Reflections...

MMXI was another sad year of worldwide depression. The politicians have constantly lied their way into our wallets over and over and over again. By now I can confidently say there is no way back from this. We aren't standing on top of a cliff, we have already fallen off - now it's just the case of who has the best parachute. This is why this depression has hit people who are dependent on others hardest. Personally, as a student, I am still dependent on my parents. So I am an extra weight for their parachutes to carry. Most of my peers and people in my age groups are in the same exact situation. Food and commodity prices have gone up drastically in the past year, and parasticial entities like the Polish government have already promised their slaves more taxes and higher prices for 2012.
As is tradition for The Young Monarchist, tomorrow I will come out with a discussion of the expected situation in 2012, which I actually expect to change quite a bit. For now, as a rather downcast conclusion to 2011, all we can do is turn once more to the wisdom of those before us.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf gives us hope. People sometimes despair, but that is only because we have that safe Hobbit instinct inside of us.
'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
We must do what we can and try to continue on hoping for some light in the tunnel, however dim or brief it might be at first.

Reaching for the Ring in Our Lives

J.R.R. Tolkien, the greatest anarchist author of the 20th Century, understood the nature of Evil in the realm of human conduct very well. I am, in fact, working on a series of essays describing Tolkien's take on Good and Evil. I have started more work in this area because clearly some of his conclusions are very obvious, and yet people do not understand them even after reading The Lord of the Rings (let alone any of his other great works). Professor Tolkien's masterpiece is not some analogy to the real world (World Wars, the Cold War, or whatever) as many Tolkien-fans would like to believe. The Lord of the Rings delves much deeper into the human psyche than just merely describing external events. Let's ask one simple question: Why does Frodo aim to destroy the Ring, if it is obvious that in the hands of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, or even Denethor the Ring could be used to utterly defeat The Dark Lord Sauron? The answer is obvious: Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, multiple heroes (most notably Galadriel) tell Frodo that anyone willing to use the Ring is implicitly already corrupted by its power, and any use of the Ring will make an individual more corrupted. In the end, anyone who uses the Ring, whether for good or for ill, will become "The Dark Lord". And the One Ring is a symbol of violence and aggression as a means to achieving one's ends. Once any man accepts the maxim that 'the ends justify the means', he has already crossed that line, and can be said to be a slave of the Ring.
And so it is here on Earth. Any time we choose to use violence to fulfil our wants or needs, we have taken up the Ring. And every single time such an act occurs, we become more and more accustomed to it, until it becomes a necessity to use violence in order to achieve our ends. Institutions like the State are only illustrations of how much we are addicted to aggressive power as individuals in our society. People aren't able to use their own good will and ingenuity to get what they want. Slowly but surely, most 'citizens' become grovelling slaves at the feet of Evil. Why did the Orcs follow Sauron? It was for two reasons: they feared him, and they enjoyed what he could do for them (that is, pillage and steal the wealth of others). How is that any different from your average taxpayer or welfare recipient?!

The greatest role model in The Lord of the Rings is the quiet Ranger of Gondor, Faramir. It is through his lips that Tolkien says about the Ring, the symbol of power and violence: "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory."
I wonder if any modern fan of the State, warfare, or taxation ever read this book...

Star Trek and the Real Future

I recently decided to watch the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture again. As a big fan of sci-fi and the future, I have always enjoyed Star Trek. What really amazes me about this show and many other modern sci-fi TV, is that in its portrayal of the future it totally ignores any potential change in the human mind and therefore in human conduct. What is even more amazing is that this was not actually true of the original Star Trek series. It aired in the 1960, a time of deep social strife when segregation of government-enforced racism were still the norm. And what we saw among the multi-racial crew of the original Starship Enterprise was the total absence of any racial discrimination. The message was clear: In the future such irrational discrmination will not exist. But with later series this character of Star Trek largely disappeared. We saw regular modern people using amazing futuristic technology, but they were still just our normal average Joes. They thought and behaved like we would think of behave in the modern world. In the movie Doctor McCoy makes references to spanking children - something I think will be universally recognized as a type of child abuse within the next few decades. Furthermore, it is easily inferred from the conclusion of the movie that human emotions are something that surpasses and improves on logic. There seems to be a fully accepted premise that the universe can be grasped better using some other sixth sense which has nothing to do with reason and empiricism. In face, Earth is saved by the very existence of human emotions, when the gigantic alien computer which was going to destroy Earth fuses with a human and evolves to become some higher being.
And this is, of course, another symptom of the age-old "fear of machines", which science fiction has been using as an apocalyptic vision scarcely less often than the "fear of alien invasion". Both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic and logically problematic. But let's look at the very nature of man versus machine. People seem to think that machines are some cold and evil things (because they have no emotions and no 'moral standards') which rely purely on mathematics and logic - i.e. a supercomputer is the perfect Benthamite utilitarian. This is not the case, however. Machines are actually made in our image. Human beings use logic and empiricism to get by in their everyday life. All other superstitions are 'emotions' are either reactions to logic and empiricism, or they are ways to explain something that logic cannot yet explain. Machines are kind of like children - they don't create strange explanations to problems they can't solve, they simply ignore those problems as unsolvable. Our computers are not some seperate sort of creation, their programming is based on observations about the real world and it reflects our own brain activity.

All discussions of futuristic scenarions in modern discourse and popular culture are woefully ignorant of the concept of Social Darwinism - the fact that our ideas and knowledge (and therefore conduct) continually evolve towards their best adaptation to our universe. The most powerful aspect of human evolution is the continual shift in our morality and code of conduct. As Herbert Spencer put it: "Evil perpetually tends to disappear." And why is that? Simply because, as common sense dictates and as Spencer rightly observed, "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions."

Jacques René Chirac - Today's International Political Scapegoat

Yesterday former President of France, Jacques Chirac, was convicted of using public money in order to hire his own cronies and aid in his electiona and re-election efforts. And as this news item came in, I immediately wanted to play the Devil's advocate. I want to defend Monsieur Chirac against these charges, but not by saying that he is not guilty of them - far from it, in fact! I agree that he did use public funds to gain votes and approval. I agree that he gave useless and needless jobs on the public payroll to his friends. But using such arguments to condemn a man in a statist society is pretty much a diluted straw-man. Every single person who has ever held political office is guilty of these charges. Saying that Mr. Chirac is guily of them is like saying that the presence of oxygen is what caused the Great Fire of London in 1666! I can also level additional charges at Jacques Chirac. He has never held a real job (he spent all of his adult life in politics or in the "civil service"). He was a leech on the public purse all his life! So how is this making him look better, you might ask? Well, let's just say these kinds of things can be said about most politicians.
George W. Bush hired Condoleezza Rice to be his Secretary of State, and before her, he favored Colin Powell. President Barack Obama hired Hillary Clinton. So we can see that, just like Chirac, American politicians also give their own "political partners" (this is a euphemism for "cronies") jobs all of the time. And these jobs are also perfectly useless to the ordinary tax-payer. When have I ever thanked Hillary Clinton for anything in my life? She is nothing but another useless leech. And all this is done with public money. One could argue that Mr. Chirac has been very modest in his evil-doing. His budget has always been much smaller than that of the US, and he has led France through a moderately good period of history, unlike Mssrs. Bush and Obama, who collapsed the world economy along with other of their "cronies" such as Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke... the list is endless. And this applies to every state I know of in the history of the world!
Furthermore, Jacques Chirac cannot be charged with international terrorism, which we can easily charge Mssrs. Bush, Obama, or Sarkozy with. All of the men mentioned endorsed barbaric invasions of places like Iraq or Libya (Mr. Chirac did no such thing). Therefore I infer that Mr. Chirac, though just as guilty of being a leech on his own people as the aforementioned men, is at least not a genocidal maniac.

I must admit, Jacques Chirac was a bad man, but so is anyone who ever enters into or dabbles in democratic politics. In democratic politics the only way to gain and keep power is to exploit a number of the people and use those funds to pay off your own constituency. There is no other way. As the great sage Laozi said "a leader is best when people barely know he exists". So think about it, what leader do you know of less - Bush, Obama, Blair, Sarkozy, or maybe Chirac?

A Lesson in Basic Maths

The media has been in an uproar about David Cameron's move not to contribute any more British money to Euro bailouts and his dissatisfaction with new EU financial regulations. Mr. Cameron's stance is, of course, courageous and should be praised as much as a politician can be praised. Sadly, however, his veto will mean nothing in the long run. The Eurocrats have already declared that the new regulation will go into effect whether Britain wants it or not. The dictatorship from Brussels is out of hiding - they have gone public with their new Sovietesque ambitions. The British people do have a right to be offended by such actions on the part of the EU Commission. And the mainstream media has been harping on about this for the last couple days. But there is one item on this agenda which nobody has mentioned. Namely - the question of basic mathematics.
When the Eurozone is being bailed out, who is paying for it? The EU member states are paying. But where in the world are they getting this money from?! I was introduced to the concept of negative numbers back in first grade, and ever since then math has come in handy in my life on numerous occasions. So let's examine the financial situation of the EU member states. We can easily find on Wikipedia that every single European Union country in grossly indebted. This means that the overall balance sheet ends with a big "-" negative sign down on the bottom. And yet we are told these states will now pay into some Eurozone bailout fund! How in the world does that work?! A first grader can tell you that it is impossible to magically turn a negative sign into a positive sign! If that was allowed, the rules of mathematics would be null and void, and I should go find all my previous teachers and demand my record be changed so that I got a 100% correct score on every single math test I ever took in my life. Are our politicians really that badly educated? I guess public schools are to blame...

Not for the first time will I quote the following lines from Jefferson, for he said, and rightly so, that "the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."

Good Job Dave!

I would like to take a second to congratulate Mr. David Cameron for not bowing down to our EU overlords. Mr. Sarkozy seemed a bit angry at the British PM, and whatever makes our modern day "Robespierre-wanna-be" angry makes me distinctly happy. The EU has gone far enough in increasing its blatantly dictatorial powers over the financial and fiscal policies of the member states as well as their respective banking sectors. So, one again, thumbs up Prime Minister!

I also want to explain why I haven't been posting or commenting as regualarly as I'd like. I am very busy at the moment with all kinda of university issues, and I have also been working on a much bigger and more ambitious project which I hope to announce soon.

Real props to Amnesty International this time! Arrest Bush!

At one time I was quite an active member of Amnesty International. I visited their London headquarters on numerous occasions to attend talks and work within the organization. For numerous reasons (which I will not go into), however, I am no longer an Amnesty contributor. Amnesty International is the most famous organization that champions "political and social human rights", whatever those are. I have great respect for them wherever they publicize incidents to do with abridging freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and I am fully behind any of their initiatives which condemn political leaders for war crimes, torture, and holding political prisoners. This is why I was very happy a few days ago when international headlines reported that Amnesty prompted certain African states to take action and arrest former US President George W. Bush while he is on a visit to those countries. George Bush is indeed a world famous war criminal (responsible for millions of innocent civilian deaths in the Middle-East, especially Afghanistan and Iraq) and arms trafficker (he authorizes the sale of arms to other states, such as Israel - which is responsible for countless atrocious attacks against civilians). Mr. Bush is also quite famous for allowing the use of torture against not only POW's, but also civilians who had been kidnapped in US-occupied territories in the Middle-East. These prisoners are kept in concentration camps such as the infamous Guantanamo Bay. All these actions suggest Bush hearkens back to an ancient tradition well practiced in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, while using methods developed by virtuosos of evil such as Ivan the Terrible (who, by the way, shared Bush's vehement religious fanaticism and anointed himself 'God's chosen').
Mr. Bush certainly deserves to be tried for all his crimes against humanity, which are far more numerous and grandiose than anything Saddam Hussein, Osama bin-Laden, or the aforementioned Russian Tsar could have dreamed of. There is, of course, no chance of this ever happening. State officials the world over have full immunity from any action they take when in office. US Presidents are particularly invulnerable because they are protected by the largest and most aggressive military force this planet has ever seen.
In case this assessment of George Bush might seem a bit harsh to some people, especially Americans, I really would like to refer you to an expertly presented video by Stefan Molyneux – here – in which he presents the real toll of President Bush’s actions on the Iraqi people.

And I will finish with a telling quote from a man who although usually confused on his philosophy, can be a powerful orator and often have the right idea (and whose ideas I have praised on this blog before). Noam Chomsky said that "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
If this is true of anyone, it is true of George W. Bush.

Racism, Nationalism, Sports... It's Just a Game!

Recently Mr. Sepp Blatter, head or FIFA, stated that racist incidents during games should just be shrugged off by the players. They should just 'shake hands', he said, and all will be well. Because it's just a game after all. Here is a report with the part of the interview which started this controversy. People as high up as the British PM David Cameron have condemned Mr. Blatter for his statement and many have called for his resignation. Now I fully agree that FIFA is a strange corporation-type structure which seems corrupt in many ways. But there is certainly some truth in Mr. Blatter's words. Namely, SPORTS ARE JUST A GAME. I myself am a passionate sports fan, but I would not presume to ever say that sports are of any importance in the world. Sports are fun to play, fun to watch, and it can be fun to support a team or player. But what I see in the so-called 'world or sports' is just madness. Why are there racist incidents in the first place? Because someone is crazy enough about sports to abuse someone else racially over being a supporter or player of another team! This is a fanaticism bordering on that we see all the time with nationalism and patriotism - two concepts I have widely condemned on this blog.
Sports fanatics have a lot in common with nationalistic patriots and religious zealots. I tend to think people who hold a sports team as an actual value in their lives are somewhat deranged. I certainly support a team and am a loyal supporter, but I do not have any negative feelings toward supporters of other teams. I do not have any violent urges to abuse others over their own sports preferences. True, when my team loses I feel a bit bummed, and when it wins I feel happy, but none of my feelings are ever 'over the top'. But it is not so with the average raging sports fan. All this gets even more conflated when we talk about National Sports Teams. There irrational national pride mixes with sports fanaticism and creates a truly frightening combination.
In America this sports fanaticism is introduced more or less by forcable indoctrination through the school system. Each individual is pretty much destined to support the team of their local high school and then college. Nobody really seems to realize how totally out of proportion our response to simple sports has become. Colleges and universities invest millions in sports despite this having no educational value whatsoever. This is done, I assume, to breed loyalty among the student population. Young people, especially nowadays, are very susceptible to outside influence because they seem to be a bunch of nihilists (this is an empirical statement I am making after quite a few years of observation in a number of countries where I have lived). Nihilists with no principles always need some higher ideal to hang on to and give their life meaning. And those ideals are proposed by people who are all too eager to control and exploit the unknowing: States, Patriots, Relgious sects, or Secular sects (which I consider mainstream sports to be).

George Orwell wrote that "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting." I think we need to think about this. Sports are just a game people! And let's leave it at that.

Creepy Poppy Day - Spencer is right, as always

The "British people" (i.e. the tax serfs of the UK government) have been celebrating the memory of their military dead (i.e. the government's cannon fodder), especially those who died in recent interventions in the Middle East (i.e. genocidal expeditions of Mr. Tony Blair). To be honest I have had enough of seeing people all wearing poppy flowers on all their clothes, cars, and other property. I guess the poppy has a similar function to the ribbon in the USA. In that both are symbollic ways of glorifying mass murder. Maybe it is something about being raised in a Polish family, I don't know, but I have a thourough disgust for war. Even warlike rhetoric sickens me. I have no respect for any soldiers who died on missions in the Middle East in recent years. They were guns-for-hire who lost their gamble. And if these wars consisted of states fighting states, I may have a neutral stance here. After all, why would I favor one mafia ahead of another? But currently all I see is state (i.e. mafia) armies (i.e. groups of goons) attacking innocent civilian populations. Furthermore, the American government has created concentration camps (we don't know how many in total, but one of them is actually official - Guantanamo) where Afghani goat-herds are being kept and tortured for months and years at a time. The people who freed the Nazi extermination camps after World War II are now establishing similar facilities themselves (maybe not designed for mass murder, but certainly designed for kidnapping, torture, and sometimes probably assassinations).
Just because a man puts on a silly uniform does not mean he is not required to abide by the basic rules of ethics. Green or blue clothes do not entitle you or me to shoot, kill, kidnap, murder, enslave, steal, rape, pillage, or occupy. But the government seems to think it does. Maybe someone should show up at Tony Blair's house wearing green-yellow camo and show him what waterboarding feels like?

To all British citizens I raise this appeal: Think carefully before you put on that poppy. Remember the millions of dead men, women, and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. And remember what probably the greatest British citizen ever, Herbert Spencer, once said of British soldiers who took part in the British-Afghan War in the 19th Century: "When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves."

Using Children to Illustrate Morality

I have been arguing for a long time now that our morality that we use and reference in everyday life should not be any different than that morality which we teach to children. I have recently also heard this said by Anarchist philosopher Stefan Molyneux. He is one of the few people who seem to understand that there is a deeply disturbing double-standard in our ethics. Namely, we apply different ethical standards to our interactions in the private sphere and in the so-called public sphere. So here are some sample scenarios where we can clearly see this as illustrated by children.
Scenario 1: When a child plays in a common play area with other children in the park, they all bring their own individual toys. They can then share the toys, trade them, or just play with their own toys excluding those of other children. If a little boy really wants the toy of another kid, the parents can encourage him to ask the other child to let him play with it or borrow it. They certainly will not take the toy from the child to whom it belongs and give it to their own kid. And they will not instruct their child that it is okay to steal the toys of other children. This applies even if the other child has many more toys than our own child. Just because the other kid has more toys and doesn't want to share them is not a valid reason to steal them and encourage our child to take them. If I heard any parent behave in such a way, I would be outraged.
And yet this is precisely what happens when the State takes money from the rich and gives to the poor. The people with more "toys" are robbed just because they have more stuff. We do not look at why some have more, or why the poor have less. All we do is redistribute the goods. This is a fundamental inconsistency.
Scenario 2: This scenario is from my own family. When I was a little boy, my parents didn't have a lot of money and couldn't buy me that much stuff. What they did though is give me a little bit of money once in a while which I could save up and maybe buy myself some nice toy sometime down the road. They did the same for my sisters. As a child I often tended to be somewhat hedonistic, as all children essentially are until they learn otherwise. I would sometimes spend my money on ice cream and candy, and didn't save up enough to buy nice toys. My sisters, though younger, caught onto this earlier. They gave up the candy in order to buy some cool stuff which lasted. I can't say I was pleased about this - after all they now had toys and I had zilch. But this did not cause my parents to take my sisters' toys and redistribute them between all three of us! Instead, my parents told me I should have saved my money, and that is what I did from that day forward. So, once again, why is this so different from what we see the State doing?! The State takes from those who save and feeds hedonistic habits among other members of the population. I have seen this happen with my own eyes! In the UK now, for example, there are more than 300,000 households where neither of the parents has ever held a job. And these households produce a lot of children, you can be sure of that!
Will the welfare moms and dads in those households teach their children that stealing on the playground is wrong? If so, they should be aware they are shamelessly doing the same thing. Except, as adults, they should know better.

Just dump the “Euro”

I want to chip in with a few obvious observations on the recent mania involving the Euro-currency, the Euro-zone, and Euro-bail-outs for Greece and (possibly) Italy. As a rule, whenever I see the prefix “euro” before any word, I identify it as Newspeak for something. The word “euro” always sounds nice and positive to us Europeans because we love the Old World. My eyesight is not blurred by this bias, however, because I am also a huge fan of the New World. Whatever you might say about America, it is the only place on Earth where an ambitious experiment of freedom was at least attempted. So when I watched the old propaganda news (on the BBC, of course) last night, I couldn’t stop myself from laughing at all the silly observations journalists, politicians, and other experts were making with regard to the Euro-crisis. The Euro-currency is about to collapse. There is talk about kicking Greece or several other states out of the Euro-zone in order to save it, but this will be avoided at all costs by the Euro-crats in Brussels and Berlin. Why? Because doing so would be admitting defeat for the European Union project. It would seem that Europe was not ready for a common currency and common economic planning after all. And another thing that this crisis is doing also worries the Brussels crowd – there is visible animosity arising inside some nation states towards others. Many Germans (the people who contributed somewhat to dire situations in other states by controlling the Euro) are claiming that the Greeks are ungrateful and refuse to give the Achaeans any more money. Two bail-outs should be enough. The Greeks, meanwhile, are starting to feel tired of the name-calling and want the Germans to stop running their lives. I am starting to think the only thing that could change this political climate is some silly distraction. Maybe Mr. Silvio Berlusconi should start thinking about finding another teen lover or throwing another Bacchanalian orgy for former heads-of-state in one of his private mansions. Distracting the Euro-citizenry might score him a few points with other Euro-crats and will certainly boost his rating among the Italian Don Juan constituency.
But, in all seriousness, all reasonable people know that this is all a futile game. The Euro is doomed. The only way to save it would be to raise interest rates and no Euro-zone country can afford that at the moment. Even Germany would have to declare bankruptcy if interest went up another 10% or so, and we all know that Italy, Ireland, or Portugal can only take afford another 1% at most. All states have essentially defaulted on their debt already; it will never be paid or paid in hyper-inflated toilet paper money. This is true for European states and the United States as well.

So I say let’s just dump the Euro already. Joseph Goebbels once said that "If you repeat a lie enough times it will become the truth". Repetition of falsehoods is indoctrination. And if all this Euro-stuff is one thing, it is un-European. Europe is beautiful because it is diverse. A single unified Continental state you say? I say let a thousand Liechtensteins and San Marinos bloom.

Prenatal Debt Slavery – Get on it Vatican!

In today’s world we still have one seemingly possible way of becoming a slave. Eliminating the current situation of tax serfdom has to be our priority, of course, but it is no reason for neglecting other terrible side-effects of state action. One such effect is debt slavery. And the debt slavery which results directly from state action is the enslavement of the young and the unborn – people who are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. If I decide to make myself a debt slave, so be it. I may deserve it. But forcing someone else to become such a slave is another thing entirely. The state borrows money and uses its future income (in the form of IOU’s) as collateral. This means that responsibility for money spent today is deferred onto people who will have to pay it off in the future. Children being born with into debt are essentially forced to pay for the folly of their ancestors. In private relations such a scheme would be unacceptable. I cannot buy a car by giving the car dealer a piece of paper which says that in twenty years my son will pay for it. Not only does it sound ridiculous, it is also deeply immoral. Some people have told me that I am not correct and that the current situation is more akin to when a parent dies and leaves his child a house with a mortgage on it. But this is not right either. Firstly, when a parent buys a house I don’t think he/she expects that the child will have to pay for it. It is more of an accident that the parent died before he was able to pay the whole thing off. Furthermore, an inheritor of a property with a mortgage can choose to not pay it and forfeit the property to the lender. Our children will not be able to do that with the state (at least not legally). And lastly, what we are leaving our children here is analogous to me leaving a useless wooden shack with no plumbing to my children only for them to find out that there is a million dollar mortgage on it – an amount that is multiple times the value of the shack. No reasonable human being would be expected to take such a deal; forfeiting the property would be a much better idea. The children are not obliged to pay off my debts because they did not voluntarily accept responsibility for them. This is all very clear.
There is also another moral argument to be made here, and another opportunity presents itself for me to lobby the Catholic Church, of which I am now a former member but still a great fan. So, if Catholics are so against abortion, which they claim to be, why don’t they oppose taking away other rights of the unborn? The right to life is important, but the right to life is not really anything other than the right to upkeep our bodily functions and our body is also part of our property. After all, what use is the right to life if the life we live is that of slavish servitude and dependence? The right of private property is an important part of the Catholic tradition. Therefore I think the Pope should condemn all public debts as stealing from the unborn, an action equivalent to abortion.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."

The Catholic Church is Weak and Corrupt

I see more and more people within the libertarian community expressing the view that religion is dangerous and that churches are instruments of evil. While this is to some extent correct, I would like to calm everyone down. Until relatively recently I considered myself a member of the Catholic Church. I also notice that it is the Catholic Church which gets attacked most often by libertarians (despite the fact the Catholic Church is actually the most libertarian of all churches). And the reason I left the Church was not that it was forcing people into anything or doing unlibertarian things. In fact, my reason was precisely the opposite. The Catholic Church hierarchy is not doing what it should be doing. It is not condemning evil people for doing evil things and it is not expressing or enforcing its views. Being a libertarian I am a strong believer in the power of ostracism, and I think we should all exercise that power. The Church should, in my opinion, be more consistent. It's positions on many issues are jumbled and incoherent. Furthermore, Church members (especially the clergy) are not doing what I think they should be doing - pointing our evil. We have lots of Catholics who seem to agree with some Church doctrines and completely ignore others. I personally know Catholics in the United States who vote for pro-choice political candidates or socialists of all kinds. These people are not not good Catholics and they should be condemned for what they are doing. But the Church refuses to do so. Today's Catholic intellectuals represent a pathetic mockery of their Scholastic predecessors.
I do not know if this situation is the result of the times - maybe religion as a whole is becoming outdated and is in its death throes? Nobody looks as majestic on their death bed as they did in the days of their youth (with the possible exception of King Elessar). Or maybe the reason is the same as the one in government - too many cushy beaurocratic jobs and the double-standard in judging behaviour. Either way, the Church needs urgent reform which I doubt will take place. Religion, just like the political sphere of life, has to be dismantled down to the personal and private level, where individuals will have control.

Is Abp. Rowan Williams really a Christian?

Since moving back to America, I have observed quite a few people wearing all kinds of small items (usually bracelets) with the letters "WWJD" on them. I found out this abbreviation stands for "What would Jesus do?". It is a way of reminding people who claim to be Christian about the importance of their religion in making everyday decisions. You are faced with a problem and you ask yourself - what would Jesus do? Now I'm pretty sure members of the clergy shouldn't need little bracelets to be able to think like this, they are supposed to be thinking about Jesus all the time anyway. So I was very surprised the other day when I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoke out in support of the Occupy Movement protesters who argue for higher taxes on the rich and on the finance industry. I don't really know why he would support such a thing, any economist worth his salt knows this kind of motion will cripple the industry, increase intrest rates and prices across the board, and drive jobs overseas. But there is also an important moral question here (which has nothing to do with the Archbishop's apparent ignorance of basic economics).
Namely, the question is: What would Jesus do?
Now I was raised Catholic and I've read the New Testament quite a few times - and nowhere in there did I see any reference to Jesus telling people they should take the property of others in the name of justice. And this is exactly what the new tax would do. In fact, even its proponents acknowledge this. They call the tax the "Robin Hood Tax", and we all know that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor (after taking a certain comfortable provision for himself, of course). Abp. Williams should be able to explain to me how he can defend stealing. Thou shalt not steal was still in the Decalogue the last time I checked. Maybe the Archbishop needs to order a little "WWJD" bracelet for himself.
Jesus was a great man, and his followers, Christians, built a great civilization. Christians are generous and they respect human rights, such as the right of property. Christians do not coerce others and they have a respect for the Law (The Law as Frederick Bastiat defined it). This is why their civilization grew so great, it was peaceful and prosperous when compared to other cultures on this Earth. Jesus told others to give their property to the deserving poor - he did not instruct anyone to steal in order to support themselves or others who had less material wealth. Jesus was the patron of beggars, not of robbers. I hope all Christians who still claim to be faithful to him remember this one day.

To quote the Jesus himself: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21).
Sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is often a great virtue (when not taken to extremes). But sacrificing others for the sake of the poor is akin to human sacrifice, something Jesus would never be able to condone - he was a pacifist.

I can't believe I'm protecting Traveller Gypsies...

So the big news story in the UK recently is the eviction, by the County Council, of Irish gypsy travellers from Dale Farm in Essex. The whole operation will cost over £17 million (and this is a conservative estimate). Now in my whole life so far, I have never said a positive word about these gypsies. They are widely known as the lowest lowlives in England (sorry for the generalization, but that's just how it is). Some of their hobbies include: beating people up, robbing people, stealing people's cars and blowing them up, and, recently, keeping and selling slaves. The one positive thing I can say is that their children don't go to government schools (on the down side, the children don't go to any school at all and spend their time vandalizing local communities). But here in Dale Farm I have to stand up for the rights of the poor gypsies. And I don't mean any 'human rights' of decency or whatever the lefties have been going on about for the last couple days. I mean their private property rights!
I have always said that government land - land owned by any organ of the government, whether national or local - is illegitimately owned. No homesteading process took place when the state acquired that land. In England it can be argued that some property is owned by the Queen and the Royal Family, but the Shire Councils have no long-standing history of ownership or homesteading in any area (as far as I know). Now these gypsies simply found an empty field and settled there with their families. They didn't harm anyone in the process, nor did they steal anyone's property. No one was living there or using the land. Now, many years later, they are being forced out.
I would like to remind the Her Majesty's Government that this state (the UK) is supposed to be founded on Liberal principles as explained by the likes of John Locke or Lord Blackstone. The travellers may not the be the best of people and the police may have reasons to go after them, but that is to be done on an individual basis. The police have no right to evict the gypsies from legitimately homesteaded property. Homesteading is a principle I have envoked many times on this blog, and I will continue to do so. It is the process upon which all property rights are based. If the Council wants to evict the settlers, they have to present proof that the land was being used and occuped by some of their agents who 'mixed their labour' with the land before the travellers built their homes.

So, as Locke wrote about Man: "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
Who was the one mixing his labour with the land in this case? I can't be exactly sure, but on the face of it all I see is a settlemend being torn down by aggressors...

Best US Presidents Ever!

At one time I picked (in response to a horrible leftist survey) my five favourite Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I picked liberal politicians who preserved liberty and the rule of law against protectionism, militarism, socialism, or intolerance.
Now it's time for the United States, where that most famous and influential office is that of the President (or at least that's how it was before the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve took office...). Of course I don't know if these men are actually the best - we will never know that in practical terms because we don't know what others might have done in their place. But on rhetoric and action, I believe these five are my favourite US Presidents:
5.Martin Van Buren
Why Van Buren? He tackled an economic crisis with free-market reform, such as lowering government spending and taxes. Although he was the first President to be born am American citizen, he was, in my humble opinion, the last of the true liberal generation in the US. He also tried to participate in the setting up of a Third Party (the Free Soil Party, which campaigned for liberal issues such as curtailing slavery and advancing free markets).
4.Andrew Jackson
Vetoed the Second Bank of the United States - need I say more?
3.Thomas Jefferson
Probably the greatest Founding Father and the man whose writings introduced me to classical liberalism back in my teen years. The author of the Declaration of Independence. His only mistake was that awful change in the Holy Triad of Liberalism - why in the world did he change 'property' to 'the pursuit of happiness'? And he really can't go higher on the list - despite being a great visionary and philosopher, he wasn't really a good politician.
2.Ronald Reagan
The greatest American in recent decades. Grover Norquist thinks he is the greatest American President, and that is quite an endorsement in my book. He resurrected the Libertarian Republican tradition and made it a force to be reckoned with (at least in rhetoric). Nowadays you can hardly find a Republican who takes an anti-Reagan line and doesn't support small government (although as we know, most Republicans say one thing and do the opposite). President Reagan managed to get his Goldwater roots firmly planted into the Republican political scene, and we are reaping the fruits of that now with the Ron Paul Revolution. And he lowered taxes - always a plus.

1.Calvin Coolidge
President Coolidge is a little-known man. In fact, barely anyone who was educated in public schools even knows he existed! And for me that is one of the best indicators about a politician. It means he did not pursue glory - personal or national. In fact, Coolidge was known as "Silent Cal" - the quiet guy who never spoke up, but his votes and actions spoke for him. Coolidge is the only Libertarian to be President in the 20th Century. He worked tirelessly to lower taxes and prevented government bureaus such as the ICC from regulating the US economy. In an act of defiance against majority opinion, Coolidge heroically vetoed all bills which included subsidies - most famously those for the farming industry. He championed civil rights and equal rights in America for Blacks and Catholics decades before this issue really came to a head. He kept out of any foreign alliances or interventions. I can hardly think of a better portrait of a President. After the end of his Presidency, Coolidge retired from politics and lived out the rest of his life quietly and in peace.
Let's end with a quote from President Calvin Coolidge: "I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form."

Anarchism and Voting

I have decided to boycott the upcoming Polish Parliamentary elections due to the fact the party I supported was not allowed to participate in countrywide elections (despite this being unconstitutional). So far I have always maintained that despite being anti-State, anarchists should exercise their privilege to vote (or, as the democrats like to say, the 'right to vote') for the purpose of self-defense. This was also Lysander Spooner's argument - voting can be used legitimately as a form of self-defense, protecting yourself from hostile aggressors (i.e. other voters). The great Herbert Spencer argued likewise. He thought voting was legitimate because there is in fact no way to show your disapproval of state policy in any other way. Whether I would vote for one party, another party, or refuse to vote at all, most democratic demagogues would argue that I have consented to the state and that the government over me is legitimate. As Spencer puts it: "So, curiously enough, it seems that he [the citizen] gave his consent in whatever way he acted - whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this."
Obviously this is a difficult choice to make and I think it is a personal one. Any pacifists among us, for example, cannot vote because of their belief that even self-defense is not legitimate (or ill-advised). Over the past couple weeks, however, I have been leaning in the direction of boycotting all elections myself. I think that choosing a political party could potentially be an aggressive act against the portion of the population who did not vote. They did not use the voting mechanism against me, so I should not use it against them. Democracy puts us all in a very difficult position. The democratic creed is "attack others, or be attacked yourself". The Democratic state is where we really see the famous Hobbesian 'war of all against all'. Especially in today's age when pretty much every caveat of our lives has been politicized. Democratic elections end up deciding about what happens not only on public property, but also on private property and even (alas!) in our own bodies! How much more dangerous and invasive can democracy become?
I am therefore leaning more and more in the sceptical anti-pragmatic direction of ignoring all elections and politics in general.

It seems redundat to remind everyone of those famous words by Lord Acton, who said that "the one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
So let's think for a moment. Is egoistic self-defense and unjust democratic peace worth putting ourselves in the position of being those tyrants in the majority?

The Münchausen syndrome in Politics

The Münchausen syndrome is a psychiatric disorder which causes someone to fake illness in order to be cared for - it is sometimes described as an addiction to hospitals or other types of care. But there is also a version of the syndrome very common among women known as "Münchausen syndrome by proxy". The afflicted woman simulates a disease for her child - she often will actually cause damage to the child in order for it to appear sick or vulnerable. The goal of this type of behaviour is to appear very caring and devoted in the eyes of others. Such a mother gets self-esteem from others telling how well she is taking care of her very sick child, while in reality she is the one keeping the child sick, often through very dangerous means. You can read an example here.
My point is that this is more or less how democratic politicians do their work. First they create all kinds of problems in society, and then they attempt to 'fix' them for us. Many people get tricked into believing that these problems are actually natural and that the politicians are actually curing them and performing a necessary task! Many of the politicians are tricksters (they know they are doing harm on purpose just to seem like celebrities later) but I am also sure many politicians come from the part of the population who are either stupid or naive, and they really believe they are actually doing good. The great Polish publicist and writer, Stefan Kisielewski, used to say that "Socialism is the system under which people bravely combat problems not present under any other system!" And he was essentially correct, democracy is a mild form of communism after all; democracy is the socialization of political power (where extreme political equality prevails over natural ability and rights).
I strongly suggest putting all politicians through thorough psychiatric evaluation. If any of them want to legislate anything above the Natural Law, their doctors should strongly suspect some deficiency, either in intelligence, or just pure megalomania (i.e. the type of Münchausen syndrome by proxy I just described above). Either way, the best thing we could do is just stop any of these people from getting power - so let's END DEMOCRACY NOW!

As H.L. Mencken wrote "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." These imaginary hobgoblins are threats created consciously by power-hungry politicians. And the real hobgoblins (few and far between) are all created by legislation through our political class.

Fights and Duels - Legalize them please!

Today I found outrage again on some Polish forums. This time it was due to the opinions of a certain candidate for the Polish Sejm from the political party I support. This relatively young candidate, whose chances of being elected are below absolute zero, has been endorsed by some football fan associations because he is one of the hardcore fans and supports certain practices which are part of what is considered in the mainstream as "hooligan behaviour". Namely, he has spoken in support of legalization of ustawki. These are pre-arranged meetings of groups of fans who then beat the living daylights out of each other in some remote location (the location has to be remote so that they don't attract police attention). This kind of thing is still popular in Poland and many Eastern and Central or Southern European countries. An example can be seen here. As we see they are teams of equal numbers with captains, coaches, and tactics. It is all pre-arranged and the rules are agreed to beforehand.
So, why shouldn't this kind of thing be legal, even if society at large finds it outrageous? It's completely voluntary for all participants, and the doctrine I subscribe to Voluntaryism, would seem to not be violated. When I started arguing with some people that this is in no way different from boxing (an accepted and widely popular sport in Poland) people started calling me names (this I am already used to) and using stupid arguments. One of the most common arguments used was that boxers have 'medical help' available to them, and the hooligans do not. They could get hurt! First of all, this seems strangely hypocritical, since most of these commentators say they would want the "primitive hooligans" dead anyway. Secondly, this is completely illogical. Medical help does not make something moral. In war, soldiers on both sides have medics, but most wars are immoral because they consist of aggressors and defenders. Introducing medics onto the battlefield does not make the battle moral!
Another argument used is that boxing or MMA fights are essentially controlled by regulations and external third parties (such as referees) who can stop the fight at any time. But this is a doubly-wrong argument. First of all, the regulations and third parties (such as referees) only exist there because the two fighters agreed to it in the first place. If they agreed to not having refs, there would be no refs! Nobody is allowed to force third parties into a voluntary agreement (this is the second rebuttal). For example, if I find you in bed with your wife, I cannot arrest you on the charges that your common marital bed does not meet my specifications for a husband-and-wife couple. That would be ridiculous.
Equally as ridiculous as stopping behaviours such as ustawki or one-on-one duels. Even anti-liberal Alexander Hamilton would agree with me.

"Masculism - I stand for Men's Rights!"

Why do feminists always get all the attention? Are women being treated worse than men? In my very first post on this blog, back in March last year, I pointed out that as a man, I am much more likely to favour women ahead of men (even when they are not quite equally able). The whole idea of pseudo-rights of groups is laughable. It is collectivist and rejects individualism and human rights. In my opinion, as in that of any principled libertarian, all human beings on this Earth have the same rights - to life, liberty, and property. We are all equal in that philosophical and real regard.
What people don't seem to understand is that radicalising yourself leads to your own opposition becoming more radical as well. For example, after years of anti-Muslim fighting in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and other secular powers, the Taliban was born. Out of the US support for radical Israeli Zionism, Al-Quaeda was born. Simple cause and effect. This is why feminism has created an entirely opposite and, in my opinion, more logical ideology - Masculism. Masculism is the advocation of Men's Rights, which are being attacked due to too much effort to promote Women's Rights. Now let me just say, I don't think there are such things as Men's or Women's Rights. We are all equal. But due to my opposition to radical feminism, which seems to permeate today's society (although not really the society, mainly just the government and intellectual classes), I decided to pay close attention to this new Masculist movememnt, to which I can at least to some extent relate. As I said - this is to you, feminists! - cause and effect.
So here are some postulates of Masculists:
- Father's Rights: Women get custody of children after divorce far more often then men, who are stuck not having children and paying alimony. Also, women have a right to just simply decide not to become a parent of be responsible for a child (via abortion) and men have no such rights. They essentially have no 'reproductive rights' at all.
- Discrimination: All violent crimes, especially when it comes to domestic violence, are much more strictly enforced against men than against women. Women get off with light sentences for most crimes as compared to men. Also, there are often incidents where police simply do not respond to domestic violence incidents where men are the victims. And, I might add, during wartime, isn't the general principle to let the women and children live?
- Living conditions: Men are expected to work harder, often the retirement age for men is higher despite lower life expectancy. Men pay the same premiums for old age benefits despite the fact they have much lower life expectancies.
There are also numerous other issues which masculists take up which are readily available for investigation on the internet. All these issues also seem to be pretty well backed by statistics as well as deductive proofs - something the feminist movement has always lacked.

All the discourse above is, of course, strictly academic. Masculism is for me a doctrine a little bit more consistent than feminism, but I find both equally laughable. Once again, for the second time on this blog, I find myself agreeing with Sarah Grimké who said "I know nothing of man's rights, or woman's rights, human rights are all that I recognise". Amen to that, sister!

Plato was Right on One Thing

I read a very good blog post by Mr. Janusz Korwin-Mikke today, which translates into English something like this:

"Who rules in Poland?
If we listen to Mr. Janusz Palikot [a prominent Polish leftist politician] we would be under the impression that the Roman Catholic Church rules Poland. If we listen to Fr. Tadeusz [a prominent Polish priest and media owner] we would be under the impression that we are ruled by Jews. Or perhaps: Freemasons. The Freemasons, on the other hand, suggest that the European continent is being ruled by "The Great East" - a rival, leftist organization, which seeks to impersonate the Masonry. The Catholic Church states we are still ruled by post-Communists - and the socialists think our rulers are the nasty capitalists.
The capitalists say that the labour unions have all the influence. But the unionists think that liberals have taken over.
Oh - and I forgot - there are also some people called politicians who claim that the real rulers are the bureaucrats[...]"

Mr. Korwin-Mikke is a great man, a true leader of the classical liberal and Monarchist causes in Poland (which is probably why his political party has been unconstitutionally banned from this year's parliamentary elections). What he has correctly observed in the above segment is the Ship-of-State phenomenon first described by Plato is Book VI of his famous Republic. In this case, I would strongly suggest that people like Mr. Korwin-Mikke (or Ron Paul, for that matter) are those star-gazing philosopher kings. The ship ruled by Democracy can never take any course, but a disastrous one. It will be full of quarrels, fights, and agitation. Violence will break out periodically. The history of the democratic state is the history of oppression, taxation, and civil war.

So here is the whole original Plato from Book VI, read and learn:
"Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?"

Are we libertarians not often called star-gazers and dreamers with no realistic world-view whatsoever? We are the philosopher kings.

The Catholic Church and Politics

In recent times the Catholic Church has made a manifest effort to get as far away from politics as possible. The last few Popes have publicly stated that the Church advocates no political positions and have condemned priests or bishops who engage in any sort of political lobbying. In Poland priests or other Church officials who endorse politicians are severely criticized and treated as if they are people who do something wrong. But to me, this seems pretty shallow. The separation of Church and State does not imply that people involved in the Church cannot have any say in the State, nor does it mean that people who work for the State can't be members of the Church. Back in Communist days, this was indeed the case. If someone went to Church or declared themselves a Catholic, there was no way he (or she) would ever be allowed to work for the State. The separation of Church and State simply means that Church officials have no political administrative power and are not State officials (and vice versa - State officials are not Church officials). In England, for example, the Queen is both head of State and head of the Church of England. And nobody seems to have a problem with it, since the Queen no longer has any political power anyway...
But let's get back to the Catholic question: why can't the Church advise its followers (who are members of the Church) on how they should vote? For example, I think it is admirable when Church officials praise pro-life candidates and denounce pro-death candidates on the abortion question. I see nothing wrong with the Church endorsing such candidates ('pro-lifers')! In fact, I think it's very strange that the Church takes no position on political issues directly. I also think it is shameful for any Catholic to vote against the Church commandments. In the United States, for example, most Catholics vote for Democrats - why, I will never know...
I also don't know why the Church shouldn't be allowed to mandate its members to vote for someone or other. It's all purely voluntary! Labour unions regularly endorse candidates, and many labour unions are compulsory bodies. Now that is real vote extortion! Why do labour unions have more power and privilege than Churches do?
I recognize, of course, that even Catholicism itself is rather 'shaky' when someone tries to approach it systematically. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas, who was probably the greatest Catholic theologian, believed that the soul only enters the foetus 6 weeks into the pregnancy for boys, and 8 weeks for girls. Clearly this would mean that abortion up to that time is allowed. There are also many other strains of Catholicism. I attend an Augustinian University and it is visibly very different traditionally from the Catholicism I was raised in as a child.

St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest Catholic theologians and one of the most important philosophers in Western thought. He brought Aristotle back into the Western world. He recreated the logic of that great Greek - he dispelled the accursed Platonic mist which held down all Western philosophy. And it was he who said that "reason in man is rather like God in the world". That's right, REASON is our primary guide in this world. We have nothing else to support us, or back us.

Taxes are a form of Rape

I have written about this issue many times before, but never from the linguistic perspective. Language is always fascinating, and it's very important to know how our language works. English is particularly wonderful - with many Latin-based and Greek-based root-words. One of just such words is the word 'rape' (now usually defined as sexual assault). 'Rape' actually has the same roots are the word 'rapid' (quick, sudden). Since taking an interest in Latin, I have been investigating different English words and here it is obvious that both of these have their beginning in the ancient verb rapere which means 'to seize or carry off by force'. In the old days of the Roman Empire it used to refer to kidnappings and other kinds of theft or plunder. This means that if I take some of your money or property from you against your will, I actually commit rape against you.
There is a great video on youtube from an old speech made by Professor Walter Williams which more of less explains this relationship in a very good way which is easy to understand. I strongly recommend watching it!

Are current Governments 'throwing in the towel'?

Has anyone else noticed that during this campaign rooting for the opposition has been much easier than usual? I am involved in politics actively here in Poland (through volunteering and other support), but I also participate in a minor role when it comes to the USA and the UK. And I have observed a few frightening trends. In Poland and in the US, the current ruling elite is, according to me, going to simply give up! Now, they are not going to do it in the straight-forward stepping-up-to-the-plate sort of way, like Mr. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero did in Spain (his Socialist government has been such a gigantic failure that he simply said he will not try for re-election). So here is what's happening.
In the US, President Barack Hussein Obama II has destroyed the economy completely. His Keynesian stimulus has made the country poorer and the collapse of the US Dollar is imminent. That great nation is on the brink of economic collapse because of what Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke have been doing. It is their fault - it's as simple as that. If either of these men understood basic economics, they were in position to save the United States from the result of terrible governance under Alan Greenspan and George Bush (these two cronies I will not even grace with the honorific title of 'Mr'). Sadly, Obama and Bernanke simply made things much, much, much worse. So what now? I think the Democrats are going to throw in the towel and let the Republicans take the blame for the coming crash. The US will either make absolutely massive cuts next year and raise interest rates to record levels (I predict 20%) or it will collapse and the Dollar will hyper inflate. The next administration will therefore have to make a decision - entire total collapse or huge US recession? Both A and B are terrible choices! Mr. Obama and the Democrats are likely to just let the Republicans and their man (Perry, or maybe Romney...?) make the tough call. When it comes to the easy stuff, like spending other people's money, Democrats will always shout that they are your best choice. But when it comes to cuts and savings - have the Lefties ever been able to do those things?
In Poland, meanwhile, the Parliamentary elections are coming up sooner - next month. And here I also observed a similar tendency. The government (PO and PSL), instead of laughing at the opposition (PiS and SLD and RPP) in their usual manner, are warning the nation that the opposition have a good chance of winning! This despite the fact that PO is leading PiS by 10-15% in the polls! The Prime Minister is simply waving his white flag already. And why? Similar reasons to those in the US. The current government know that a recession is coming and other vital decisions are soon to be made. For example, Poland is about to participate in the new European Union budgetary negotiations. The government is already saying they would be able to get up to 300billion Euro in subsidies for Poland at the negotiations (a ludicrous and unrealistic sum). So if PiS win and negotiate anything less (which is sure to happen) then PO will simply say they are terrible negotiators! Also, the future government will be forced to deal with unprecedented public debt levels (which the current government, PO, created). PO don't want to deal with that, they will just sit back and condemn future governments for cuts and thrift...
Thank God the United Kingdom, as bad as the situation is there, is still holding on to normalcy. All the more reason for me to praise Mr. David Cameron for a job well done.

Why Britain?

Britain. I have publicly declared that perhaps I will apply for the citizenship of the United Kingdom. Even since then, people have bombarded me with questions. Usually they say that the UK is just as bad as America (it sent troops to all USA mission, i.e. colloquially speaking it is USA's 'bitch') or that it is much more socialist than other countries I have permanently been in (USA or Poland). But the truth is that I respect the UK for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it is independent. Under David Cameron the UK is a much stronger nation. Yes, it invaded Libya without any coherent purpose, but so did every other NATO country (including Poland). Britain is the only country which, in the current depression, actually has a decent government. Cameron's cabinet is not all-good and not all-free-market, but it is much better than anything the Obama administration can provide, and it is much better than anything a Mitt Romney administrations could provide. Once upon a time I did not support the Conservatives because I thought they were not Thatchetist enough, and now I still don't think they are doing enough, but they are going in the right direction.

As the great William Pitt said: "England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, I trust, save Europe by herself." This was a statement against Napoleon and the first European Union (the second one being Adolf Hitler's). Maybe I can also participate in saving Europe from the current crazy greed-driven socialist frenzy?

I agree with Jacek Rostowski, FOR ONCE!

In a recent speech in the European Parliament the Polish Finance Minister, Mr. Jan Vincent-Rostowski (aka. Jacek Rostowski), said that an upheaval in the Eurozone meant that war might occur 'within 10 years' and that he was seriously considering getting his children an American Green Card because of this. I have always said that a global economic crisis can lead to two options: global intellectual sobriety and deregulation or, most likely, nationalism and war. This (nationalism and war) is what happened after the 1930's depression, so there is no historical reason to suspect otherwise. Mr. Rostowski is actually considering that the Euro has a future, which is a highly doubtful concept to me. The US Dollar, of course, is much more likely to collapse soon, but the Euro is sure to follow. The Euro has a chance right now to shape up - the politicians could (if they wanted to) make the Euro a non-inflationary currency. It is still possible to link this currency to gold or silver, though it would take substantial reserves to achieve this. Europe is on the brink. We will either go the Adolf Hitler way (creating a union which is despotic and dependant on internal subsidies to industry, via Germany of course) or the free way. The freedom way allows for deregulation, localism, and economic freedom.
Seeing as the next speaker of the European Parliament is meant to be the Leninist Martin Schulz, I don't see the future in flowery colours. Rather, like Mr. Rostowski, I see a horrible scene of mass crime, revolution, and warfare. I don't know about all the readers of this blog, but I, myself, will be applying for British citizenship within this year (Britain is the only sane country to have stayed out the of the Eurozone and they still sport a fairly liberal democratic government - led by good neo-liberals like Mr. David Cameron).

Conservationism in Architecture and Our Heritage

Does any one generation of people or one Century alone have a monopoly on beauty? I think the answer to that is simple: no. And yet some of us tend to think that preserving old and ancient things exactly as they are or as they were in the past is a worthy goal. We can see this phenomenon in ecology as well as architecture and pretty much any field where change continually happens. This anti-evolutionist movement (which I gave the general name 'Conservationism') is very strong all over the world, but particularly here in Poland, where property rights are a very new concept and not respecting them is the norm for both citizens and government. Not only are a whole host of privately owned building here in Poland controlled by a decree by the Ministry of Culture, but a debate is continually raging on about not letting people in historical areas change their homes. In fact, people who live in these so-called 'historically significant sites' are forbidden from even changing the colours of their walls or materials from which their homes are built. They are not allowed to add any element to the structure or take any elements away (this includes both inside and outside). If the house (usually a villa, mansion, or 'Kamienica') has to be refurbished or simply just repaired, a special company has to do it, using only the same identical materials which were used in the epoch back when the thing was first constructed. This all seems pretty insane to me. Not only is a direct violation of property rights, but it is just plain stupid! A large number of the buildings which are now being 'protected' (from their own owners, I might add) were changed by former owners in the 18th and 19th Centuries - nobody had a problem with it back then. A lot of the buildings would not be half as lavish or beautiful if people were banned from ever altering them! Many Polish 'Kamienice' are 15th Century, but they have upper stories or beautiful ornaments which were added in the following Centuries. So why are we banning additions NOW?

Take the famous Vatican Obelisk, for example. It is now a hallmark of St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. But not many people know that it was actually originally made in Egypt. It was then brought to Rome by the Emperor Caligula and only moved to St. Peter's Square by Pope Sixtus V in 1586. Does this mean it must now be 'glued' in place at the Vatican forever? Of course not, that would be absurd! People move and alter things all the time. Sometimes they do so unconsciously, but most of the time they do it in order to improve their own private property. We cannot ban change, we cannot stop evolution!
Conservationism, both the architectural and the environmental kind, is a extreme form of Conservatism. Why extreme? Because whereas political or moral conservatives want to stop the evolution of people's thinking (or at least nail it down permanently to some already discovered principles), the conservationists want to do the same thing with the physical world. The physical world is changing all the time though, with or without human influence. Trying to stop it is even more crazy than trying to control people's beliefs. It all stems from a fear of tomorrow, a fear of uncertainty, a fear of risk. I pity conservationists, because they are truly pitiful people - so afraid of what might happen tomorrow, they want to make today permanent...

Brilliant Daily Telegraph Blogs - As Always!

James Delingpole and Tim Stanley are among my favourite bloggers for the Daily Telegraph (a paper which I can safely say is a good paper to read!) alongside, for instance, Daniel Hannan. I would like to recommend two of their recent and important blog entries with a little comment of my own.

1. James Delingpole - Be afraid: German ex-Chancellor demands 'United States of Europe'
Indeed, this is a news item that has been very hot among right-wing media especially online, since the former Chancellor of Germany wants to definitively put an end to localism and the right of self-determination (even when this right is misplaced by being called 'national' self-determination). And, as Mr. Delingpole wittily points out, Mr. Schroeder is not the first German Chancellor to have a dream of a United States of Europe. A United States dominated by Germany, the powerhouse of European industry, of course. This just proves what I have been saying all along - the socialists and collectivists will respond to the crisis (which was, by the way, caused by socialism and collectivism) by proposing more socialism and collectivism. They want to rob the rich and bleed them dry. Marx would be a proud man.

2. Tim Stanley - The slandering of the American conservative movement has begun
The way I see it, Democrats are fanatics. They believe in the most crazy messianic religion of them all - socialism. Mr. Stanley also names examples of strange Democratic religious practices, weird by anybody's standard I would say... And who in the world still takes Paul Krugman seriously, might I ask? That man is a raving lunatic!

Why do people love the 'Police State'? (especially in Poland)

I was born in 1990, a year after Communism in Poland was ended and organizations such as the 'Milicja' (Military Police) and the ZOMO (Motorized Reserves of the Citizens' Militia - the even more violent anti-riot squads of the 'Milicja') were disbanded. This was hailed as a great triumph. The people were now free of the aggressive military state and this was probably the biggest achievement of the whole collapse of communism according to most people (well, maybe second only to establishing democracy, which we all know was a failure rather than a victory). All countries which are referred to as 'Police States', such as former communist regimes, were characterized by no respect for private property rights, freedom of expression and speech, and the right to life. People were shot left and right (or, if they were lucky, they were just tortured and sent to labour camps) just for protesting against the regime.
Today I saw a news article about a 45 year old criminal who was shot dead by a police officer in Łodz, Poland. The police started chasing the man after another man, who was a victim of a beating, pointed him out to the officers as the perpetrator of the crime. According to the police officer in question, the man who he chased suddenly attacked him and struggled with him, causing the officer to accidentally shoot him with his gun (mortally wounding him). Now as we know from experience, the police lie about 99% of the situations they are involved in. Just this week I was approached by a police officer in Warsaw, Poland who told me I was 'looking suspicious' and searched me for drugs. Apparently this was because I happen to have long hair. Also, when I tried to protest, he told me to shut up and called me the Polish equivalent to the word 'fag' (because apparently, according to him, all people with long hair are gay drug addicts). The incident didn't end there, by the way, I had a very unpleasant night after that being put through all kinds of procedures and released only the next day. All these incidents become even more worrying when you look at the online forum comments below the article about the man who was shot dead. Around 70-80% of the comments say that the police officer should be given a medal and that more criminals need to be shot on sight instead of simply being arrested if they resist. Now for all we know this man wasn't even the perpetrator of the crime (he didn't get a trial in lawful court) and the police officer might have been lying about the man attacking him. Complimenting the police on a job well done is hardly the proper response here!
So why do people feel it necessary to condone such police atrocities? In my opinion it is because they have two choices - be on the side of the police or the side of the common street criminals. There is no alternative. Therefore they overwhelmingly choose to ignore police brutality. In an Anarcho-Capitalist order we would have many protection agencies and security forces. We could choose among them and eliminate the brutal ones. But in the world of Statism we can only choose between evils - there is no choice of good.
Competition in law enforcement, as in any other region of the economy, would bring about a swift end to abuse and exploitation. Only the Anarcho-Capitalist (and therefore a Anarcho-Monarchist) social order can provide us with the opportunity to choose.

As Edmund Burke wrote: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe". This is because the end of justice in simply and only the defense of our rights and, what follows from that, the preservation of our liberties.

The Right to Life is also the Right to Death

Suicide - people don't talk favourably of that sort of thing. But could it be said that the right to end you own life is a key natural right all people possess? David Hume once wrote a great essay justifying the right to suicide to many of its religious critics. I would approach this from a different perspective though - the perspective of property rights and self-ownership. The definition of property (as I have written before on this blog as well as countless articles and school papers) which I accept is: "that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe". This is, of course, the definition written by the great codifier of Natural Law, Lord William Blackstone. The only thing I would change in that definition is the removal of the adjective 'external' which I consider superfluous because internal things (such as our bodily organs) are clearly also our property (unless Lord Blackstone used the word 'external' as referring to all things external to the conscious mind, in which case I would agree - the physical body is external to the mind after all).
So what does property have to do with suicide? Well, since property right is despotic, it includes the right of destruction. If we own something, we may destroy it. It might not be prudent or advisable to do so, but we have the right to destroy out property. In fact, I always use this easy exercise to see if something is actually property. Just ask yourself (about the thing you are trying to determine whether it is your property) if you are allowed to destroy it. If you are, it is your property. If not (i.e. someone else has the right to prevent you from destroying it) then it is not. To be a property owner means being a despot! This is always a criticism I have levelled at so-called 'left-libertarians' or 'socialist anarchists'. They reject the despotic aspects of property and yet claim it exists. In a way, they are involved in a simple contradiction. Property is by definition a despotic right; it is a tautology to speak of it this way.
And this, in turn, means that if we own our body, we have the right to destroy it any time we damn well please. In fact preventing people from committing suicide is an act of usurpation (as defined in yesterday's post, it is the claiming of their rights for your own). If you prevent someone from killing themselves what you are really saying is "I have a claim on your right to life that is stronger than you own right to life". This is a clear breach of the self-ownership principle. The 'rescuer' is claiming ownership of the person attempting suicide. This is clearly an acknowledgement of slavery.
I write this post today because I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine today and she seemed to be very sceptical about it. We were watching a program on Polish TV which was about people who 'saved' others from suicide. The suicide 'victims' are then treated as mentally ill people. The word victim is very much out of place there by the way - am I a victim of starvation if I don't eat of my own choice, for example? I cannot be a victim of my own actions because I cannot commit a crime against myself, it is a logical impossibility.