the President’s mind is so set in Ideology that it is unlikely that he realizes this. But, obviously, Government will reduce its Social Security and Medicare obligations this way.

And the massive debts run up by the Bipartisans under Obama are destablizing the currency of America, just as they have destabilized countless previous economies throughout history. Vice-President Cheney might say that deficits don’t matter, but he was wrong. Already the U.S. long bond has dropped 20 points from its high, and while they are saying it is because of a “recovery”, it could well be because foreign and American owners of U.S. Treasury paper are starting to unwind some of their positions, since there is no attempt whatever to “pay down” the debt, only add to it at a slower rate. (Just let me keep drinking for a few more months, man, and then I swear on a Bible I’ll quit!)

As the Obamaflation destroys more and more American’s lives, and forces them to slave longer and longer for less and less, the social tensions will increase, and people will look for scapegoats. Foreigners and Muslims seem to be popular targets right now in America, but we imagine the Racists will soon add more variety to the choices.

Capitalism in a Jeffersonian Republic with democratic elections and a Bill of Rights leads to prosperity, and usually tolerance, since its hard, or at least not diplomatic, to hate the guy your trading with, especially when he’s helping you to make a living, and he treats you square. Socialism always begins with the premise of class hatred and class envy. Libertarian Capitalists see absolutely no difference between the hobo and the billionaire, as long as they adhere to the Libertarian non-Aggression axiom. Their Natural Rights are exactly equal and equally sacrosanct. Any regime, Socialist or Fascist, which violates their Rights is Criminal. Which is why we fortunately have the Bill of Rights, which disregards how much property you own, unlike the “Democratic Communists”.

The swings to the Nazis in Greece and Austria, and the revival of xenophobia in Europe are predictable signs that Euro-Socialism is beginning to crumble, despite America micturating away over $100 billion/yr for the Socialist’s defense, and our massive loans to them from the Federal Reserve via the World Bank and IMF. No amount of money is every enough for such spendthrift governments, just like the local governments in America, who, during good times, throw their money into bloated state pension funds that permit them to retireGr like kings at 60 on the taxpayers money for the rest of their lives, and then come begging to the taxpayer when the juice runs out. They will crumble too.

There has never been a completely free, Capitalist society, with a Jeffersonian Bill of Rights, in history, so we don’t know what it would be like. But it would be consistent with Human Dignity, the dignity of being a Free Human Being, free from Government depredations on ones labor, life, time and wealth.

Until such times, Human Beings will plod down the miserable road of massive, bureaucratic, socialistic government, grow bitter, and end up in the anti-Libertarian, racist, socialistic doctrine of the Nazis, just like Germany and Greece.

It’s time to break that cycle.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Inaction on Syria: Murder Under Your Feet

September 3, 2013

Spend a day in the American wilderness with the sun shining, and you’d think you’d been parachuted into heaven, unless you’re broken down, lost, and thirsty without water, in which case you might feel like you’ve been dropped somewhere else, — but precluding such emergencies, you might think you’d been given a day in paradise.

But look down to your feet. Down there, underneath the soil several thousand miles, there are people being murdered.

The British Parliamentary Left’s response to Assad’s War Crimes in Syria is disgusting. What they have done is like voting to not bomb the rail lines to the Nazi concentration camps “because they didn’t want to get involved”.

And here we must differ strongly with our political hero, Ron Paul, and the entourage around him, who oppose military action in Syria. The excuse that we will be helping Al-Quaeda or the Jihadists in the opposition forces if we hit Assad’s military, (and why not hit Assad himself?) is a thin one indeed, for if there are clearly identifiable units and militias in the opposition forces that are al-Quaeda, then does not America, or at least the Obama Administration, have a policy of hitting those groups with drones? And if they can be so identified, then should these groups not also be subject to the same treatment as Obama has used on radicals in Pakistan and Yemen, creating multitudes of new radicals as he goes by killing innocent bystanders and relatives of these radicals — far more radicals than he is killing? A stupid policy from a stupid President.

Silverwolf agrees in theory with Ron Paul that we do not need, and should not have, roughly 700 military bases around the world. Let the rich Euros and Nipponese pay for them, not the American small Capitalist. But since we violate this principle every day with NATO, and with our drone strikes on militants, then why not use our military to send a very powerful deterrent message to one of the world’s worst current War Criminals. Any military action against such a bestial Nazi is a plus for world Libertarianism, in our opinion.

It seems to us that Jeffersonian Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism has this in common with Communism and Jihadist Islam — that it seeks to establish its moral code around the world. Communism and Fanatical Organized Religion both have their need to establish their tyranny over the entire globe, or see themselves fail and self-immolate. But Libertarianism, based on the Natural Rights theory that all Human Beings have Inalienable Rights and that the true function of government is merely to guarantee and protect those Rights, prosecuting those who would violate them, — Libertarianism too has its need to spread around the globe, and become the norm for Mankind wherever he goes on the Planet. You can’t just have Libertarianism in America, and say, to hell with the 8000 dowery murders per year in India, or the thousands of executions in Red China. Here we very strongly disagree with Ron Paul’s seeming to isolate these Rights to within the borders of the United States, and to not much care about the Natural Rights violations that are going on around the globe daily. Ron Paul and his entourage are right, however, in being extremely cautious about using the military outside of America, and at the drop of a hat. Throughout history, governments have used moral arguments to get into wars for which they really had economic and sinister motives. This is true most of the time. But now that we can specifically target War Criminals and their Militaries, as in Syria and North Korea, with highly accurate missiles, Silverwolf is not going to protest any more than he’d protest every day against the presence of US bases in Europe or Japan.

And as for that Stinking British Labour Party, and George Galloway, MP, — what a bunch of self-centred collaborators with Hitlerism.

Hoooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Is it Constitutional in America to Discriminate in a Business? An Internal Debate

August 5, 2013

Silverwolf cleared the decks of his internal Parliament, and presented to the tabula rasa MP’s the following question: Should it be legal and is it constitutional to discriminate, on whatever basis one wishes, in one’s business in America? For example, should it be legal for an American Citizen, of Turkish cultural background and ethnicity, to refuse to sell to American-Armenians, or not let them in his store, which is open otherwise to the general public?

Obviously, this was one of the key questions and objections in the Civil Rights Act of 1963, Few doubted that picketing in protest outside of a business was a legitimate exercise of Free Speech Rights as long as the thoroughfare was kept open to the flow of pedestrians, but was it legal to enter the premises and then sit-in, in effect crippling the owners ability to do business?

This was the question that tormented Silverwolf through the long, stormy, frigid nights of the winter of ’11. Tossing and turning in his wolf’s lair, Silverwolf debated with himself this key issue which is so weighty for American jurisprudence and political theory.

First off, if I can discriminate in whom I let into my private residence, why should I not be able to discriminate in whom I let into my business premises? The meateater, the Nazi, the hunter, the fisherman, the vivisectionist, and the Stalinist all pay taxes, but if I choose not to let them into my private residence or property, nobody cries foul or racial discrimination. So why should it be different for a business?

I put this question to the late Blue Dog, a bluedog Democrat. His snap answer was that businesses were there to serve the public.

Silverwolf chewed this over, but it seemed a little idealistic to him after a few hours mulling. Come on, businesses ain’t there to serve the public; they’re there to make a profit for the owners and stockowners, and they wouldn’t start it if they didn’t think they would materially gain from it (unless they were a Good Samaritan starting the business solely to serve the public, with no interest in any profits over and above those necessary for a rude self-maintenance — not your typical business owner in America). The businessmen’s interest in profit, to further their personal pleasures, was no different than my interest in my own personal pleasure in keeping the meateater, the hunter, and the Nazi out of my desmesne, even though the meateater, hunter and Nazi might all pay taxes that pay for police and fire protection that benefits me and my property, and from which they are excluded. If it’s fair for me to exclude them from my Residential Property, why is it unfair, and even immoral, for them to deny me access to their business property, simply because I’m a wolf?

This really puzzled Silverwolf, and he recalled that Senator Barry Goldwater had objected to the Civil Rights Act precisely on this point of business owners being able to have property rights over their business premises.

Then Silverwolf argued with himself against this business discrimination with the following argument: the business district in town in limited to a certain area; if businesses were allowed to discriminate, it would be possible for a block of racist business owners to effectively exclude everyone in an area from vital necessities and services which would, de facto, force them to leave the area. For example, if all the hardware stores and food stores in the business district of a rural town were owned almost exclusively by a group of White racists, they could in effect make it impossible for all the Black people in an area to obtain the food and building materials they would need to survive in that area, and no new Black entrepreneurs could come into the market because the White racists held a virtual monopoly on all the available business licences and rentals.

Now this problem bifurcates into two problems for the Libertarian, for his reply might be that zoning laws are anti-Capitalist restrictions on Free-Market activity, and in a Libertarian society one could set up a business wherever one deemed fit. This would in effect end the monopoly on business licences that occurs when a business district is created, and business permits are required to conduct trade, that blatantly Communist restriction on Capitalism which has been so miserably tolerated for so long in America. This ending of business zoning would mean that would-be Black entrepreneurs could set up shop wherever they willed, and the racist monopoly over business licences and premises would be smashed.

But here we come to another problem in the road. So far, we have only discussed discrimination in those businesses which front onto public thoroughfares, and let’s assume for the moment that such discrimination is illegal exactly because these businesses, due to their location, can be called public businesses which have a moral duty under some undefined natural law to serve all customers, regardless of race, religion or creed. But what if we postulate a business that does not front onto a public thoroughfare, a business which was contained completely within the property of a private landowner? Should the owner of such a business be free to discriminate on the basis of race or religion?

For example, say a Korean Supremacist opens a business on a 40 acre parcel of land he is fortunate enough to own in the midst of a major downtown metropolis. The parcel is divided into two 20 acre parcels. He operates a public business that faces onto the public street in which he does not discriminate, located on the front 20 acres, But on the back 20 acres, which at no point border public property, he creates a 5 acre business zone, enclosed entirely by the private 20 acres, to which he will only permit admittance to those he regards as racially pure Koreans, who share his Korean-Supremacist views. No Whites or non-Koreans or “Whitey-lover” Koreans are allowed in this complex of stores, and the stores only accept Korean Won in payment. Is such a store illegal under the 1963 Civil Rights Act?

At this point, a great Rothbardian White Light seemed to blind Silverwolf, although he had his eyes closed to give his eyelid muscles their usual afternoon nap. He suddenly saw the solution to his dilemma, but it proved not to be final.

The solution was actually very simple. What does it say on the money? A Federal Reserve note, legal tender for all debts, public and private. It was herein that the solution lay.

If a Federal Reserve Note is legal tender and a store owner on a public street (or in a public announcement like a newspaper ad) advertises something for sale in his storefront window, then the asking price of that good or service becomes a private debt publicly advertised, and any person with the requisite amount of federal reserve notes should be able to satisfy that private debt and obtain the good or service touted. In other words, offering something for sale in terms of Federal Reserve Notes requires that you accept those notes from anyone who offers them if the private debt was publicly advertised. Not to do so would violate the contractual conditions printed on the money.

So the real reason why it is illegal to discriminate on business properties but not on private residence properties is because the Federal Reserve Note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and anyone in America who has these notes has a right to exchange them for any publicly advertised private debt.

However, what would happen if we had precious metal coinage, as is stipulated by the U.S. Constitution? Since this coinage would not be a Federal Reserve Note, (and the Federal Reserve itself would hopefully not exist at that point) then it seems to us that the argument we made above, for non-discrimination when it comes to the use of Federal Reserve Notes, might no longer be valid. And the same problem might arise if the store only displayed its prices in foreign currency or currencies, since these are not legal tender for all debts public and private in America.

So under current law, could business owners legally discriminate against customers if they only accepted gold and silver (and copper?) coins or foreign currency as payment for their wares?

This question remains unanswered, and Silverwolf is still as Libertarianly-puzzled as before. As to what the truth of the matter is, and if there is an unshakeable political reason why discriminating in one’s business premises is immoral, it remains unclear to him.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

Libertarianism and Socialism: Shared Concepts of Two Antagonistic Philosophies

July 21, 2013

One has talked (and is not writing, talking?) long and hard contra the Socialistic Philosophy of government, and taken it to task many times in our essays, but we cannot overlook the affinities, and, yeah, even the agreements of Libertarians and Socialists.

Firstly, Libertarians and virtually all Socialists agree, though they may not even be conscious of the fact, that they both accept the Industrial System as necessary to a viable modern society. There still may be a few Socialists who would like to smash the weaving looms of modern society, and return to a primitive society, where everything was handmade, where we gave up the automobile and returned to the horse, with its concomitant huge increase in futures trading in oat contracts, and crushed all the farm equipment, sending Bucyrus-Erie stock eerily lower, and where we reverted from the computer and the iphone to the letter and the smoke-signal. A return to the pre-Industrial Age would certainly solve the unemployment problem.

However, these primitive Socialists are few in number compared to all the Socialists in the world who just love all the comforts and distractions provided them by the Industrial System. And certainly the Democrats and Republicans—those milquetoast individuals who lack the clear or clouded passionate vision of the Libertarians and Socialists and fall somewhere ‘tween the two, — certainly those Lost Soles wandering away from Truth also accept the modern Industrial System as a given of modern society and their own individual enjoyment.

So virtually everybody agrees on the necessity of the modern Industrial System, and you can see this truth now throughout the world. The psyche of the Indian and the Chinese will soon be identical to the Wyoming Wyomian or the Battersea Londoner. We want our commodities, and we’re not going back to the “good ol’ days” of great-great-grandpa.

The key insight that Libertarians have over Socialists in this area is the necessity for the Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, for the Free-Market to exist in order for this industrial system to exist and thrive. Whenever government intervention or diktat interferes with the Free-Market, the Industrial System suffers because it needs that free-market to thrive. There has been so much wealth built up in America due to the relative freedom of its industrial sector heretofore, especially before the introduction of the income tax, that it has built up a huge capital reserve of this wealth, and government has been able to parasitically suck off that wealth for almost eighty years now, and even before. But as you can see, and as Mises predicted, middle-of-the-road Socialism eventually breaks down the entire economic order, and we can see that in America today very clearly, where things are far worse than thirty years ago, although we could see the emerging problem clearly even then. But the general public of Democrats and Republicans never or rarely see the connection between this middle-Socialism and the final economic breakdown of society, as we’re seeing in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, because of the huge lag-time between Cause and Effect in the economic sphere.

A second affinity between Libertarianism and Socialism is their common view that there is a Ruling Class in society; they just differ on who that ruling class is.

To Libertarians, the Ruling Class are those people who have seized control of the State Apparatus, the Government, and are ruling the rest of Society. In the old days it was the King and the Nobles. Under the Czar, for example, it was the Czar, his family and relations, the other Russian nobles, the military men, the contractors who got the government purchase orders, and the vast bureaucracy, including all the retired bureaucrats drawing lucrative pensions. In North Korea, it is obviously the Illwind Kim family and the top military brass who are the Ruling Class.

In modern America, the Ruling Class are the people in government, both the politicians and the bureaucratic heads, the administrators, and generally the workers, who receive much higher pay and retirement benefits than those in the Free-Market sector. In addition to these, the ruling class includes the government contractors and consultants who do business with the State, as well as the corporations who get farm subsidies, the scientists and specialists working for government scientific departments, the university administrators and professors who draw huge salaries thanks to government subsidies to many favored universities, and of course the thousands of major corporations who benefit from government loans, subsidies, or craftily crafted tax breaks specific to their situations.

Finally, in America, the Ruling Class also includes the millions receiving welfare benefits or checks from the government every month who will go out and religiously vote for those parties or politicians who will guarantee that those benefits and checks will continue to flow. Thus, even many poor people are in the Ruling Class in America, although they might not see themselves that way, or may still complain about how they have been victimized by society, which in one sense is true since that has been a Socialist society essentially since FDR, and such a society crushes the Individual by dissipating his energy in a thousand useless activities that would not exist under a Libertarian government.

To the Socialists, however, the Ruling Class are the Capitalists, the people who pay the wages to the factory workers, even though these workers may have, for the first time in their lives, more money than they ever had before, and can experience the freedom to choose from many consumer products that they obviously feel make their lives more commodious. Few Americans would now use an old Sears Catalog or old newspapers for toilet paper, but in the 1930s and before, it was probably fairly common.

Moreover, these workers make possible the consumer products that the Socialist uses and likes just as much as the Libertarian. It seems contradictory for them to say, “Yes, we like all these products that the exploitative, wicked, industrial factory system makes possible, but we also want to “liberate” these workers from there drudgery.” And if they “liberated” them to the extent that nobody had any incentive to work at dull jobs, then their “bourgeois comforts” would quickly disappear. Did you notice how the Communist in “Reds” had to have her Chase&Sanborn coffee, and how Stalin and Castro were addicted to tobacco? Food could have been grown in place of all the coffee and tobacco Communists and Socialists have consumed since the start of their movement, and saved many from starvation. Masses of grain and potatoes could have gone into food feeding masses of Human Beings, instead of going into all the beer and vodka that German and Russian Socialists have drunk since the start of the Communist-Socialist project.

So Libertarians and Communists or Socialists agree that there is a Ruling Class in Society, they just differ radically as to who that Ruling Class is.

Another aspect of Socialism that is also embraced by Libertarianism is the essentially Libertarian quality of Democracy as a revolt against Monarchy or one-man rule or Totalitarianism. That everybody should get to decide equally on major decisions that affect large chucks of society is obviously much fairer than that one lunatic should get to make the decisions and all are forced at gunpoint to obey him.

However, despite its Libertarian quality, Democracy was soon seen to quickly decay into Mob Rule through Government, with Tyranny in the name of “the People” replacing Tyranny in the name of the King. This could only be corrected by a Bill of Rights for all Individuals, which would protect the minority and the Individual against the depredations of Society at large.

That struggle for the Bill of Rights is still being fought in America, 237 years after Jefferson wrote it down, and encapsulated in that document the essence of his studies of the Classical Liberals, or Libertarians, who came before him.

And so, both Libertarians and Socialists look favorably on Democracy as a reaction to Authoritarian Dictatorship or Monarchy, and as a process for electing people to public office. The Libertarians just also insists on a Bill of Rights, and say that Democracy without a Bill of Rights can and most probably will be just as tyrannical, if not more so, than Monarchy.

Finally, besides Libertarians, Socialists seem to be the only political group that has a passionate desire to radically change the world and society. Most Democrats and Republicans want things to roll on pretty much as they are now, with a little tinkering or reform to smooth out the thousand-and-one-insults to the psyche that psychic flesh is heir to in America. And Socialists have changed the societies they have taken over radically, though almost invariably to the worsement of their peoples, save for perhaps Yugoslavia under Tito when he backtracked and started his program of de-stateification, or a move back towards Free-Markets.

So while Libertarians and Socialists differ fundamentally over principles of political and economic theory, and individual rights, they do agree on a whole list of issues, and that should not be forgotten while they are ripping each other apart, politically speaking.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

The Paranoia of Absolute Power: From King John to Modern America

June 26, 2013

It seems that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were, unfortunately, dead right. ‘Twould be much better if absolute power made the Chief into a benevolent angel, using his power for moral ends, to better the lives of the people in one way or another, if only to get out of their way.

In the future perfect Capitalist society, where the industrious will happily work at their callings, and be materially rewarded for it, and those who wanted little but the freedom to wander, or write poetry, could go to voluntary welfare societies set up by Capitalists who believed in Socialism, — in that society there will be no coercion. One Capitalist may be greedy, but another Capitalist may be a Socialist who thinks that  everyone is entitled to the basics of food (vegan of course), clothing, and shelter. The Socialist-believing Capitalist could donate, or set up himself,  a charity, and set the rules according to his Moral Views. Such a man might agree with Erich Fromm”s argument for Socialism, once made in an interview with Los Angeles television reporter Jerry Dunphy,: “You don’t expect your dog to work. But you feed him. I think a man should be treated as well as a dog.”

Such an argument carries much weight with Silverwolf. But it presupposes and forgets two facts: Firstly, while I may feel compassionate enough to give a meal to a hungry man, the next fellow on the block may not feel the same way, and I don’t have the right to impose my moral beliefs on my neighbor. As a Libertarian, I am only concerned with his actions; and that those actions do not constitute a violation of the Libertarian non-aggression axiom: No man or group of men may aggress against the Person or Property of another man. Such an aggression is regarded by the Libertarian as “invasion”, and it is. Such an invasion is a Crime against the Property Rights of that Man, and since we own our bodies, an attack on our persons is also technically a violation of Property Rights.

Secondly, the Socialist argument above flounders in the face of the fact that by confiscating, or voting to confiscate from my neighbor, money or “taxes” to fund my own personal Socialistic moral views, I am committing an act of Violence against my neighbor, which in itself, is a form of treating a Man like a dog, the very argument used above to justify Socialism.

So, what are we to do in the face of this inconsistency between Capitalism and Socialism?

To Silverwolf the answer lies in a radically free-Capitalist free-market society, where 95% of all people had voluntarily, through no coercion, found something they loved or liked to do, and so there would be a vast Middle Class. Some people, who for their own personal reasons, wanted to accumulate truly vast amounts of Capital and Wealth, could go ahead and do so, but most people would be satisfied with a type of upper class-Middle Class life, choosing leisure and amusement over passion-driven, fanatical accumulation. Emelda Marcoses could accumulate 700 pairs of shoes if they liked, but most sane people would settle for three to seven. More than that would become encumberences to all but the collector.

In this Free-Market  prosperous Free Society, with Thomas Jefferson’s Bill of Rights rigorously enforced, a certain percentage of people would be inclined to give to charity, which would, in turn, support those who were completely physically disabled, like someone in an iron lung, or those who wanted to live completely outwardly indolent lives, but focus all their energy on the Inner Life. These would be called Philosophers and Poets, but the Philosophers and Poets would know that if the people ever became hardened enough, they might stop giving to charity, and then the Philosophers and Poets would have to deal with a precarious situation.

All these arguments are pretty academic now that we live in a world where, given the capacities of our factories, everyone could easily be given a daily ration of grains and beans, a few Mao Suits to wear during the year, and a tent that could easily be Solar Heated. Mist collectors, as we recently saw reported, can now collect and condense enough water out of the air that people can survive on it in very dry climates or areas without a well. (Just the thing you need next time you break both your ankles hiking in Chemehuevi Valley, and your car battery goes dead when you try to start it.) With such condensers,  many desert areas could become livable again. Composting toilets, and the sanitary advantages of the vegan diet, or even charity built septic systems, could serve individuals or tribes when it came to the unthinkables of these few Philosophical Indigents and Poets. (But who would read them, or join in their philosophical explorations? The rest of Mankind would be busily working away at their Callings, havin’ a great ol’ time.) Some Philosophers and Poets would even be so brilliant and engrossing that their productions of Thought and Word would sell on the open- and Free-market, and they’d grow wealthy. Look at the Stones. Jagger is a Damn Good Poet.

But say we didn’t live in such a world. Say that five or ten men owned all the land in America, that they could charge a grand-a-night rent for every man, woman, and child, and since they owned all the agricultural land, they could charge a $100/lb for cornmeal and oats, those delicacies of a vegan society. Obviously people would starve to death, and there would soon be five or ten men left, and their families, and maybe some favored buddies and their concubines.

 Such circumstances of material inequality, Professor Rothbard maintained, only exist where the Crime of Land Theft has taken place in the past, as in Central and South America, and, on a local scale, in parts of the Old American West. In other words, such inequality indicates a massive violation of the Libertarian non-aggression principle, and would have to be rectified.

But in a truly Free-Market Jeffersonian Bill of Rights Society, with a vast Middle Class, no such draconian inequality would be possible. Monopolies and Trusts, though they may exist in certain markets and local economies, soon break down, as happened over and over again to the various “Trusts” in America, because of the phenomenon of the “Price Buster”, the guy in the Monopoly or Trust who starts giving secret kickbacks to favored customers in order to take advantage of the absurd price rise the Trust has created. This happened in Sugar, Kerosene, Train Freight Charges — every kind of Trust. They always went Bust. That is, until they learned to have Government help them restrict competition, from FCC licenses to Teaching Credentials to Barbers Licenses to the Screen Actors Guild, to that crucifier of Youths, the Minimum Wage Law.

So the arguments Socialists always pull out, about how a free-Market would lead back to the poverty of the 19th century and the robber barons, is absurd, and obviously a lie to justify their religion. The Industrial Revolution, as harsh and brutal as it was, had led by the 1920s to the possibility of a comfortable, Middle Class society, although still in the 1920s, 90% of Americans were poor farmers. But the momentum of prosperity was clearly there, and now in 2013 we have an absolutely incredible technological society, so complex that no individual can hope to understand it all, unlike the American Indian and the Kalahari Bushman who could completely understand their environment. They knew Everthing they needed to survive, and were Masters at it. We know nothing, except perhaps our little niche.

For example, in the future, modern  factories could easily manufacture super suits of clothes that were especially perfect for each of the four seasons. Each citizen could buy, or would be given by the Socialist charities, one or four of these suits, and that is all the clothing they would need. The suits would last a few years or decades. But the suits would probably be boring and functional, like Mao suits, as sterile and heartless as the modern bureaucratic services one sees in Great Britain, Australia, and America Northern. Only those who worked would have the capital to obtain their clothing on the free market, where they could satisfy their personal predelictions, like the late Brian Jones, or the connoisseurs of Saville Row.

One thing the anti-Capitalists don’t like to admit is that as people as a whole get wealthier, and the Middle Class grows, the number of goods and services that people want increases, providing more work or jobs, in increasingly more specialized areas, thus creating an even more prosperous society. There would be no end to this in a truly Free-Market society. In a poor society, a hungry arthritic pensioner is not going to hire someone to walk their beloved dog; in an upper-Middle Class society it is possible, and so someone who is unemployed but loves both to walk and to be with dogs, may and probably will be able to earn a wage. In a wealthy Rich society, you might even have those who specialized in walking certain breeds, or had a magical rapport with such breeds, and their wealthy arthritic owners might pay through the nose to hire such people to walk their dogs. Such walkers might become wealthy and noted celebrities, (and then there would be the profits from their book sales when they retire: “Vicious Great Danes I Have Known and Loved”).

But all this wealth, Freedom, and non-coercion is only possible if that Free Society has the Jeffersonian Bill of Rights, and it is here that we see in the Modern World the greatest threat to that great Capitalist Libertarian Society.

Sadly, very sadly for America, the fact that the two most powerful other monolithic Powers in the Modern World. who are completely anti-Libertarian in their attitudes and rule (Russia and the Old Soviet Republics, and Fascist China) and ruled by Paranoid, self-delusional Powermongers, are now in the process of being joined by the one place in the world where there still seemed to be some remaining spark of Libertarian creativity and Freedom left: The United States of America.

That was solely due to the Bill of Rights, and the fact that a large part of her economy was still in the hands of private Capitalists (the Small Businessman and the Investor). But these two Siamese twins, the Bill of Rights and Free-Market Capitalism, were dependent on one clear inalienable Right: the Right of Privacy.

It seems that when the Paranoia of Absolute Power strikes, it strikes first at this sacred, Natural Right, the Right of Privacy, the Right to be left alone if one is not violating the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. This is what that beautiful thinker, Jefferson, as well as Madison and many of the others, could see so clearly, and what the modern politicians are trying to overthrow: that Beautiful Fourth Amendment.

They’ve succeeded in that overthrow of Privacy in the Totalitarian Societies, like Fascist China, and all the dozens of other unspeakable dictatorships that curse this globe, be it North Korea or Zimbabwe.

And they’ve succeeded in the castrated Socialist societies like Australia, where the Australian Board of Statistics can throw you in jail and fine you $170/day if you do not answer questions about your sex life, as we recently saw on a report. And England and the EU, where the individual is tracked and kept track of, from Birth to Death. Never his own Man, but always a cog in the Socialist Machine.

And now, thanks to the Paranoiac in the White House, and the Politicians of both Parties, this violation of the Right of Privacy is coming to America.

Sir Richard Evans, in his brilliant series of lectures on Victorian England, pointed out that it was entirely possible for a man to go through life in Victorian England without ever once having had contact or engagement with Government or the State.

Not so in Modern America, with her dog-sniffing random searches of law-abiding motorists, or Socialist Australia, or Fascist China.

When the Lords put the squeeze on King John, he was forced to cede to them with Magna Carta, and Libertarian Freedom had its first Outbreak.

But when we come to the psycopathic Criminals and Mass Murderers, Hitler and Stalin, we can see what those who achieve absolute power, by absolutely destroying Privacy, are capable of doing. And the more power they have, the more paranoid and bloodthirsty they become. It’s almost like a Law of Nature, a Law that Thomas Jefferson well understood. Go read defecting former-KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky’s great “KGB: the Inside Story”, and you will see what Absolute Power does to the men at the top, as we are now seeing in America, as it becomes more and more a bureaucratic police state, that can harass anyone who criticizes it.

The road from The Lords of England’s victory over King John with Magna Carta, to the Libertarian Jefferson’s victory over King George III with the Bill of Rights, was a long one.

The degeneration from Hitler and Stalin until today is a short one, made all the more sinister by the perversions of modern science and technology. And the Politicians are exploiting that technology to overthrow the Bill of Rights, a Bill that doesn’t talk of “balance” when it comes to Natural Rights, but “Inalienable Rights”, Rights that can never be taken away from any Human Being without violence being perpetrated.

Is Mankind to go forward into a bright upland of Prosperity, non-coercion, and Privacy, or is he to be the plaything of Socialists and Fascists like the head of Fascist China, or the sexually-prying questions of a perverted Hag like Australia’s PM, Julia Gillard?

Strangely enough, Silverwolf believes that Libertarian Man will eventually Prevail over the Fascism and Socialism of the modern Politicians at the top.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Obama and The Bipartisan Fascists Attack Privacy and Capitalism

June 13, 2013

Once again, thanks to the voters who voted for Obama, Fascism is on the rise, reaching peaks it had not achieved since the days of Hitler and Mussolini. Its animosity towards Individuality and Privacy are well noted, and now the very people who put the Fascist Obama into the White House are cringing with fear as they realise that every intimate revelation, every minor misdemeanor, and every detail of their private lives, and business and financial transactions, have undoubtedly been stored and perhaps seen by one of the thousands of private contractor NSA financial snoopers. Soon all their medical history and conditions will also be up for blackmail, thanks to Obamacare. Capitalism and the free-market have been dealt a blow that they will probably never recover from. For Obama voters, and the rest of us, it’s too late.

Undoubtedly, many people will be blackmailed by NSA snoopers who now know intimate secrets about them. Their financial deals and trades, their sitting orders to buy or sell, can now be frontrun by NSA snoopers who can give this information to their friends, family, and business associates. The absolute necessity of Privacy to the conduct of the Free-Market has been forever destroyed by a coalition of Liberal Democrats like political commentator John Rothmann, who strongly supported Obama’s reelection, and Fascist Republicans like Lindsey “Cracker” Graham, who doesn’t mind that your Privacy has be destroyed.

However, the real criminals in this case are the people who voted for Obama over anti-Fascist choices like Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson. The Obama Voters have destroyed the Fourth Amendment, the inalienable Right to Privacy that Jefferson so well understood, and Free-Market Capitalism, all by sticking that stylus through the name of Barack Obama in the voting booth. The crimes that they have committed in their private lives and have put online in emails and social media are now stored on vast databanks, waiting to be used against them if they ever threaten the Fascist’s powerstructure. Thanks to their stupidity, faith in government, and lack of political science knowledge, the Obama voters have elevated the Fascist State to a new level of power.

The only benefit of all this is that now a vast swathe of the public has become deeply cynical about Collectivist Politics. They remember that Democrat Party Liberals like Oregon’s Peter DeFazio, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, who now are making such a big stink about their own privacy being invaded, were the very ones who only a few months ago were urging the people to reelect the Fascist Obama. And they continue to remain in the Fascistic Democratic Party, while the Republican Fascists actually are endorsing this heinous overthrow of the Bill of Rights under the Fascist Obama, showing that they haven’t changed much since the days of the Fascist Bush (the second one), save for the exception of Senator Rand Paul.

With a new Gallop Poll showing only 10% of the public think Congress is doing a good job, the only good news coming out of this is that there is a growing Libertarian revulsion amongst the public against the intrusions of the Fascist State against the Individual and his most intimate secrets. They now feel instinctively that Jefferson was right in saying that government is a necessary evil, but at heart an evil institution, and that its evil can only be kept in check when tied down by the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic Party politicians and voters have put an end to the Bill of Rights, now a part of past History.

The damage done to Privacy and Capitalism is irreparable. Thanks to the Obama Voters and the Bipartisan Fascist Politicians, Human Freedom has been destroyed in America.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — 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

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