"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.