Newspeak New Year

The Year of Our Lord MMX was a very special year. Since I have inherited the Tolkienist habit of naming years, I decided to call this year the "Year of Newspeak". This is because of the absolutely staggering amount of strange language I have seen appearing in the last 12 months. Granted, the trend of creating Newspeak has existed for many years now. I will also grant that I am hypersensitive to this as any fan of the late George Carlin would be. I do, however, see that people in today's world mostly take Newspeak at its face value. People are totally unsuspicious of the ruling class. Back in the day nobles used to oppose kings, and merchants oppose the nobles. In communist regimes the public never believed a word that came out of the mouths of their oppressors. But here and now, in the Western world, this tendency of suspicion is gone. The politicians are, of course, very happy at this! Indeed they promote it! The latest campaign slogan for the Polish President (this is the post Soviet/EU apparatchik who actually got elected, Mr. Komorowski) was "Zgoda Buduje" i.e. "Unity Builds". Builds what, might I ask? A machine of corruption, exploitation, and crony capitalism? I don't want that kind of building going on anywhere...
In honor of this great trend I now present some real 2010 classics:
- Quantitative Easing - Printing Money. This phenomenon originated in the US Federal Reserve. Whenever the Fed wants to print money to buy up excess mortgage debt or US government bonds, or to "create liquidity" they engage in "quantitative easing". In order to do this Mr. Bernanke orders billions of dollars (which did not exist before in any way, shape, or form, and are not backed by any tangible assets) to be printed or electronically transferred to the banks in question.
- Liquidity - People being able to buy stuff. Usually this means the ability of people to shift goods and services by purchasing them; it is a term which defines potential asset shifts without excess transaction costs. Nowadays it is the ability of people to fork out money which they don't have and buy a lot of things they don't need in order to "drive the economy".
- Investing - People spending money. Nowadays deflation prevents so-called "investing" because it causes people to save. This is exactly flipping the economic theory upside down. People who spend cause interest rates to go up and thus make investments harder to finance. People who save make the interest rates go down thus allowing investing to take place. A classic 180 degree Newspeak switch!
And then there is the all-time classic which I have talked about extensively on this blog:
- Freedom - Having the right to do exactly what the government says you should do. This one is pretty self-explanatory. Crazy TSA airport searches, wiretaps in homes, tracking devices on cars, assassinations of own citizens by governments. All done in the name of new freedom.

Maybe 2010 should really be called the real 1984? Remember those words in that great novel, where Orwell writes "Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
He was onto something, wasn't he?

Legality vs. Morality

Is going against the law wrong? I have heard this question many times. Sometimes when I state some of my theories people say: "But that might include doing something against the law! And that can't be right!". This is, of course, a bunch of nonsense. Legality of something has nothing to do with making it right or wrong. It only determines what acts the goons hired by the governing gang will punish you for. The government seeks to legislate morality upon us just as it has been for the past three thousand years. The problem is that nowadays the government has its nose in practically everything and can therefore exercise a much bigger level of control than it could back in the year 1000. So when is going against the law right? Well, whenever the law is immoral you have the right not to follow it. The only problem is having to deal with the possible unjust punishment (so I would not advise anyone to do anything clearly against the law...). The more important question here seems to be: When is the law ever moral? Back in the 1700's in the USA slavery existed. It was legal, but clearly it was immoral! In Soviet Russia Stalin's purges were legal, but were they moral? Or how about Nazi persecution of Jews? Legal AND moral, or legal BUT NOT moral? As James Madison said, men aren't angels! And legislation is, sadly, written by men. We must therefore find morality which is beyond the mere musings of mankind. Justice must be objective, not made up. Luckily it just happens that natural law does exists. It is out there to be discovered by our reason, not our opinions or experiences. Morality is a dispassionate judge for all things. It is never changing and eternal. It is universal like any law of physics. Arbitrary laws based on opinion are illegitimate whether enforced by one man (a despot) or a lot of them (a democracy).

It just so happens that a few days ago we celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ. Christ himself became a victim of arbitrary illegitimate law; he was one of the two great Western philosophical giants to die by democracy (the other being Socrates). And it was he himself who said "Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch". The problem appears when the blind, in their self-righteous rage which killed Jesus, force us all into servitude and slavery in the name of "Legality".

Mr. Lukashenko!

Today I watched a Polish news report about yesterdays events in Belarus. Thousands of people took to the streets there to demonstrate against lack of democracy and the rigged election in which, for the fifth time in a row, Alexander Lukashenko was victorious. The protesters proceeded to their protesting (with a bit of additional vandalism here and there) until they were completely pacified by the state militia. During the said news report I heard very interesting language used. Mr. Lukashenko was reffered to as "the last dictator in Europe" and his militia's actions were called a "pogrom". His government was also called a "regime". Following this there were a number of interviews with Polish and EU observers of the elections who said it was a farce or (the less radical ones) that it was undemocratic and there was a lack of good will from the establishment. Mr. Paweł Poncyljusz (a Polish Parliament deputy for whom I have a lot of respect) also said that the process was "uneuropean".
Now as this was said I actually started listening to the report. "Uneuropean" and "undemocratic" are compliments after all. As terrible as Lukashenko is, at least he scored a plus on those two fronts.
What exactly is this man's problem then? He is a dictator, that is certain, but I don't think there is anyone naive enough to believe he could lose this election even if it was fully democratic (just as Hitler or Stalin would not have lost in the 1930's). He is a devout leftist, however (just like the aforementioned duo)! There is a huge statue of Lenin in front of his government headquarters. And, sadly, a leftist dictator is just as bad as a democratic one...
There is one thing though that Mr. Lukashenko is doing right. Namely, he is maintaining his country's independence. If democracy really worked there Belarus would have long ago voted itself to be united with Russia. Furthermore, he is protecting Belarus from "Europe". The EU is a state which bribes other states to join it. In essence, it is a fisherman with some bait and a very sharp hook. Mr. Lukashenko is being roundly condemned for not biting on it! Surely it's a better option to be ruled by him than by the likes of Danny Cohn-Bendit, Dany le Rouge. Protecting any independence is good because localism is always good, no matter what level it is on. I can assure the people of Belarus that if they have such a hard time changing their own political scene they will have a much tougher job in the EU where they would be an insignificant minority with no voice or power. Sure, they could have their demonstrations. But would anybody listen? And even if someone did hear them, one of the Commissars of the EU Politburo would punish them by taking away necessary funding. Wait, who was it who invented such tactics of withholding resources as punishment? Oh yes, Trotsky and Stalin!

Justice dealt by States...

If there is one thing in this world people should be afraid of, it's making states angry at them. States are nameless in their attack, they are never punished. How can someone punish the USSR for the crimes commited by Stalin? But Stalin committed all his crimes in an official capacity as the USSR! With collective punishment out of the question there is little individuals can do. Heads of state rarely get tried for their atrocities. I don't see any chance of G.W. Bush going on trial for killing civillians in Iraq or Afghanistan...
This is why I feel so very sorry for Mr. Julian Assange - a modern day hero. This man spends his time trying to make us all aware of the terrible things our states are up to. And, no wonder, the states don't like it. Mr. Assange was recently released after being arrested and detained on bogus rape charges. Of course in Sweden the law is so amazing that one can get charged with rape for, here it comes, unwelcome staring at a woman. But let's not look into absurdities of a socialist-democrat law system.
States have used this weapon for many hundreds of years. If someone does something they don't like they smear his image with some terrible charges (which are totally unrelated to the actual thing they hate him for) such as rape or vandalism or sabotage. This is well known, especially in the history of Soviet Russia. Obviously they also try to make people's lives hell. Mr. Assange had his Swiss bank accounts blocked - something that Swiss banks refused to do even for terrorists and mercenaries. Apparently the US and EU governments hate Mr. Assange more than any terror threat.
We all know how states respect their own laws. Does anybody here remember what they did to Adolf Eichmann? The Israelis kidnapped the guy all the way from Argentina and staged a nice little show trial after which they executed him! And what happened after that? The international community applauded them! Granted Mr. Eichmann was a Nazi crminal, but I guess it turns out laws and justice are two completely different things even to the people who are supposed to be writing just laws... I also seem to remember that within my lifetime the great General Augusto Pinochet was imprisoned illegally by the Red terrorist gang (i.e. Labour Party) in the United Kingdom.

As Stalin's right hand man, Vyacheslav Molotov, used to say: "Show me a man and I will find you the paragragh by which to convict him." States can always find something against a person they don't like. And if they don't have anything they will just falsify evidence or torture people to get it. Why else would people like Mikhail Khodorkovsky (stuck in a Siberian labor camp for 22 years because he dared to sponsor an opponent of Mr. Vladimir Putin) be sitting in jails?

Supporting Useless "Monarchs"

Lately in the UK people have been getting more and more angry at the Windsor posse. Now, being a Monarchist I have come under some heavy fire on this issue. After all considering the tax hikes, benefit cuts, and now the ever so loud university tuition increases in the UK, being part of the royal family is starting to look like a sweet deal. A bunch of pampered celebs are getting supported directly by taxpayer money! I mean at least the bankers have to cheat and steal for their money - the Windsors do literally nothing! How can anyone support such intolerable actions? Well, I certainly don't. I have stated many times before that even though I have great respect for the Queen and her family because of their rich tradition and heritage, they are pretty much parasites in my mind. Everyone knows that they no longer are Monarchs in anything but name. PM's and MP's are the real rulers of the United "Kingdom" and the citizens are its real owners. And I say, in a fully capitalist and Darwinist way, useless parts must be subjected to the forces of nature so that they are eliminated. If the Monarchs were real Monarchs I would fully support their rights. If the Monarchs were respectable and didn't cause people offence I would support their usefulness. But when they have neither, what is there to support? Taxpayers should no longer have the obligation of paying their royal family's salary. I'm sure the Monarchy could support itself from voluntary donations. That would at the very least diffuse its image as a parasitic phenomenon.

Heinlein wrote that "A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright." Again a fiction author seems to know more about the real world than all the intellectuals of this planet...

Libertarianism and Children

Children and children's rights under a libertarian system have been the most troubling theoretical problem for me over the last couple years. No libertarian theorist has addressed this issue in an acceptable way. Most just dismiss it as trivial or take up pragmatic argumentation which is in itself unlibertarian. Murray Rothbard devotes a chapter of his Ethics of Liberty to it, but even there I do not find all the answers I seek. According to my conclusions children should be treated in the exact same way adults are, otherwise some libertarian axiom is contradicted. If we restrict children's freedom we immediately equate them with slaves. That would set a terrible precedent for other situations where it would suddenly become acceptable to enslave people for pragmatic reasons.
I find myself, as on most other issues, siding exactly with the position of the great Herbert Spencer. As he wrote in Social Statics (the most important book ever written), "Those commonly-observed facts, that the enslavement of woman is invariably associated with a low type of social life, and that conversely, her elevation towards an equality with man uniformly accompanies progress, were cited in part proof that the subjection of female to male is essentially wrong. If now, instead of women we read children, similar facts may be cited, and a similar deduction may be drawn."
Spencer is correct in that progress in society can only be measured by the level of coercion exercised within it - the less coercion, the more the progress. Thus it is right to treat children as if they were just a human being, without applying special categories to them. After all, age is just a category. Similar ones have been applied to the sexes or races in the past. However, I don't think I need to mention the repercussions of such an attitude turning into policy. There is clearly something wrong with children being able to act as adults. In such a case a child could sign a contract which would make him a slave while he is 3 years old and doesn't know how to read yet! The only other option I see is treating children as incapacitated citizens (as if they were mentally ill or something such) until they reach a certain age or level of ability. These standards would have to be set by individuals or communities on a local basis.
I am always willing to listen to proposals on this issue!

Theology needs more Logic!

Attending a Catholic University has its benefits. One of them is being surrounded by very intelligent people who are willing to engage in 'larger than life' debates about hugely important issues. I spend my days discussing metaphysics, ethics, political theory, economics and, very often, theology. Theology is, as far as I can tell, a branch of philosophy which limits itself to the study of God and the world as a relation to God. Most people, however, seem to think of theology as something very separate from philosophy. There is also an important repercussion to this branch having broken itself from the philosophy tree. Philosophy itself is actually a very exact art, akin to mathematics. Slight mistakes here and there can lead to utterly disastrous results. This is because both mathematics and philosophy, as conceptual creations of the mind, have the same roots. They are rooted in the process of logic. As I said, theology has broken somewhat with this tradition. Theologians often say things which simply cannot be true.
For example, let us consider a very basic tenant of the Christian faith which seems perfectly fine until it is examined with thorough logic. Namely - God is omniscient and omnipotent. I myself never considered this to be a conflicting or wrong statement, until reading the following passage in Ludwig von Mises' Human Action:
"Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible? Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable. Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent."
The logic is clear as day, an omnipotent being cannot be omniscient and vice versa! But theologians place quite a bit of their other reasoning on this contradiction-in-terms being true. There are countless examples of such mistakes throughout theological arguments. I would not single theology out so much from other branches of philosophy if not for the fact that it claims itself to be so key. Theologians can rarely see beyond the tip of their own nose. Sadly, most people follow their teachings as if they were sheep. People never question anything with regard to theology out of fear of being branded as disbelievers. But belief is by all means a most overestimated virtue...

I Love the USA, I Hate the CFSA

Why do I love the Tea Party? Why do I support Ron Paul? The answer is simple. As much as despise all states, the United States of America is probably one of the greatest modern states (or, more accurately, it is a union of states). Greatest in terms of safeguarding people's liberty. And as everybody knows, liberty is life. Before I became an anarcho-libertarian and lover of Monarchy I was thoroughly a classical liberal. The USA was founded upon those liberal ideals I always cherished. In particular I name John Locke and Thomas Jefferson as my early liberal influences. The Constitution of the United States is one I have always considered the best in the history of the modern world (with maybe an exception for the Constitution of the Confederate States of America - no general welfare clause and a ban on public works in that one!).
People ask me why I moved to America if I criticize this place so much. The answer is the same as Benjamin Franklin's was so many years ago: "Where liberty dwells, there is my country". The USA have been an example to many people across the globe and it was only once they centralized and adopted old style European parliamentary style politics that the whole thing started heading downhill. What are the main problems? The ones I write about every day on this blog: imperialist foreign policy, destruction of the free market, and legislating morality. The appearance of these three phenomena (mainly advanced under Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and F.Roosevelt) actually changed the USA from a safe haven to a destructive state as any other, or even worse because of its tremendous military and economic power. What exists now is the USA just in name, in reality it is the CFSA - The Centralist Fascist State of America. It is Fascist and it is a single State, not a Union. Oh and yes, it happens to be in America (propaganda has as of yet not been able to change geographical settings).

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now I wish the government of the United States really followed that law - that highest morality! A constitutional state has failed, America proves it, but hope is still left in liberty. America is the land of liberty and nobody, not even them most aggressive government, can take that away.

Anarchist Violence... Good Strategy?

Anarchists are in essence the most non-violent and peaceful individuals. Anarchy helps promote cooperation and aggressive people end up on the losing end of every deal (they would die out pretty quickly under real anarcho-capitalism...). However, we still have the question of what to do about today. Now we are being oppressed by large scale gangs known as "States" or "Countries" who cartelize weaponry and have a monopoly on the use of violence. We are not even allowed to employ self-defense against these groups. They steal, murder, and plunder us with impunity. In all honesty anyone would agree the use of force for self-defense in such situations of horrific abuse is perfectly legitimate. The use of violence, however legitimate under these circumstances, might not be advisable though. You cannot attack a herd of lions armed with nothing by your own fingernails. I am with Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this issue. He compares the current situation we are in to a confrontation with violent and aggressive criminals. Going against them is a must - we must prevent them from exploiting and killing us as much as possible (it is within our interest). However, being open about it through violence can't lead to a bettering of our conditions. We all know that gangs love to use certain people as examples to scare others. If some of us went out to shoot some IRS officials, we would most likely be either killed ourselves or imprisoned. Of course any violence that took place would be blamed on us, the people who are trying to defend themselves from oppression. Therefore we must use our brains a bit and think about real life. We cannot challenge the might of the state, but we can get away with opposing it to some degree. If a robber comes to my house and ask for my money it might not be advisable for me to refuse flatly, but it might be good to try to conceal as much of my wealth from him as possible (without him noticing of course!). Everyone must try to balance carefully their opposition with their life. After all the statists come to you and say just that, like good old highwaymen: "Your money or your life!"

"If a thousand were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood." - Henry David Thoreau
We must oppose the state in all it does by all means necessary, but please my friends, let's not all end up in jail! What good would that do us?

"Bush Tax Cuts"

I have heard some crazy statements made about the tax cuts which were instituted by Congress under President Bush. I want to clear up some of the confusion around this policy.
First of all there have been allegation that, quote: "Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place will increase the deficit by" and here people throw around a random figure of between $3.5 and $4 trillion. In what universe and with what logic does a statement like this make sense? Let's use an analogy. If I have a barrel of water and a constant stream or water pouring into it, it would overflow. However, the barrel has a giant hole in the bottom which keeps water flowing out very quickly. Now - if I make the inflow of water less, is the barrel going to be emptier because I did so? Yes. But is the cause of the barrel being emptier the water inflow? No! The cause is the outflow. People who receive tax cuts are not robbing the government, it is precisely the opposite - the government is stealing less of their property. It is the government spending that is increasing the deficit, not the people not paying more in taxes.
Secondly a bunch of lefties have been saying that the tax cuts "increase inequality" because now "rich folks" pay less money into the common pot. Well let me say that rich people already pay most of the taxes. In fact, the richest 10% of the population pays 71% of the income taxes. How is it fair that working or lower-middle class people steal money from richer people? But when have the Commies ever recognized people's right to their own earnings? I might add Marx based his whole theory on the fact that people do not get paid for their labour in a just way, the capitalists take some of it away. Well why is it more right for the government to take it away than the capitalist? Somehow I never get an answer to this question.
Also there are those people who say tax cuts will slow economic recovery! Curiously, those people are either from the government, or related to the government. We all know their type of genius - Timothy Geithner for example. If anybody still trusts these bozos, good luck to them! I prefer to follow good old logic, which tells us that if people keep and save money, the economic recovery will happen faster. In fact without the government taxing and monetary policy there would be no crisis, so let's just keep the guys who caused the problem out of deciding what our solution should be.

As Daniel Webster said: "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy."
So should we limit it (through tax cuts at least!) or not?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and State Warfare

A lot of libertarians are very harsh in the criticism of Harry S. Truman and the US decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 before the end of World War II. I am no less critical - in an 8th grade social studies essay I equated Truman with Stalin (quite a bold statement for a 14 year old to make). The tragedy of the bombings is mostly attributed to the evil of Truman, American aggression, and racism. Few people, however, emphasize the role of the State as an entity as the culprit here. By State I mean just what it is - the conceptual being encompassing some landmass and ruling over a certain population through government. So why would the existence of the state make it justifiable or at least rational for Mr. Truman to order the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians? The answer lies in democracy and the rule of common ownership. In a democracy all people own the state (at least that is the theory). Therefore in theory all people are responsible for the state's actions. They are also required to participate in maintenance of the state. Individuals in a democratic state are simply feeder units of the state itself - they have no individuality in political matters. This is especially true in foreign affairs and wars. Thus when Mr. Truman was bombing the people of Hiroshima he was bombing people who were supplying the hostile Japanese government with means of resisting American troops. Furthermore, he was bombing people who approved of the Japanese government's actions! In the same way all these Japanese were responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor (nb. a military base), all Americans were responsible for the atomic bombings. At the very least all the ones who voted for Harry Truman. Total war exists only in the statist system. Wiping out entire populations makes sense if those populations are supplying your opponent with the means to resist you.
This concept is best explained by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his undeniable masterpiece Democracy The God That Failed. He contrasts the tendency for total war in collectivist societies of states with tendencies for war being restricted to few casualties (even among the troops) in feudal and monarchical societies.
I for one totally distance myself from any politicians in my homeland of Poland. I in no way feel responsible for their actions. The President of Poland is not my President. I want it to be clear (and on public record) that this man, Mr. Bronisław Komorowski, does not have my approval and does not have my consent to speak in my name. Same goes for current Prime Minister Donald Tusk. In case they try to commit some crime (of lesser proportions than Hiroshima I would hope) I feel this post should absolve me.

Fascist America 2 - The Culture

People still don't seem to believe the USA is fascist. It is. In my last post on this topic I described (briefly) the economic aspect of fascism and how America conforms to it in 100% of cases. But what about the people? Are Americans really fascist? Surely they are the ones who fought against fascism in World War II! This is, of course, a historical myth. Americans in the 1920's and 1930's admired fascism very much. Most newspapers praised Mussolini, as did prominent politicians including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. American Christians overwhelmingly supported Mussolini in his support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War (I will have to write another post someday about Franco and his supposed "fascism").
But what about Americans today? For that we would have to create a list of traits characterizing fascist society (I will use Mussolini's Italy which is the only Fascist state ever to exist):
1. Militarism
2. Extreme Patriotism/Nationalism
3. Anti-Communism
4. Anti-Capitalism
5. Egalitarianism and Equality (between citizens of the State, not internationally)
Now let's look at the United States today. Do Americans and their Government possess these characteristics?
1. Americans culture is extremely militaristic. While living here for the last several months I have heard people make many statements like "soldiers are the ultimate professionals" and are "morally flawless". Saying something against the army and its mercenaries seems to be heresy (this, of course, is not true of private protection forces the US government sometimes hires). The rhetoric of politicians is also doubtlessly militaristic. In Fascist Italy Mussolini announced "Battle for Grain" and "Battle for Land", in the United States politicians wage "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty". Back in high school we put a lot of emphasis on analyzing language used when studying Fascist Italy. Can the same not be applied to the US? I won't even discuss the staggering percentage of cars that I see on the road with some form of ribbons supporting the army, the troops, or veterans.
2. People in America are the most patriotic people I know. They have all kinds of new age brainwashing techniques like the "pledge of allegiance" in schools, they sing their national anthem at every sporting event (no matter how minor or unrelated to America) and they put their flags everywhere. Whatever people's political views they claim to be heirs of "American ideals" and will do anything to prove themselves American. They also project their values onto everyone in the whole entire world ("American way or the highway"). Again there is no tolerance for dissenters (non-patriots).
3. This one is pretty self explanatory. I have never met a communist in America nor anyone who would admit to communist leanings (even in cases where they are obviously Marxist or collectivist).
4. Capitalism has become the new punching bag of the US. Conservatives and Liberals alike want to strangle it in some way by control or protectionism. It was the same in Mussolini's Italy. Free market and some form of private property existed much like in the USA today. The rhetoric was as it is here - that capitalism is productive and anti-communist, but needs to be closely monitored and controlled because of greedy people. It is never described as good, only as pragmatic.
5. This is also redundant to explain. With all the ludicrous affirmative action and gender equality laws I'm surprised the Catholic Church has not yet condemned the United States. It had of course condemned Mussolini for masculinization of women in Fascist Italy. And where are women more masculine than in the US today?! Even state prisons have quotas on how many guards need to be women! At least Mussolini had the sense to keep women out of the armed forces (for the most part).

With this evidence before you, you can now make up your mind!