Posts Tagged ‘Liberty’

Fresh Thoughts on Libertarianism

October 5, 2013

Certain ideas about Libertarianism have coalesced in Silverwolf’s mind, and the cats have threatened to go on strike if he doesn’t disclose them to the Public. (Labor Union Coercion!)

First off, Libertarianism is a vast, vast field or ocean, that is just being entered upon. It’s a long way to the other side, before one is debouched into Paradise. So this means that all thinking about the political Philosophy of Libertarianism is in the stage of infancy. It is as if “Democracy” had just come on the scene and was five years old, and every Greek was throwing in his two drachmas as to what it meant and how to define it.

So “Libertarianism” is just beginning, and since it is such a powerful philosophy — this Philosophy of Classical Liberalism — it will have many courtiers claiming that their brand is “His” brand above.

In Silverwolf’s brand of Libertarianism, four ingredients are necessary.

First, Individual Libertarianism must always be put above Corporate so-called Libertarianism, although Libertarianism should not entertain any unnecessary hostility towards Corporations, as long as they obey the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. A share in a Corporation which has value on the open market should be treated just as any other form of private property, although while an individual income tax would be anathema to the Rights delineated in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, a Corporate Income Tax would not necessarily also be, because it taxes a Collective notional Institution, not an Individual.

So first, the Individual’s Rights must always be placed above the so-called rights of a coroporation.

Second, Libertarianism must fight to shore up and defend Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” between Church and State. Church-State linkages throughout history have been disastrous both for the people and for Free-Market Capitalism, with the exception of the military hardware suppliers. We only have to look today at “religious” regimes throughout the world to see the most despicable forms of tyranny and torture being perpetrated, and to realize that little has changed since the Spanish Inquisition if Organized Religion once gets its bloody paws on the reins of government. Just as Free-Market Capitalist Libertarians call for separation of Business and State, so must they call for and maintain separation of Church and State, and a very strict separation at that.

Finally, while Libertarians believe that unconstitutional governmental laws should be overthrown in a day — laws like the individual income tax, or being forced into a government-run pension or medical-care scheme, or a “national service” involuntary servitude requirement, or the jailing of Americans by the hundreds of thousands for cannabis possession, or forcing Hindus, at the tax collector’s gunpoint, to fork over the fruits of their labor to pay for USDA beef inspections — we know that, given the public’s socialistic, big-government, brainwashing, it will not be so.

Thus, although you’d like to overthrow tyrranical laws in a day, Libertarian’s should probably settle for a gradualist framework for their change, because the American public is essentially conservative, and a conservative is someone who likes moderation. Southern Slavery, one of the Great Human Rights Crimes of recorded history, should have been overthrown in a day, but it took decades to burn its rotten carcass. Thus Libertarians should probably offer five to ten-year phaseouts of government programs like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance or Obamacare, not because we don’t think their injustices should be eliminated immediately, but because such a call would not be accepted by the majority of voters, but a gradual phaseout would be. We also think that maintaining these programs for those Socialists who think they are the greatest thing since Marx would be OK, as long as all the costs and all the liabilities fell completely on the shoulders of the program’s participants.

For example, if the State of California ended its mandatory, forced participation of all workers in the Unemployment Insurance Program, but then maintained a program called “California Unemployment Security Program” in which all costs and liabilities were thrown onto the program’s participants, and not the general taxpayer or anyone working in California, then we wouldn’t really object, although such programs should certainly not be within the pale of government functions in the mind of a true Jeffersonian Libertarian.

However, it is obvious that such a “State” program would be “State” only in name, and that such a program would not differ at all from a private, free-market insurance fund. The Socialists and Patriots could feel they were contributing to “their” government, since they both are fond of saying that “the government is us”, and they could walk away with that glow lonely Socialists feel when they kid themselves that “we’re a village”. Yet, they never seem to pool their bank accounts.

Lastly, Libertarianism must be fiercely anti-racist in its outlook, because the racist looks at others with an image in his mind, a pre-judgement. Just as the Marxist defines Individuals by their class, and always attempts character assassination by class association instead of argument, so too will the racist define individuals according to whatever images his exposure to propaganda has inclined him. A racist can obviously utter words that reflect Truth and point out an injustice, while a non-racist or anti-racist can utter false propaganda (and all propaganda is a lie!) and keep mum about heinous injustices which they perpetrate (the Democrats, for example, jailing people for cannabis possession and keeping it illegal, or deforesting the National Forests to benefit major corporations while spreading toxic pesticides far and wide).

So a racist, like a Marxist, pre-judges people based on the most infantile and neanderthalic thinking, whereas a Libertarian sees all men as possessors of sacred Natural Rights, which make them the highest creation of Nature. A True Libertarian would have a positive, non-aggressive attitude towards all, except those who want to violently aggress against the property rights (which include the bodies) of their fellow citizens, or those who want to incite hatred or violence against whole economic classes, religious groups, races, or nationalities. Such Individuals are anti-Libertarian and anti-Capitalist, though they may mascarade as Libertarians, or friends of Natural Rights.

The essence of Capitalism is Liberty, the Freedom of two Individual Human Beings to engage in a trade of commodities voluntarily, in which both parties are happy with the results. Primitive tribesman did this in the jungle, but the modern day Socialists say that such actions are wicked.

So Libertarianism, at least Silverwolf’s brand, must include placing the Individual above the Collectivist Corporation, a fierce separation of Mosque and State, an anti-racist and anti-xenophobic ferocity, and a defense and championing of Liberty, as the essential ingredient of Free-Market Capitalism.

What’s your brand of Libertarianism?

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

The A-Bomb of Libertarianism Approaches

April 2, 2010

Forgive them, Lord, for not understanding what they do, for when they sow the winds of Fascism, they will reap the whirlwinds of Liberty.

Thus it is that the Democrat politicians have failed to understand the magnitude of what they have done to the generation below them, and when that generation awakens to the theft of their Freedom, a Freedom that has been relatively unhampered until now, the effect will be an A-Bomb of Libertarianism, spreading as fast as a mushroom cloud, sweeping the last vestiges of Fascism and Communism into the wastebasket of History, where they belong.

Silverwolf predicts that the younger generation will come to understand the magnitude of the oppression that holds them down, and will overthrow that 80-year long Tyranny at the polls in an electoral A-Bomb that will propel so many Libertarians and Ron Paul-Republicans into office, that the lemming effect will take over, and people will be crawling all over each other to be labeled the “Libertarian” Candidate. And Libertarian has little to do with Manchurian; they are the opposites.

Yet there is one difficulty, and that is that Libertarianism is an ideology of ideas and principles, applied to the political sphere, and thus to be a Libertarian requires a certain intellectual effort, a penetration of the mind into the facts of reality to understand them, and thus be able to control them for oneself. But the American public is a profoundly un-intellectual group in general, and so it is rather lazy when confronted with a large, but no means overwhelming, volume of reading and concepts that should be pondered over to legitimately call oneself a Libertarian.

Silverwolf well recalls his reaction when listening to Mike Jingozian, during the candidates presentations for the Presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party in 2008. Jingozian was asked about his views on “The Tragedy of the Commons”, and was not even aware of what the concept was, something that anyone who had read through “Man, Economy, and State” by Murray Rothbard, as well as countless other books before it, would be aware of. It showed that Jingozian was more interested in being a candidate than in doing the necessary groundwork in reading and pondering that would be necessary for such a serious venture as being President of the United States. Jefferson, for example, had a huge knowledge of the preceding theories of political “science” that had come before him, thanks in large part to Puffendorf, who had acted chiefly as a collector of other people’s political ideas, which was exceedingly helpful to Jefferson. In effect,  Puffendorf was Jefferson’s “Google search engine”.  But at least Jingozian was honest enough to admit to a hall full of people that he didn’t know what the concept meant.

Politicians (or is it statesmen we need?) are a bit like rock lead guitarists or singers. They all have their styles, and it may be possible (and usually is necessary) to separate the style of the politician from the immorality of his actions. Take four politicians whom Silverwolf takes an exceedingly dim view of: LBJ, Reagan, Thatcher, and Clinton. Though their morality be that of the sewer, one can yet say that each had his style and charisma as a politician, and each had a certain skill in that whoring art. Like a good technical lead guitarist, you had to admire the dexterity of LBJ, pulling the dog ears of Congress to get them to start the bankruptcy of America with his Democrats’ Warfare-Welfare State. Or Teflon “Dutch” Reagan, whose daily atrocities against the American people, and against true Capitalism, were laughed off as mere peccadilloes and fleabites, as the love of America just kept swelling towards this charlatan. Or Maggie Thatcher, demolishing any man who’d stand up to her, in an avalanche of abuse and argument which made her invariably seem more masculine than  her opponents. Or Bill Clinton, whom the people loved no matter what he did, as long as the economy was good. All of them virtuosos in that horrendous art of politics. But not one of them understanding true Free-Market economics (even if they claimed to), or Libertarian principles, or having the Jeffersonian spirit of Freedom.

So the difficulty of bringing a rather intellectual political and economic set of principles to the American people is formidable. But thanks to Statesmen like Congressman Ron Paul, many of these ideas have finally been put forth before the public, not only here in America, but throughout the Socialist world. And once those ideas are out there, Fascism will start to rust. Lets hope it finally corrodes all the way through.

Yet, notwithstanding these difficulties, Silverwolf thinks that bright, well-grounded, and serious people will come forward, that there will be a mid-term landslide for Libertarianism and Austrian economics, and this mid-term landslide will result in a Capitalist Revolution at the next Presidential election, and a Revolution in the way people think of their responsibilities. With the Capitalist Revolution will come a rapid gain in prosperity for the assiduous and industrious (and lucky) which will further reinforce the validity of the Free-Market. Nothing succeeds like material success when it comes to economics, and in this case, the people will see that the moral choice, Capitalism, which is scrupulous in respecting the Property Rights of the Individual (which includes the Rights over his own body, i.e. no draft and no income tax) is not only the moral choice but also the practical choice for increasing the prosperity of the people, i.e., “promoting the general welfare”.  This Jeffersonian Ideal will replace the Socialist Ideal of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, DeFazio, Schumer, Frank, Blumenauer, Kucinich, Sanders, and all the other Collectivists in Congress who have assaulted the property rights of every American by robbing them through the political system with their unconstitutional healthcare boondoggle. And someone who robs you is a thief.

When those 20-somethings who didn’t vote, or who voted for Obama, never thinking it would cost them $500/month for life to do so, suddenly realize the quicksand the Democrats have stuck their once-free life into, they will react with a rage like a caged bull let into the arena. They will go into those polling booths, or fill in those circles at home with wrath in their wrists and contempt and disdain in their hearts for the Totalitarian Bullies who have enslaved them, so the Insurance Corporations might grow yet richer— Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney’s dream. And when the count is over, it will be like Yeltsin and the Movement behind him, or Havel in Czecho, sweeping the greying Reids and Pelosis before them in a great cleansing tsunami of Liberty.

The A-Bomb of Libertarianism is being assembled in the minds and souls of America’s once indifferent, as they feel, for the first time, the cold fingers of Communism creeping round their hearts, compressing their cardiac function into the angina of anguish always caused by the Communists, and their miserable, immoral, bureaucratic system, which denies the sanctity of Human Freedom, the Natural Rights Laws of Jefferson which he incorporated into the Bill of Rights, and the religious passion that owes all allegiance to “That Which is Holy”, and not the State, or some ugly, blasphemous piece of cloth known as a flag.

The American Public does not understand that all Rights, including the Bill of Rights, derive from Property Rights (and we all have a Property Right in ourselves, which means we cannot be enslaved, or assaulted, or have our property robbed by anyone, either an Individual, or a gang of Individuals, or a gang of Individuals known as the State). Professor Murray Rothbard masterfully points this out in his critique of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous “Shouting fire in a crowded theatre” ruling. Holmes’ failed to reason the real reason you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre, which is that somebody’s Property Rights have been violated, either the theatre owner’s, or the other ticket holders. The person falsely shouting “Fire” has violated the Property Rights of one or the other by defrauding them, and it is on this basis that they should be prosecuted, not the vague Statist argument used by Holmes to abridge the Right to Freedom of Speech. Same with Freedom of the Press. It’s a violation of the Property Right of someone to buy a press, buy newsprint, hire reporters, etc. It is either fraud or the violation of our Right to acquire property in both cases, and fraud is a crime against Capitalism (or a specific Capitalist).

No, the brain-deadened Communists have no inkling of the reaction of Liberty they have provoked with their Fascist Healthcare Bill. But when that A-Bomb of Libertarianism hits next November, the mushroom cloud will spread so fast, and jettison so much flotsam and jetsam in its wake, that the political landscape of the Western World will never be the same again.

Come November at the polls,  the A-Bomb of Human Freedom will explode in these United States, and the Mushroom Cloud of Liberty will rise again in America.

Chocks away!

Hoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww!— Silverwolf

Capitalism or Liberty?

February 8, 2009

Capitalism or Liberty? No, Silverwolf is not positing them as opposites. He is asking, rather, whether, when we speak in favor of Capitalism, we are speaking in favor of a mere economic system, or something much greater and more profound: Human Liberty? Silverwolf would put it to you that we speak of the latter, of Liberty, when we use the word Capitalism, and Liberty implies a lot more than just using precious metals for trade, and having a body of economic laws to prosecute fraud and other property crimes (including physical assault). Liberty implies a certain moral quality, the moral quality of Freedom, which is indicated by a person using their capital to further their value hierarchy.

Now it is very common to use the term “revolutionary” to describe the Marxian view of economics. Marxists, Socialists, and Communists supposedly want a “revolution”, but that revolution is always put in purely economic terms. Any “revolution” within the skin, or the person’s psyche, is completely ignored, and it is always presumed that this will naturally flow once the “worker” is “liberated” from the evil “expropriator”, the employer.  Never a mention that perhaps the employer was himself once a poor worker who, through dint of hard work and frugality over decades, managed to accrue the capital to buy the machinery and be able to hire personnel and give them a living wage, while the personnel never had to save a nickel, or invest a week of life to suddenly have a chance to gain a sustaining income. Never a mention that the worker may be a greedy individual by nature, while the employer may be an extraordinarily generous and altruistic person. These facts are always overlooked by the Communist.

But to return to the main point, the Socialists are commonly held to be the “revolutionaries”, while Capitalists, in general, are held to want to maintain the status quo. Cries of “anarchy” and “all property to the people” naturally strike fear into the hearts of bankers and savers alike. And so, Capitalists are usually held to be “conservatives”.

But now along comes Ron Paul and his “Revolution”, the doctrine of a radical free-market Capitalism that sweeps aside every vestige of the many Keynesian “safeguards” that have come to burthen the American capitalist system. But, in  point of fact, these “safeguards” have kept America from becoming a truly revolutionary capitalist society, a condition that applied before and after the Civil War in large swathes of America, but at a time when Capitalism was still hampered by the technological primitiveness of mankind. Capitalism needed both the radical free-market, and the transistor and the computer chip, to finally be able to offer Mankind a life of limitless Freedom and Liberty when compared to any other comparable period in human history. So, in one sense, the American continent has never really had Capitalism in what Silverwolf considers the most profound and depthful meaning of that word. The Federal Reserve Act had imposed Socialism on America long before the computer liberated the wildest possibilities of Capitalism (though it’s mechanical effect is having a mechanically-atrophying effect on the human psyche).

Now the Keynesian gauntlet has once again been slapped broadside against the face of the radical, free-market Capitalists like Ron Paul, and all who understand his economic profundity, and the Collectivists are riding high the  feeble wave of their election by probably less than 25% of all living Americans. That is one of the tragedies of Democracy, when there is either no Constitution, as in most of the world, or where the Constitution is ignored, as here in America. Democracy will vote the country into bankruptcy, as the havenots, dependent on the Socialist state for their sustenance, outvote the haves who provide the taxes that pay for the sustenance. As socialism grows, more and more havenots crowd onto the welfare roles, and as societies producers become less and less, and the incentive to produce becomes less and less, less and less is produced and prices rise, causing more and more to crowd onto the welfare roles, but with added urgency. Suddenly, to be on the welfare roles is paramount for social survival, while to be a productive producer is to be punished, so the result is inevitable. This was one of the great insights of von Mises and Hayek:  Socialism must eventually self-destruct, even though it start from a tiny seed, and take fourscore years to grow into an economy-wrecking noxious weed.

But the question remains, If Communism is merely an economic revolution, what is a Capitalist revolution if not a similar economic revolution, but in a completely opposite polar direction? And what are the differences between these two so-called revolutions?

Paramount amongst the differences is the moral issue. Socialism and Communism believe the end justifies the means. The wealthy may be legally robbed, in order to further the aims of the Benthamites who believe in “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Obviously, such a doctrine permits  the murder, or expropriation of a small minority, by a vast majority.  It permitted the euthanasia of “mental incompetents” under Hitler, the first group attacked by the Nazis, before the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Two groups the general populace could care less about, especially at a time when eugenicists were pushing sterilization, and even euthanasia.

Liberal Capitalism, the Capitalism of the Mises-Hayek-Rothbard-Paul tradition, believes the means must be moral to justify the ends. It is actually a moral code, and in this sense, Capitalism is actually the only moral economic code, paradoxical as that may seem in a system which specifically does NOT guarantee a minimum of food, clothes and shelter. Yet, Capitalism is probably the best way for the vast majority to secure that food, clothes and shelter, and if they have a surplus over that, if they feel so moved by their moral code, they can donate that surplus to a charity they have confidence in, which can provide those life-sustaining conditions to the destitute, or directly supply the aid themselves. In other words, donations to private welfare-charities, in a low-tax, wealthy capitalist system with wide-spread prosperity, and a general philosophy of self-help and independence, would easily cover those few individuals who, through horrendous luck, or mental insufficiency, could not support themselves. Those who could be helped back to self-sufficiency, could be helped much quicker, and with far less bureaucracy than any government agency. And, since so many Americans identify with one of the major organized religions, it would be rather easy to guide these donations to places the donor could enthusiastically support. Moreover, the religious passion and integrity(hopefully) of the volunteers and workers at these self-help aid centers, and the lack of government rules and bureaucracy, would theoretically lead to much faster results. Also, in a system with very low taxation, the incentive to work is greatly increased for the “go-getters”, while “navel-contemplators”, content with a lower material standard of living in exchange for much more leisure time, would also achieve their value hierarchy under such a capitalist system. And their lowered consumption, in turn, would put less stress and strain on the resources of the society and the earth. Silverwolf wonders why Capitalists don’t hug those who live on very marginal resources, like hobos,  since they are leaving those resources for the “go-getters” at a much lower price. The welfare system, like a mafia, buys off a large number of it’s potential opponents, turning them into staunch allies. Of course it does, because someone who can be bought is obviously a capitalist, but not a very revolutionary one.

Now, what do we mean by a “Capitalist Revolution”, and a “Capitalist Revolutionary”?

Well, first off, let’s face it. Most “Capitalists” sure don’t want a Revolution. They couldn’t give a Jefferson about Liberty, or high-fallutin terms like “the Rights of Man”. Just give “em the cash, and shut up! In fact, Capitalists tend to identify very strongly with their  bank accounts. Of course, it’s natural because, ideally, this account reflects the exact marginal productivity of the Capitalist, the amount that he has produced for society over and above the amount he has consumed of the commodities of society created by others, the goods and services he commands every day with his command currency. That’s the deal that we all make when we participate in economic society, though we are 99.9% forced to make it if we want the semblance of a normal, sane life, , whether we like it or not. (There is always the very brave option of become a hobo, a “luftmensh”, the man who lives on air.)  But, since there is a very exact justice to a purely capitalist system, most people feel it is an approximately just system, and that is one reason so many Americans support the Capitalist system, or what they call Capitalism, though it really isn’t. And this fairly pure Capitalism was the system, generally, in America prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, and excluding the Lincoln period around the Civil War. No Federal Insurance, so you had to know your banker well, and even then, you didn’t bet the ranch on one man, but spread it around for safety. Federal Deposit Insurance meant rate whores could go with the highest rate, offered by the charlatan and shyster bankers, knowing full well the Feds would guarantee it. Likewise, the FED was given the right to counterfeit US currency, which would be a very serious crime for any individual citizen, and to control interest rates, which, with a wholly fiduciary, non-metal backed currency, is the only check on inflation. To cause inflation, if that is what it wants, all the central bank need do is to force, by fiat, the government rate well below the rate of inflation. That is what is currently happening in the US and throughout the “free” (haha) world.

So what is the “Capitalist Revolutionary”? Well, perhaps the best Silverwolf ever heard it put was not by some American steeped in Jefferson and Mises, but a New Guinean “savage” in some long ago viewed documentary. This man had been part of a “pre-historic” tribe, unfortunately or fortunately, or both, brought into contact with the modern world. Somehow, through their resources, the tribe had become prosperous, and now had lots of New Guineans Kinas. The man stood in front of the camera: “In this hand, I have my money, it is a tool which I use amongst the whitemen, but in the other hand I have our land, and our ancient ways, and that is my real wealth.”  Well, Silverwolf may be coloring the words a little, but it was something like that. This man completely understood money: a tool  to do good, and nothing beyond that. A tool to serve a religious mind, not diverted from it’s preternatural contact with nature by the toys and googaws of modern life.

So we must learn from this Indian of the earth: to be a Capitalist Revolutionary means, inwardly, to never accumulate anything, to never own anything, to never identify oneself with ones property (except legally), to always be a start naked wolf, only covered by this nice, thick fur which our peanut diet (so rich in copper!) provides. Perhaps this is the meaning of that admonition by Yoshua ben-Yoseph, that if one would be perfect, one should sell all and give it to the poor. Perhaps the meaning of this admonition is that, psychologically, one should “sell all”, i.e. never own anything, psychologically speaking, “and give it to the poor” — realise that you’ll carry nothing to the grave, but a wornout carcass and ones good name, if one is fortunate enough to have earned one in life. Many are the glowing encomiums; few, those remembered as saints.

And, secondly, to be a “Capitalist Revolutionary” means to realise that one is not an actor, that that is a fiction, but that one is action itself, in the form of Human Life.  If this action is moral and authentic, then Capital has been raised to the level of the moral and authentic, or kept there if the Capital was earned morally (as mentioned before, through the accrual of the worker’s marginal surplus). In a sense, this is the Buddhist realization that the ego is a “humbug”, a fiction that doesn’t really exist, that is laughable, but one that we have to play along with in society if we are not to be declared certifiably insane. The man who answers the police officer, when asked to identify himself, is figured to be screwy if he replies, “I am God” or “I am the universe” or “I am Louis XIV”. But, if he answers, “I’m Joe Smith”, he’s considered sane. And he’ll be allowed to keep his bank account. And if he scowls, and yells at people, he may well become a banker, and be considered pre-eminently sane.

So, a “Capitalist Revolutionary” is Liberty Personified in the Human Form. He is action itself, nothing else, and that action must be highly moral. And Human Liberty also implies, morally speaking, that it never be used to destroy the Human Liberty of another, who has not violated ones property rights. In other words, it Respects the Other’s Liberty, if the Other Respects Our Liberty.

So the key is that a “Capitalist Revolutionary” keeps an awareness that he is just a fiction as far as his ego goes. Let’s put it this way, the only sense we have of our ego is always based on events in the past, stretching all the way back to our childhoods. We have been heavily conditioned by our pasts, whether it was a trauma we had as a child, like falling down stairs, or the trauma of yesterday, when the neighbor said something that hurt our feelings. And remembering that past, we think of ourselves as a “self”. This is a fairly widespread “mental disease”, and just being aware of it doesn’t automatically cause it to cease to function. It is an illusion created by the very natural response of memory, which obviously is a form of thought. Yet, it always involves the past, which is no longer a living thing. But,  being aware of memory’s ego-creating process constantly, can cause it to cease to function, as the Buddhists discovered. Some now achieve a similar feeling of lightness by looking at photos of the universe to start each day. But a Buddhist may scream as loud as a Baptist if he finds the bank has underpaid his interest by $40.00.

And, as far as a Capitalist Revolutionary’s possessions and collections go, Silverwolf would relate that wonderful story, buried somewhere in Dr. Johnson’s writings, where he visited one of the prominent actors of London’s stage. Thespian success had greatly increased this man’s income (and what percentage of actors, prior to the film age, ever achieved financial security through the practice of their art?), and on a tour of his London home, he avidly and enthusiastically showed Dr. Johnson the various collections of books, pictures, antiques, and momentos he had acquired. Finally,  exhausted after several hours of this, and bidding adieu at the door, Dr. Johnson left his interlocuter with the following thought, “My friend, I’m afraid you’re going to have a very hard time dying.”

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww — Silverwolf