Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Libertarianism and the Dumbing-Down of Harvard

May 10, 2013

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

Advertisements

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

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

Technology, Socialism, and the Human Mind

February 26, 2013

In the last thirty years, under the Western Socialist Democracies like the U.S. and Europe, and especially under the Asian economies, like India and Japan, we have seen a huge amount of human energy put into the development of technology, while at the same time these societies have become more and more bureaucratic. What has been the effect of these two simultaneous developments on the brain of the Human Being?

The development of the computer, and the multitude of gadgets that now incorporate computers within themselves, has meant that the Human Brain and Human Thought have become more and more mechanical. It now requires a mechanical brain to successfully negotiate with the world, while previously it required an intelligent, energetic brain, that was not conditioned by the step one, step two, step three, mechanical necessities of the computer. The politicians have even touted computers in the classroom, and we now are developing generations of humans who have been conditioned since childhood in a completely mechanical way, so that anyone of thirty or under has now probably had their brains deeply conditioned since childhood by this new necessary way of thinking, while those over thirty did not have such conditionings in their early childhood, but have been forced to think in that mechanical way later in life.

What is going to be the longterm effect of this mechanical technology on the Human Brain and the way man thinks?

After all, man has had to rely on his memory and experience for survival since time immemorial, but now, with the computer, a vast number of facts that used to be held in the head of the expert, can now be held in the head of the computer discs, so what need is there for the memory expert, or the masterful reference librarians of the past, who displayed the art of memory, association, and linkage with what was in the library’s collection? Google wiped them out.

So, a vast amount of mental energy, that used to be used in a non-linear way, is now exclusively channeled into mechanical, procedural, step-by-step processes, that make the mind dull and repetitive.

Perhaps in this fact lies the appalling shallowness and superficiality of modern art forms, such as pop music or cinema. These art forms blossomed in the pre-computer age, but now they are moribund and superficial.

So one asks, if the human mind has been made both redundant and second-class by the computer when it comes to calculation and memory, what is the function of the human mind, and what will be its function in the future? Moreover, can a brain which is so heavily conditioned from childhood in the mode of mechanical thinking ever brake out of the patterns it has been put through for years in our horrendous public schools, which merely develop children to be fodder for the corporations?

One might well ask, why haven’t things gone the other way? Why, with such a rich earth that could easily provide all the basic necessities for everyone, haven’t we put all the vast energy we have put into technology and armaments into freeing the human mind from conditioning, instead of reinforcing that conditioning through technology? Say all that energy had been put into philosophy, into understanding why mankind lives such a disordered, problematic life. Perhaps we would now have an orderly, non-violent world, where children were encouraged to think out the problems that will confront them as people — not just as wage-earners.  But mankind seems only fascinated by the latest technological gadget. The problems that occupied the Greek Philosophers, the Buddhists and Hindus, the Rabbis and Church Fathers — all these have very little interest for modern man.

And, added to the deadening of the Human Mind by the repetitive, mechanical technologies, are the Socialist Bureaucracies and Corporate Destuctiveness that is pervasive throughout the so-called Western Democracies. Socialist societies suck up more and more energy from the individual (at least the one not on a pension or some form of welfare), as they make more and more demands on him, and create more and more economic inflation. The Obama medical insurance mandate, his zwang-arbeit “national service” plan, which in Jefferson’s day was called “slavery”, his constant inflation of the currency to bail out the banking interests he represents and takes huge sums from in his campaigns, and the raising of tax rates — all these are examples of this sucking away the life energy of the individual by the Socialist State. The pattern is virtually identical in other socialist democracies like Canada, the Eurozone, Great Britain, Australia, Japan and Israel.

Any individual who manages to survive on their own in these socialist bureaucratic societies, and haa some energy left over for philosophical examination of his own psyche and behavior, will soon find that energy submerged by the mechanical demands of either the computer, or some other gadget, like the new computerized cars. Modern life has become far more complex than any previous age in this mechanical aspect, as well as its governmental-bureaucratic aspects.

So between the mechanical technologies, and the demands on the individuals freedom and energy by the socialist societies, the Human Being is being destroyed, and completely transformed into a mechanically-brained robot, whose mind is incapable of breaking out of its conditioned pattern. The vital energy he needs to wholly confront life, as the Indian did, is now broken up and fragmented into a thousand unintegrated actions, thanks to the computer and the Socialist. His only outlets are amusement and entertainment, which is why television and video media have become so important in modern life. Entertainment is what most people seek in the modern world, not Philosophy or Truth, or transforming this rotten world society.

The Libertarian Philosophy, or Classical Liberalism, is the only response we see in society to this all-pervasive bureaucratic mechanicalism, for it is the only political movement based on a philosophy of Natural Rights, and not merely politics. But in a world so heavily ruled by the socialist’s governments, and the gadgets, Libertarianism has very little chance of breaking through. In the last American election, it garnered only one percent of the vote, which is probably about the percentage of people remaining who have not been completely conditioned by the mechanical world, or brainwashed into the various political ideologies, Left, Center, and Right. Libertarianism is far beyond these mere political ideologies, for it is the only political movement with only one goal: the mental and physical Liberty and Freedom of Humankind.

The Human Mind is dying out thanks to the machine and the government socialist, and only the Libertarian Philosophy of Natural Rights stands in the way.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww—Silverwolf

Israel Says “Don’t Tread on Me!”

November 17, 2012

The Libertarian Principle that “No man or group of men may aggress against the property rights of any individual man” has been defended by the State of Israel as it assaults the Hamas wing of the Nazi Party. After months of constant rocket attacks, the Israelis have finally taken action against those who recently murdered three more Jews in the continuing Nazi war against the Jews that has been going in since the attempted Munich Putsch in 1923. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was originally formed as the Arab wing of the Nazi party in the late 1920s, has come to power in Egypt, and with the congratulations of Barack Obama, and the promised $2.3 billion in aid to the Nazis by Mrs. Clinton, it will now give its support to its Palestinian wing, Hamas. The usual line of condemnations against the victim fighting back against the aggressor has been forthcoming from the Arab countries, using their anti-Semitic mouthpiece, the United Nations, as the megaphone, and the BBC puts out its usual Arab propaganda of “a cycle of violence” and “tit-for-tat”, blatantly ignoring the fact that it is Hamas who is the sole aggressor, and has been trying to murder Jewish women and children for years with their rockets, terrorizing and traumatizing countless children, both Jewish and Arab, murdering a Bedouin farmer and a Thai worker, and showing Israel just how viciously anti-Semitic are the Palestinian Nazis.

Most Americans accept the principle that if someone breaks into your house with a gun to rob you or to murder you, you have the Right to fight back and kill them if necessary. This is exactly what Israel is doing now, and we can only imaging the American response if a fictional “Pancho Villa Brigade”, a group of fanatical Mexicans who decided to fight a guerilla war to “liberate New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada, from the Gringos”, were to start firing rockets into Arizona and New Mexico: the Americans would pulverize them in a day. But when it comes to Israel, the bulk of the UN World demands that Israel stand by and let itself be constantly rocketed for years on end without any military response from its so-called allies, and that any Libertarian response  by Israel is “murderous aggression”. This is the sad state of this sick Fascist world.

In this world of Stinking Fascists and Racists, it is inspiring to see pure Libertarian Action, especially in a Western World that has been feminized and womanized by the doctrine of Moral Relativism through constantly repeated the big lie. This brainwashing says,”If enough people in the world believe in an immoral or false view, then that view must be true.”

The Indians of Israel are upholding the same principle as the Indians of the Old West did when they fought back against the mass murder, land theft, and cultural genocide of the White Man, and killed Scumbags like General Custer. Israel today is bombing General Custer and his troops.

Israel may well be a predominantly Socialist society, to the detriment of its citizens, but when it comes to its Libertarian duty to protect its citizens against aggressors,The Libertarian Principle is being defended: Don’t Tread on Me!

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Aspects of the Meaning of Meaning

August 20, 2012

Two men meet on a desert trail. One is a Trobriand Islander; the other a Roumanian. They wish to barter water for cash with each other, but neither can make himself intelligible to his interlocutor. In this case, the meaning of words and sounds cannot be established without several months or years of intense study. Thus, there is no transaction, and a certain thirsty death for one of the pair, while the other misses a commercial profit he needed to pay off his hernia surgery. Does the lack of meaning of their words mean that an unnecessary tragedy has occurred, and does that tragedy in itself give the situation meaning?

(Here, it should be added, for documentary reasons, that, in the aforementioned case, the Trobriand Islander had been kidnapped as a baby by a troupe of roving Roumanian musicians, which had been touring the South Seas, and he’d been raised in the suburbs of Bucharest, so that he spoke only pure Roumanian, while the Roumanian had emigrated to the Trobriand Islands at the age of 21, and there been almost struck by a bolt of lighting which, landing but a few feet from him, had caused such an electrical shock to his system, that his entire previous life, including his years in Roumania and his encyclopedic knowledge of the Roumanian language and its syntax, were completely wiped out from his memory, so that he was left with only the ability to speak the lip of the Trobriand Islanders. Please never assume!)

Then there is the case of two men who speak the same language and are discussing some vitally important philosophical or personal problem. They exchange many words, which they both understand, and finally arrive at some insight which clarifies the philosophical issue or solves the personal problem in a great psychological catharsis for one or both of the interlocutors. Words have made things pellucidly clear, and the two men feel happy, whereas when they began the dialogue, one or both were in a state of mental turmoil. In this case, meaning between two brains has been established, with positive outcome, unlike the first case.

But standing back from these two men, what does the situation of two men communicating or communing in a philosophical dialogue mean when looked at as an objective act on the earth? Standing back from that dialogue, perhaps observing the whole scene with the eye of Nature which does not understand these men’s language, one can ask, “What is the meaning of that event?” Obviously, from the standpoint of Nature, that event of two men babbling to each other and understanding their words to their philosophical and psychological benefit has just as little meaning as the first case where the two men did not understand each other and suffered tragedy.

And on a larger scale, what would be the meaning of creating an Earth that functioned beautifully, with no violence at all and a pristine environment, all achieved after centuries and millenia of travail and sorrow? Would it have any extraneous meaning to anything if, only a day after achieving this state of global nirvana, the Earth were swallowed in a black hole, and all existence as we know it on this planet were to be sucked away in an instant? What would be the meaning of all that Human effort at reform, destroyed instantaneously by a laughingly meaningless Cosmos?

Y’all understand my meaning?

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

America: Democracy or Republic?

July 26, 2012

One of the most irritating propaganda ploys one constantly  hears on the Liberal and government media is that America is a “Democracy”. This inaccurate fallacy must be exposed.

America is not a “Democracy” because in a Democracy everyone votes on every piece of legislation, and there is not necessarily a Bill of Rights so that no Individual is truly safe against the aggressions of government. True “Democracy” is really mob-rule and is completely based on pragmatism, not morality.

Now some might say that we have a “Representative Democracy”, but a “Representative Democracy” is better known by its simpler name, a “Republic”. When people vote to choose a representative who then votes in a legislative assembly, then you have a “Republic”, but such a Republic also may not necessarily have a Bill of Rights. Fortunately, America’s Republic does.

So we are not a Democracy, like so many seem to easily say, but more accurately a Republic that uses the Democratic election process to choose its legislative representatives; a Republic, furthermore, that fortunately also has a Bill of Rights that is supposed to protect every Individual against totalitarian actions of the government and the majority. Jefferson and Madison knew how every government will tend to want to crush the Individual at some point, either for economic benefit, or because the Individual is using a Bill of Rights to stand in the way of some Unconstitutional or immoral action by the government (such as illegal search and seizure). And so Wisechief Jefferson, after years of study of the political science of his day and preceding centuries, much of it codified by Puffendorf, gave us that beautiful, wonderful American Bill of Rights, that was to eternally be a giant finger in the face of every Fascist fearmonger that was ever to come after.

Now, in a true Democracy with no Bill of Rights, that was based on the Pragmatic Principle of Jeremy Bentham which said that that action was correct which gave the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people — in such a Democracy any action would be possible. There would be no principles of morality involved, but only what would make the lives of the majority of people more commodious.

If such a Benthamite doctrine ruled over America, it would be quite possible, and quite within the rules of the law, for the 99% of the population who were not ethnically Armenian to decide that it would be in the interests of the vast majority of the population for all of the 1% who were Armenians to be killed and their property confiscated and re-distributed amongst the non-Armentian populace. 99% of the population would find there living standards increased, public services and infrastructure would now have 1% less to deal with, so the roads would be slightly less congested and social services costs would drop somewhat, and only a “mere 1%” would suffer a diminution in their “quality of life”.

The Jeffersonian Republic differs violently from this immoral Benthamite Democracy we have just portrayed. In the Jeffersonian Republic, the 1% Armenian swathe of the population could not be murdered and have their property confiscated, except in violation of the Bill of Rights and probably the Constitution.

But another aspect of this phony Liberal banging of the “Democracy” tambourine every time they get a chance is that we do not even have truly “Democratic” practices in our legislative assemblies and our elections. For example, why do these proselyters of Democracy tolerate the fact that  a 60% or 66% vote is necessary to override a veto at the state or federal level, or that many bond issues must pass by 60%, or that some measures will not be inacted into law if less that 50% of the eligible voters actually vote?  All three of these examples are egregious violations of true Democracy or majority rule, and if those who preach Democracy really believed in it, they would have overthrow these undemocratic voting practices in a month. But they have quietly tolerated them for decades. When 59 votes cannot override the veto of a Democratic President, you will never hear the Democrats say anything about the virtues of majority rule. In this case they trample on true Democracy with Reidy smiles and high-fives.

Furthermore, if Democracy is majority rule, then why is it possible for roughly only 50% of the population to vote in an election, and then for the winner of that election to get 45 to 50% of the cast votes, which means that he has been elected by about 25% of the eligible voters. If the praise singers of Democracy truly believed their words, why would that say that a President who is elected with roughly 25% of the eligible voters is a “Democratically elected” official? If they really believed in Democracy, they would require that every single eligible voter vote, but of course that would contravene our Constitutional guarantee against involuntary servitude. Yet, I’ve never heard any Democrat question the legitimacy of their Administration because President Obama was elected by a mid-20s percentage of all the eligible voters.

So next time you hear someone talking about the virtues and greatness of “Our Democracy”, know that you are listening to someone who is either profoundly ignorant of political science, or else is merely a propagandist, that lowest of all professions among your Human species, also known as “a Liar”.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Eyeless in Benghazi: The Arab Fascists Trembleth

February 18, 2011

The Arab Fascists trembleth, as the proverbial “Brushfires of Liberty”, that Sam Adams talked about 240 years ago, sweep through the accumulated kindling of Fascist dross that has been building up for 40 years in the Arab world. Amnesty International reports that 24 Libyan demonstrators have been murdered by the Qaddafi regime in the last few days, mostly in Benghazi, including a 13-year-old boy shot dead,  but the crowds of thousands of youthful Libertarians will be too much for the Fascist Criminals and their security forces to deal with. You can be sure that when the troops are firing on The People, and then the troops don’t get paid because the Regime runs out of money, then the troops will  soon be turning their guns on the Regime. According to a dissident interviewed by the BBC, Libya has a 31% unemployment rate, and, he added, you need to know someone to get anything done there, even obtain an airline ticket. A typical situation in a failed Collectivist State, right out of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”, where government interference in the free-market leads to shortages, and only the privileged government-connected people are able to get necessary commodities, just as under Stalin and his successors. The Youth of the Arab world will no longer tolerate this American-backed Fascist horsescat, and  Tony Blair’s buddy, The Butcher of Lockerbie, the Criminal Qaddafi, is probably defecating in his kaftan right now, as he seen his little Islamo-Commie “Green Revolution” come to a crashing end. The Libertarian Spirit of Thomas Jefferson and Murray Rothbard, of James Madison and Ron Paul, will conquer the putrid Fascism of Moammar Qaddafi, and the Fascism of the Criminal Rulers in Bharain, Iran, Yemen, Algeria, and Saudi, so strongly supported by the  hypocritical Clinton and Obama Administrations, just as that Libertarian Spirit has brought down the government in Egypt and Tunisia. The internet, Ron Paul, the bloggers, and the Rolling Stones have done their work, and the Arab, North African, and Persian worlds will never be the same.

The Ghosts of Lockerbie have their fingers around the throats of the Butchers.

Arab Fascists trembleth!

Hoooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Libertarianism is Bustin’ Out Al-Egypt

January 29, 2011

It looks like the “happy disease” of Libertarianism is busting out in Egypt, and all over the Arab and North African world, as the youth of these countries finally get sick and tired of the corporatism and governmental corruption than has kept them down and impoverished for decades. The governments and Islamists can continue to blame Jews and Zionism for every single problem in the Arab and Islamic world, but the secular youth of these countries, and many of the educated middle class, know that the problem is corporatism or state socialism mixed and allied with the big private corporations and local wealthy magnates, and the perennial problems of government corruption and the arbitrary power of the “state”.

Over and against these tyrannies stands the old Jeffersonian Liberalism that motivated the writing of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the beautiful Bill of Rights, one of the great documents of Mankind. These instinctively known values about the Rights of Man are surging up in the youth of North Africa, and they will overwhelm all resistance before them, whether the governmental Leviathan State, or the religious fanaticism and Jew-hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with long ties to the Nazi ideology since its inception.

Silverwolf finds it both singularly interesting and seminal that this whole revolt was sparked by one young man in Tunisia protesting against a Communist regulation: having to have a business license to sell vegetables. This  is a gross violation of the Capitalist Rights of the Individual to earn a living without the government interfering by either requiring a license to vend, or by looting part of the fruits of one’s labor through an individual income tax (a corporate income tax may or may not be allowable because a corporation is not an individual, but a notional, fictional entity and thus not subject to the Rights of Man).

And so this whole “revolution” began as one man’s capitalist protest against a communist system of regulation in Tunisia, and the extreme levels of unemployment which socialism, corporatism, and minimum-wage laws bring about,  and while Silverwolf does not approve of self-immolation as a form of protest, that extreme act of anti-Communist protest has sparked a revolution so furious and of such magnitude, of which that dead young man could never have dreamed a few weeks ago, that it shows us Libertarians the power and ability of One Individual to change the course of history.

Such is the Power of Freedom and the Thirst for Liberty in all sane men.

Of course, the battle will rage between this new secular, anti-government Libertarianism which unfortunately probably has little more than anger behind it (how many in the streets of Cairo have read their Jefferson, Madison and Murray Rothbard?), and the religious fanatics who would like to see a repeat of Carter’s Folly in Iran of backing a brutal torturing dictator. Already we hear bleatings from Ms. Rodham that Hosni Baby should be given just a little more time. I guess thirty years ain’t enough, is it, Madame Secretary of State, as long as you’re not the one being tortured or unemployed all through the years of your youth? Maybe when you have $70 million, it’s easy to wait? But believe me, Ms. Rodham, those young Capitalists in the Streets ain’t gonna wait.

Rolling the dice like this of course roils a readily rabid world. The excitement and uncertainty of seeing the cornerblock piece of land between Africa and the Middle East wracked by mayhem may seem like a one-off event, but it really fits in with a world pattern, from the American  Tea Party anger and reaction to the Obama extension of the Federal mandate by forcing Americans to pay a corporate insurance toll just to exist in America, and having themselves strip-searched if they must travel, to the growing unrest and malcontent manifest in Europe, and expressing itself in the Greek protests, the Paris and London Student protests,  and the whinings of the unions and the French pensioners who may have to wait to 62 instead of 60 for their lifetime dole.

And perhaps forshadowing this wave of Libertarianism, though not linked by any observers except Silverwolf here, was the unheard of reaction of a group of London protesters to the appearance of a Royal motorcade. The press reported that they chanted “Off with their heads”, and threw paint on the car, although when Silverwolf listened to the tape, it sounded like they what they were actually saying  was “Offer them beads”, and the paint on the car may have been an attempt to spruce up the appearance of the Royal conveyance, since the financial crisis has brought budgetary embarrassments to even the finest of British families. Knowing the British people’s love for their monarchy, it’s hard to imagine any other possible explanations.

However, he is willing to accept the official portrayal of the event, and, if it is true, it is a telling description of the disgust which youth, whether in Tunisia, London, Paris or Cairo, hold for the Establishment.

Yes, indeed. Libertarianism is bustin’ out all over the Arab world, and it ain’t even June.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Janet Napolitano’s Hobson’s Choice and the Russell-Huxley Dilemma

December 15, 2010

We hear that 39 people have been murdered by a suicide bomber in a Shiite Mosque in southern Iran, on one of the holiest days for Shia Muslims. Evidently there is terrorism in the world.

Janet Napolitano and the Leviathan State Democrats, who were preceded by Leviathan State Republicans, have given the public a Hobson’s choice: either consent to having your nude photo taken and ogled, plus a dose of radiation thrown in for free, or else submit to a groping of one’s genitals and breasts. This is the choice given the public by Barack Obama and his administration, and Janet Napolitano. It is the violation of the Jeffersonian principle of unreasonable search and seizure, the right to privacy, and the right to be left alone by law enforcement unless there is a “probable cause” that one has committed some infraction. They have destroyed the right of privacy, and the Rights of Man that were so fiercely championed by Jefferson and Madison, the French Revolution, and the British Old Liberals who supported both. 200 years of Civil Rights progress, flushed down the toilet in a few short years by the bipartisans. And their excuse is “Terrorism”.

This is the same excuse that has caused Britain to install thousands of cameras on the streets, watching for “suspicious” behavior. And that in the country that produced Orwell’s “1984”, the writings of Lord Bertrand Russell, and such anti-totalitarians as the novelist and philosopher, Aldous Huxley.

The dilemma is this: on the one side, we have the destruction of human privacy, the dehumanization of the innocent citizen into a puppet whose most intimate regions and most personal business suddenly becomes the business of the government, or any Nosey Parker, or blackmailer, in the government; and also the symbolic castration of the last vestiges of masculinity in a society by ordering a virtual strip search of any citizen. Notice this applies to planes, but does not apply to buses, subways, trains, etc. At least, not yet. Nor does it apply to Congressmen entering the Capitol Dome, although obviously if one of the Congressman became a fanatic and suicide bomber, he could wreck the whole structure of the U.S. Government. If people are going to be strip-searched to get on a plane, then the Congressmen should be strip-searched, or groped, every time they enter the halls of Congress. National Security demands it!

But on the other horn of the dilemma is the problem which both Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley pointed out in their writings. This problem, which Russell mentions early on in his writings, probably in the 1920s,  is, simply put, that technology will boldly advance while religious and nationalistic fanaticism will remain at its old Dark Ages level, and when those fanatics get their hands on the more modern technology, it will be a wet and windy day for Humanity. Sadly, technology will enable the terrorists, while Aldous Huxley, and to some extent Orwell in “1984”, pointed out that that same technology will also be used by some future Leviathan State to condition and control its citizens.

With the coming of the Obama-Clinton-Napolitano strip searches of the Citizenry, that technological control has been achieved by the Leviathan state. And as we heard early this morning from Iran of yet another suicide bomber (and there were now thought to be two in the crowd), terrorists continue to use the latest in technology to butcher other Human Beings with a pathological callousness that is the product of religious (or nationalistic) fanaticism.

The terrorism will continue, and the restrictions on Jeffersonian Freedoms will continue, unless the public stands up for the Bill of Rights, which it won’t.

Religious and nationalistic fanaticism must be dissolved, and Jeffersonian and Rothbardian Individualism can cure that to a large extent. But the technologies race ahead much faster than any improvement in the Human Psyche, while at the same time, the propagandic forces of corporate advertising, melded with government support for their favorite corporations in America, have so heavily brainwashed and conditioned the individual in Western society, that the only de-conditioning agents most people can find are drugs, which is why the use of self-destroying drugs like alcohol, tobacco, and amphetamine is so widespread throughout America and Europe.

Yet, as technology advances, and government bureaucrats get dumber and more mediocre, there are huge gaps where something like the Wikileaks leaks can break out of the mold, and throw the Leviathan statists on their elbows. They cannot control the technology they create, and creative and nefarious brains can usually think up all sorts of ways in which this technology can be used, to which the creators, and the government bureaucrats, are always late to react, and usually do so by trying to implement “reforms” which only dissipate more human energy in compliance, and which inevitably lead to further loopholes.

Recall that Frederick Hayek pointed out that in government bureaucracies, the worst always rise to the top (The Road to Serfdom Chapter 10, Why the Worst Get On Top). That is certainly the case in both the American Federal Government, and also the State and local governments. At the lower echelons you may find bright and dedicated people, but the supervisors and administrators… hopeless.

So the world has terrorism, and the world has Leviathan States that more and more control and hem in the Individual. It is the Individual who is perceived as the enemy by both, and whether he can survive the dual assaults of Janet Napolitano on one hand, and the terrorists on the other, is in grave doubt.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww! — Silverwolf