The Evil of Appeasement

Today, 6 August 2009, marks 64 years since the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Unfortunately, the West has failed to learn the lessons of Hiroshima. Leftists everywhere use it to demonstrate the horrors of war, and talk about how great world peace would be - one of the school notices today was entitled "Pray for World Peace".

Indeed, as Ayn Rand points out, war is a terrible thing. It has taken the lives of many millions of people just over the last century, and left countless more in mourning. But what the leftists refuse to recognize is that the root of war lies in something worse than war: in statism and tyranny. When a government has declared war upon its own citizens, it is never long until the surrounding nations are next. This is the way a tyranny works: it constantly needs victims.

And this is exactly what happened in World War II. The Third Reich and Japanese Empire brought war to an unprecedented new scale throughout the world. Trying to turn a blind eye to the devastation, it took until a direct attack on American soil itself for the US to enter the war. Even then, it took the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show the Japanese the evil of the philosophy that had grasped their nation.

What this represents, as well as military appeasement, is a far greater philosophical appeasement of tyranny; after all, military force is no use without proper philosophical backing; without the forces acting for good knowing that they're acting for good. Chamberlain's pragmatism is what allowed Hitler's Germany to take over so much of Europe so quickly. Because the ideals of the Western enlightenment were thrown into jeopardy after the First World War, for several years Germany and Japan were able to spread their Empires almost without interference, whereas before the British Empire would've intervened.

One of mankind's greatest follies is the persistent belief that evil is omnipotent; that humans are born sinners and man's natural state is that of a barbarian; that evil will always be here to stay. But evil runs at the sight of good -at forces who know that they are fighting for what's right.* Unfortunately, on August 6 1945, it took an atomic bomb to instill that message in the Japanese.

If anything, the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't a lesson about peace, they were a lesson about the evil of appeasement.
_________

*By this, I don't mean some fanatical suicide bomber. I mean a man who has genuine positive beliefs about his philosophy, not someone who kills out of fear from an eternal Hell or the frustration of emotions without a basis in reason.

EFA Repealed!

Well, this crept up on everyone. Parliament has, just this afternoon, repealed the Electoral Finance Act.

Looks like Labour saw the light, too, calling the EFA a "mistake". All parties -except the Greens, whoopdie-doo- voted for the repeal.

An excellent day for free speech in New Zealand!

The Best Thing About a National Government...

...is that, in Government, the Greens are ignored. From the article:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said New Zealand should be showing leadership and focus on targets not on the rules around farming and forests.

"Our actions to exclude our largest pollution sources, can only lead to other countries seeking to do the same," Dr Norman said.

"If this happens we will undermine the talks and we will be targeted as a global climate criminal. Tourism Minister John Key will oversee a great leap backwards in our tourism industry."

So, according to Russel Norman, it's perfectly alright to try and cripple New Zealand's greatest money-making industry in the name of a completely arbitrary environmental goal, which is out of our control anyway, and whose only purpose anyway is to destroy human industry and capitalism?

And it's all kind of ironic: New Zealand's emission's are 26% above 1990 levels, compared to the great satan's (US) emissions of 14%. NZ has been, over the nine years of the Clark government, emitting more than the US above 1990 levels. The Clark Government has been one of the greatest proponents of the climate change regime, yet we've done less to get our emissions down than that all-evil US.

Which tells you how much of a farce Kyoto really is.

Terror in Mumbai

Over the past three days, terrorist scum in Mumbai have killed 150 people, injured hundreds more, and caused irreversible damage to India's largest city.

This latest attack is not the first of its kind; there have been many such terrorist attacks, committed in the name of Islam, over this century and the last. Terror has been committed in the name of Islam ever since its founding over 1400 years ago, when Muslims took over much of Europe and Arabia. The terrorists weren't poor and desperate; they didn't make demands. They were there to commit an atrocity in the name of Islam.

Yet, the West continues to ignore this. They ignored it during the later half of the twentieth century when America was targeted for allying with Israel, a country who takes the most blows of Islamic violence. They ignored it during 9/11, and in the London, Madrid and Bali bombings. They've ignored it again.

The usual suspects from the left will be crying out about how George Bush's war on terror has caused all the recent attacks in the Middle East. Take note: the Bush Administration always uses phrases like "Militant Islam", "Islamic Extremism", etc. To appease "moderate" Muslims, they make it seem that they're only fighting a small, out-of-the-ordinary group of Muslims. They always avoid using the word "Islam" to describe the ideology -ideology- that these attacks have been committed in the name of.

What we're seeing isn't a random group of people against another group of people, we are seeing a fundamentally ideological fight. The terrorists know that. The West is trying its utmost to evade it -and is paying the price.

Chinese Olympics: No Boycott

As you may have seen recently, there has been a load of debate on the NZ libertarian blogosphere as to wherever the 2008 Olympics should be held in China, due to its totalitarian government and human rights abuses, including mobile execution vans*.

I agree that China does have some serious problems with its totalitarian government, still communist in many respects. But it's for those reasons that I'm NOT for the boycotting of the 2008 Olympics; they could be ideal in shedding light on the current regime in China -just what it's been doing recently.

Up until now, commentators on both the left and right have been largely ignoring China's totalitarian aspects, instead focussing on China's recent economic boom, which has had a great effect in creating a Chinese middle class and getting many Chinese out of poverty. Most of this phenomenon occuring in China, however, has been largely concealed to the Exclusive Economic Zones and big cities. Outside of these growth-magnets, many Chinese still live in squalor, under an oppressive government that, despite the lift of regulations and introduction of some property rights since the 1980s, is still essentially communist, especially in social and political terms. Many of these people go to live in the cities to work in the factories, with very little money.

So, hopefully these Olympics will shed light on the plight of Chinese people who haven't been able to escape to the glitzy, Capitalist cities. It all depends, however, on whether the world wants to watch.

And while China's government is a concern, I wonder if it is the primary reason behind John Minto and other figures of the far left organizing protests and raising lefty "awareness" of the situation in China. Many of these people -whether in London, Paris, San Francisco or NZ- were wearing Mao badges 30 years ago, and not just because it was "the thing". China was FAR WORSE back then. I suppose they just hate the Capitalist elements that have been introduced since then, and the fact that a big, evil bourgeois class has been created.

But, at the end of the day, the only nation that can tame the tempered Chinese Dragon is the United States. Luckily, they, unlike Europe, actually act on their values and beliefs.

*Ever wondered why China's imprisonment rate is less than in the US!?

China FTA

So, New Zealand, in a few days time, is going to have a revolutionary free trade agreement with China, the first Western nation to do so. And as usual, John Minto and his group are out protesting in force, trying to end any economic ties which might, in time and in force, actually contribute to the freeing-up of China in other areas.

It is true that the treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese Government is to be questioned. But one question: how will a free trade deal such as this one contribute to the (supposed) violence and mistreatment? A free trade deal doesn't mean that China as a whole, or the government, is trading with New Zealand -individual businesses are. A free trade deal would also contribute to the flow of citizens between the two countries, which means that New Zealanders have more prominence there than they would without the deal.

A free trade deal doesn't necessarily mean that Kiwi jobs are lost, either. Instead, it gives us a chance to specialize. Just as China is flooding the NZ market with cheap goods, we can export products, such as meat and diary goods, to them. China is a HUGE market, and New Zealand has to look for its niche there -like Western Australia has done with its raw materials (and look at them!).

Free Trade means that the two countries can engage in more peaceful business activities, and corporations in either country can learn off corporations in the other, and become more flexible. Free Trade also means more flow of capital resources between the two countries.

Free Trade has had innumerable benefits for many countries throughout history, and a NZ-China FTA will not be different in its overall outcome over the course of several years. Free Trade is good for opening countries up and making them more transparent, moderating and/or ending government-imposed violence, such as in Tibet. Free Trade acts as a check on a nation's military record, and has been very successful in stopping international conflicts. The benefits from a nation acting in its rational, economic self interest will always outweigh the perceived "benefits" from a nation acting in its irrational, political self-interest.

Fidel Castro Resigns...

...and good riddance. The murderous dictator, famous for shooting people trying to escape to the US down in the Gulf of Mexico for shark food, has finally resigned and handed over full power to his brother Raul. Although Raul is no better, let's hope that Cubans will finally start talking out about the third-world conditions they have been suffering for 50 years, and the communist regime there will come to a peaceful end.

In other news, Kosovo has finally declared independence from Serbia. Especially with the Russians ardently against Kosovo's independence, let's see how long this lasts.

Labour's Public Beheading

If there's any better argument against the Electoral Finance Bill, it'll be coming next year. As I've discussed below, the Electoral Finance Bill is the primary reason for Labour's recent slip in the polls -and the rise of National so that it can govern alone.

Democracy isn't perfect, but when it comes to legislation like the Electoral Finance Bill, voters can use their power to oust the government that enacted it, and, at the least, influence future governments to repeal it. In a free and fair democracy, regardless of how much advertising is put up to influence voters to change their minds, truly terribly acts like this will never keep any government in power for long.

The Electoral Finance Bill won't destroy Labour because it'll lose support from the centre, it'll destroy Labour because of loss of support from the left. Hone Harawira, a hard Maori Party leftist who detests anything white in NZ, has come out in direct opposition to the Bill. Tim Shadbolt, the mayor of Invercargill, has done the same thing, promising to break the law. The Maori party, who generally vote with Labour on most issues, stands in the opposition. Unfortunately, the Greens who generally have a good track record on issues of free speech, have followed Labour like the headless chickens they are. The Human Rights Commission, the Law Society and even Greenpeace (!) have voiced opposition to the Bill, although whether Labour will be hypocrites when it comes to leftist violations it yet to be seen (which it probably will be).

Add on the complete lack of support from the middle class, and you get a beheading spectacular in nature.

Slavery -Essay For School

Slavery -By Callum McPetrie

Slavery was an institution as old as humanity itself. It meant the ownership of one person by another, meaning that the slave was legal property. Often, the slave had to work constantly in bad conditions, and it was their owner who decided everything about their life. Although some owners were kind to their slaves, and gave them a certain amount of control over their lives, this was not often the case, especially in the early 19th Century when mercantilism, which propped up colonies around the world by the European powers, was in charge.

A History of Slavery

Slavery had been around for a very long time before then. Slavery was a commonplace institution in Egypt, where the pyramids were built off slave labour, and Ancient Rome, where people of conquered regions were made slaves (in fact, the word “slave” is said to have come from the word “Slav”, which was the race of people Romans made slaves most often). Slavery was also commonplace throughout the East, in China and the Indian sub-continent.

In the Dark Ages in Europe, and to a lesser extent Britain, slavery was replaced by serfdom. Serfs were similar to slaves in many ways. The Serf was tied down to a certain area of land, and worked in similar conditions to slaves who also worked on farms. Serfdom was a consequence of the feudal economic system in Europe at the time. It relied entirely upon agricultural output, so serfdom was considered inevitable. Life as a serf wasn’t easy, and many rebellions broke out because of it. Russia was the last country to abolish serfdom, which came about in 1860 under Tsar Alexander II. In most countries, however, it was abolished hundreds of years earlier.

In the 15th Century, Europe was on the rise again. As a result of the new mercantilist economic and foreign affairs policies in European countries, Europe looked for new land on which to build colonies, which led to explorers of the time like Columbus, who discovered the Americas in 1492 and carried many slaves on his ship, and Magellan. Mercantilism and colonization first became popular in Portugal, which started the slave trade, and Spain, before spreading to Britain, Holland and France.

In order to make mercantilism profitable, slavery was reinstitutionalized. Slaves were brought from Africa, both to Europe and its colonies, especially the Americas. Both the slave trade and work as a slave were brutal, and incredibly dangerous. Many slaves in the colonies did the same things that serfs did, which was to work on the land. Slaves, however, did far more dangerous work, usually on cotton plantations.

Enlightenment, Economics and Abolition

But in the 18th Century, the tide was turning against slavery. The Enlightenment was at its height, which produced many great minds dedicated to the principal of individual rights and freedom –which stood in direct opposition to the principles of slavery. Mercantilism was being attacked by the economists of the day, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who promoted capitalism –the economic system that logically followed from Enlightenment principles. As well as these men, many people opposed slavery on moral grounds, such as William Wilberforce. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, the great debate of the time wasn’t capitalism vs. socialism; it was capitalism vs. mercantilism and the aristocracy, opposed to change -and pro-slavery. The latter included many of the English writers of the time, such as Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens. Because of the economists’ opposition to slavery, the writers called economics “the dismal science” –a modern phrase that came from the pro-slavery conservatives of the time.

Two countries took the lead in the crusade against slavery: the (northern) United States, which was very new at the time, and Britain. The northern American states became some of the first places in the world to abolish slavery outright, and the founding fathers were planning to put a clause in the US Constitution to abolish slavery, which was rejected by the south. It took a long, gruesome civil war to get the southern American states to also abolish slavery. It should be noted here that the south was agricultural, and because of this slavery was commonplace, and the south was worse off than the north.

Britain, led by William Wilberforce and influenced by the great economists of the time, abolished the slave trade in 1807. This came at great expense to the government, which happened to be fighting in the Napoleonic wars at the time, and outlawed slavery outright in her empire some thirty years later –the first country in Europe to do so.

Abolishing slavery came at great expense to Britain. But over time, their investment was paid off. Slavery prevented slaves from using their talents to the best of their ability, instead consigning them to brutal physical work. After the abolition, slaves were somewhat freer to use their talents to the best of their ability, which greatly helped the slaves and the economy as a whole. It was on this premise that the economists advocated the abolition of slavery.

Other European countries abolished slavery soon afterwards. In France, the French Revolution of 1789 helped towards this, but France soon found itself in the dictatorial grip of Napoleon. It took another revolution, that of 1848, which also took place in Austria-Hungary and Prussia to properly set things straight.

The Effects Today

Slavery affected, and continues to affect, many people in a bad way. This is why decolonization was widespread after WWII. Slavery is outlawed everywhere, except in shady countries in Africa such as Sudan, where people still own slaves.

Slavery had the effect of dividing people into races, an effect which is still felt today, although not as greatly as it used to be felt. This led most importantly to the civil rights movement in America, where race riots were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Many societies still have a degree of racial division that can trace its roots back to slavery in the mercantilist era, and some of the problems associated with race today. Even so, the average African-American has as high a per capita GDP as the average Swede –which is 1/3 lower than the total American average.

In Europe, division of races is an increasingly large problem, which occasionally breaks out in riots in France. Germany and Switzerland also have similar divisions, which are manifest in their laws, especially immigration from North Africa. Immigration is a larger problem in Europe than the US, as immigrants tend to put money into the country in the US in the form of productivity, and take money out in Europe, usually in the form of welfare benefits.

Conclusion

Slavery was a horrid institution in human society, and considered normal for most of human history. It took a revolution of thinking in the 1700s to change this, and revolutionary economics, based on man’s mind as his highest asset, not the hands he slaves with.

Modern slavery came about as a consequence of mercantilism. Although it could be argued that mercantilism has its benefits, its costs were far greater. Mercantilism was also a system of government intervention, not of free markets. The move to the free market was one of the reasons slavery was abolished.

It was the great and courageous minds of the day that had slavery abolished. For that and for other reasons, we have to thank those minds for the prosperity enjoyed in Western nations today.

Hugo Chavez NOT "Dictator Perpetuus"!

In a smart move to combat Hugo Chavez's dictatorial ambitions, the Venezuelan people have voted in a referendum against Hugo Chavez being named "dictator for life" in Venezuela. Even so, those are still his ambitions. But still, a good step away from socialism and the trash heap of the world, in a nation that prefers capitalism more than the US.

I can imagine why. With the country being the incredibly dysfunctional, corrupt and dangerous it is (its murder rate is nearly 7 times that of the US), it's just not a place you want to be.

Hitler and Islamofascism

Hitler was one of the most murderous tyrants of world history. He set off a great war that killed countless millions of people, killed innocent men and women on an incredible scale, and was the centrepiece of a philosophy -fascism- that still today continues to slaughter innocent men and women. A form of this tyranny and terror beyond words is the system that exists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine.

The similarities that exist in these countries are very similar to those of Nazi Germany:

Murderous tyrants and fanatic supporters: Hitler slaughtered millions in his day. Evil men such as Ahmedinejad still hang gays in Iran, and then boast in America about there being no gays in Iran! Another example is the recent lashing of a Saudi women for being in a car with men not related to her- and then raping her! Or the "death to Denmark, death to America" placards and riots that ensued after a brave Dane dared to publish portrays of Mohammed in a magazine. 9/11, and the Madrid and later London bombings. It all hails back to an era when Nazi supports burnt down the shops, homes and livelihoods of Jews, Poles, or anyone Hilter didn't like. And the constant excuses for carrying out murderous actions.

Evil philosophies: Islam isn't a "religion of peace" (this will be discussed later). Fascism was, and continues to be, an extreme form of statism, in which all power is given to a select few in the state. It is built on Nietzsche's concept of the superman. The Islamofascist philosophy of radical Islamists is merely an Islamic twist on normal fascism. The same goes with Ahmedinejad's theocracy in Iran, which is a cross between middle ages theocracy and modern Islamofascism. As seen in the example given above, Saudi Arabia is the same.

Islam is a religion. As has been said on SOLO (and this goes for all religions), it is a "stinking superstition". Although the adjective "stinking" can certainly be used to mean events happening under Islam's name as we speak, the "superstition" part applies to all religions. Because religion - belief in what may be true to guide us in life - is in direct contrast to knowing what is true, to guide our life on this Earth. Islam, in its current post-enlightened state (the Islamic "enlightenment" of the Middle Ages was achieved by men acting in their self-interest to advance their life on Earth) resembles Christianity during the Middle Ages. Or the worship of Hitler during WWII.

Pragmatic Supporters: The great majority of Muslims, both in the West and in the Middle East, are good people. The problem with these people - and admittedly there are some people who do speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion - are pragmatists. They live their lives, follow their religion, and don't think twice about Islamofascism. The same was true with the Germans in under Hitler. Although it's hard for Muslims to speak out against a regime that terrorizes them, and the same was true with the Germans, what annoys me is the lack of speaking out by free Muslims, in the West. Instead, they're too preoccupied with yelling about Mohammed cartoons, or refuting claims like mine that Islam can lead (and often will lead) to evil regimes and tyrants.

It's this pragmatism that refutes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. If that were so, there would've been demonstrations all over the world in response to 9/11, and Ahmedinejad would've been long overthrown. It wasn't until after WWII that the Germans saw Hitler's evil. Under a true "religion of peace", that wouldn't be the case just over the horizon.

Western Appeasement: I'm not one of those people who believes in going and blowing up Iran now. But then again, Hitler hadn't invaded anyone until what, 1937? Just two years before WWII started.

However, what was disgusting during WWII was the West's complete inability to do anything. Even when he started invading, no one was smart enough to stand up to his reign of terror until Churchill came around. America didn't enter the war until it got bombed itself. This appeasement allowed Hitler to take half of Europe in weeks. There should be no such appeasement toward today's Islamofascist regimes, and if they do attempt to invade, the West should be on it in minutes.

And the other part of Western appeasement is the PC attitude towards it all. The West should have no fear in denouncing Islam and Islamic regimes, for what they have created where they have been tried. And if anyone's offended... too bad! Free speech includes the right to be offended!

It's these four things that have contributed to the barbarism committed under Islam in the Middle East today. And unless these issues are dealt with in a consistent, objective manner, things will only get worse.

Ahmedinejad was Right

It turns out there are, in fact, no gays in Iran. From the New Zeal blog:



..."over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Altogether, an estimated 100,000 Iranians have been put to death over the last 26 years of clerical rule". Lovely man, Ahmedinejad.

Adolf Ahmedinejad in NYC

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has spoken his usual filth in his visit to the Big Apple yesterday, but luckily, it was to thousands of rowdy protestors.

The stupid thing about this visit is that it has been done in the name of tolerance and free speech-tolerance for an evil dictator, and the free speech for him to speak his normal filth, denying the existence of the holocaust and openly supporting sharia law and terrorism.

A trip to Iran is in order to find out what "tolerance" and "free speech" really mean to Adolf Ahmedinejad.

September 11, and Islam Versus the West

Yesterday (American Eastern Time), six years ago an act of war was committed against the West, and its underlying values of individualism and capitalism. It was committed by a group of Islamic extremists, acting in the name of Islam and the Medieval value system that it currently implies. The acts weren't just random bad acts committed for a random reason, like the Oklahoma City bombings half a decade before. This was an act of war, against the West and its incredible achievements of man's mind.

In response, America itself started a war against Afghanistan, where many Islamic extremists were hiding at the time with the help of the oppressive Taliban government (and it should be noted that not a great deal of progress has been made).

The War on Terror is not a war against religion, or particular nations per se, it's a war against the underlying values of the Islamic extremists that want us and all we stand for in the West all dead, and for a new Islamic medieval period to sweep the world.

Right now, the ideals of the West and the ideals of Islam are not compatible. Indeed, the same was true with Christianity until the Reformation and Protestantism came along, and one outdated and primitive value system was replaced with another updated and liberal value system. Christianity became more liberal, and free speech was allowed. Without this reformed Christianity and value system, there would've been no enlightenment, no industrial revolution, and the world wouldn't be particularly different today than what it was back in the 1500s.

Unfortunately, Islam has had no Reformation. It is still a religion similar to what Catholicism was in the Middle and Dark Ages, when people were burned at the stake and sacrificed daily in the name of God. Its value system is also similar. Until the Islamic value system is replaced with a new set of values, until its own little Reformation, we can expect the same outcome of the same values: torture, oppression, murder and terrorism.

Stupid Putin

I've never liked the Neo-Nazi Tzar of Russia known as Vladimir Putin, but he's just reached a new low. After reacting the way he's done, it's little wonder why America needs a "shield"!

He claims that America is building its shield to protect the West from the Russians. Although it would be a good idea to use this shield in case Russia did attack, the shield's primary purpose is instead to protect the West from the rogue states and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. The planned shield, which is in fact a number of missiles located around Eastern Europe, was ruffling very few feathers internationally until Putin started complaining.

The main reason, I believe, for Putin's outrage is to get the media attention he's been craving for. He's used the incident as a platform to attack other nations, namely, Britain, about the Litvinenko controversy and Britain's allowing of Berezovsky, the president's main rival, to stay and work in Britain.

Putin has been threatening European nations since the whole ordeal started, and is using very little in the way of diplomacy. He's an uncompromising dictator who will revert back to Soviet methods to achieve his ends. 74 years of communism, 16 years of supposedly "democratic" rule, and the Tzars have never left.

National Roles in Today's World

This very intriguing graphic has got me thinking about the roles nations play in the world today, about recent wars, and about how all-encompassing force of Globalisation is reshaping national rolls in the turbulent world we live in today.

In the graphic, some pictures are shown of American cemetaries in France, where soldiers died in both World Wars. In both, America had an isolationist policy of "don't get involved unless completely necessary".

-In World War I under President Woodrow Wilson, America stayed neutral to the conflict until 1917, when it decided to get involved, on the side on the Allies against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the war, America along with member of both sides decided to sign the "Peace Treaty of Versailles". Because of the Treaty, Germany had to pay reparations. An armed force was banned and much of Germany's former territory was lost. America was one of the founding members of the League of Nations.

-In World War II, America once again had a neutral position (although it was widely believed that President Franklin Roosevelt was looking for a justification to enter). In the end, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and it was Hitler who declared war on America, not the other way around. Just as in World War I, America decided to join France on the Western Front, while also fighting the Imperialist Japanese in the Pacific and in Asia. Once again, Germany was on the losing side.

The two World Wars had something very, very similar. In both, the nations in Western Europe-particularly France-were losing out badly to Germany. America, which remained Isolationist well into both wars managed to change all that. By no means is America wholly responsible for winning both World Wars. But if America had decided not to get involved, France would've been far more destroyed the Germans than what it was, on two different occasions.

In all conflicts America has gotten into until the Iraq war, America had been on the defensive. In the Korean war, and in Vietnam, America had always been defending the attacked nation. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the Cold War was on. America and the USSR had been locked in a rivalry for superiority. Neither wanted to be destroyed, so neither-with the exception of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan-neither nation dared lift a finger.

The Cold War is over. There is no more rivalry between Capitalism and Communism. Communism was destroyed. Millions of people across the world were liberated. Great deals of them rejoiced.

However, with Communism destroyed, a new problem arised. It was not Al-Qaeda, which, with some serious effort on the West's behalf, could be stomped out. It was the fact that there was only one remaining superpower in the world. I'm certainly not anti-America, but America, being the only state in the world today that is a superpower, is, as its latest actions in Iraq have shown, can be dangerous. I refer to Ayn Rand's famous quote on government's relation with human rights:

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights; it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."

That applies not only to government power at home; governments can be just as tyrannical overseas.

A solution to the problem of only one superpower is to create another superpower, to become a Pluralist world again. This could potentially work well if one keeps the other in check and both respect Civil Liberties. However, there is no other nation in the world today that could fulfill that role sucessfully. The EU might be a candidate. But do we really want a continent that has been been through two world wars and will do, ultimately, do little to keep the world in order as a superpower?

The Libertarian solution is to create a Constitutional Amendment restricting government power overseas, not just in America but in all nations. And war, isn't the best way to create countries. Instead, nations should focus more on developing markets in once restricted economies. Capitalism, as history has shown us so many times before, is best at getting a country out of poverty, its government in order, and for it to introduce more Civil Liberties and Liberal Democracy. War only makes a nation go backwards. American intervention in Iraq has shown that. And I'd be willing to bet that the Iraqi people will be controlled by another dictator in 20 years time.

Saddam Hussein Executed

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html

It's true: Butcher of Baghdad Saddam Hussein has finally been hanged.

Across the world, there have been celebrations en masse celebrating his death. After Saddam died, a group of people danced around the body.

It's the end of a rather terrible era for the Iraqi people, who have lived in fear for the past 35 years, and have experienced three wars under Saddam's regime.

Good ridence, I say.

Socialism, poverty, the class system and Democracy

It is often widely cited by Socialists, many Communists and other idiots from the far left that Socialism and Democracy are a harmonious pair of ideologies, made for each other, grown up with each other and naturally work well together. Despite the hundreds of examples from the past which show the exact opposite, the far left-and indeed, the left in general-continues to believe that Socialism and Democracy work best together. I am going to prove that that is not true.

A Socialist society, like any society, needs a group of individuals-the government-to do certain tasks, like provide certain services. In a Socialist society, this group does far more than it'd otherwise do. The main task the government undertakes would be ensuring complete "equality", using processes such as compulsory income redistribution and government handouts. "Equality" and compulsory income redistribution are contradictory of one another. Compulsory income redistribution, the means to the "equality", is immoral, as it is theft.

As it is compulsory, the income redistribution is theft, as it is forced out of your pockets and your salary for those who are supposedly "less fortunate" than the rest of us. A better desription would be "because Billy is less 'fortunate' than Harry, Billy automatically has a right to a percentage of Harry's money".

The "equality" in the Socialist state would mean that just enough money would be taken from Harry to make Billy equal with him, on top of Billy's income.

But, consider this: how are people "equal" if someone get taxed more than someone else? How are people "equal" if someone is forced to cover two people's expenses when someone else only has to cover half of someone else's expenses?

The (easy) answer: it's impossible. Although Billy and Harry would have the same amount of money after tax, all other expenses excluded, Billy was treated better because he was poorer. He was, in terms of treatment by the state, higher up the class ladder. He got money from the state and Harry's money got taken from him. Therefore, there was ultimately no equality at all.

The result from this can only be one thing: the incentives to work are destroyed. The economy slows down, stops and starts reversing. Jobs dwindle and the nation gets poorer. Then the benefits gradually get smaller, the government can no longer keep up, and eventually collapses.

Most people will say we are a far cry from this nightmare scenario. Although what they say is true, we are, quite clearly, in the first stages. We also seem to be moving at a faster and faster pace as we go along.

Now for the second part of my post.

Put frankly, in a Socialist society, Democracy can't exist. The majority making the decisions is dangerous to equality, especially in Presidential elections, as the current Socialists could be voted out and replaced by a band of, say, racists. The whole idea of equality would be turned on it's head. A solution put forward by Socialists (and yes, I am sick of saying that word) is similar to the solution put forward by Libertarians to protect freedom: a constitution.

However, let's face reality. A Constitution is really only a piece of paper with a few words written on it. It's only useful if it's abided by. Given the opportunity, people will disobey the constitution for their own ends (look at the government of the USA).

An argument by Socialists at this point could be that the ideas of equality and Socialism could be passed down from generation to generation, ensuring the state keeps to those ideas. Those people could then run for President.

Although that is a possibility, there is another problem with Democracy in a Socialist state. It is the fact that other non-Socialist advocates could run for President. Because of this threat, the state must at least surpress these people, or prevent them from running for President. If that were so, all candidates would be Socialists. There would be no real choice.

These political conditions, coupled with the economic effects of "equality" I have posted above, can only result in one thing: dictatorship.

Russia-Really Free?

Following the death of ex-KGB spy and Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko, it is time for the West to seriously start considering the freedom in post USSR Russia. This is a country where the media is run fully by the government, and for the benefit of Russian President, Vladimir Putin. As we have seen from the deaths of Putin critics throughout his reign in power, Russia is still very much state-controlled.

The death of Litvinenko is only one in a long line of assassinations of Putin critics. Barely two months ago, Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist exposing corruption within the Russian army, especially in Chechnya, was found dead outside her apartment. Putin responded by saying "her murder brings much more harm to the Russian authorities than her publications".

On top of these two murders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based organisation promoting freedom of the press, called Russia the third most dangerous nation in which to be a journalist. The committee also said that Putin "has brought much of the once thriving post-Soviet media under indirect government control through the use of punitive tax audits and hostile takeovers. All three major television networks are now in the hands of Kremlin loyalists".

In July earlier this year, the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Centre did a survey of Putin's popularity in Russia. It reported that 87% of all Russians supported him as President, and 60% had full confidence in him up until and during the time the survey was conducted. Such numbers are never reached in other Western Liberal Democracies in peacetime.

Litvinenko, who worked for the FSB (the Intelligence Agency after the Soviet Union broke up), was a Russian dissident who fled to the UK for the final years of his life, where he wrote his books. In the UK, he was granted citizenship and political assylum. He accused the Russian government of the assassination of Boris Berezovsky, a billionaire.

In one of his books, Litvinenko stated that Putin's rise to power was a coup d'eat organised and carried out by the FSB.

Litvinenko was hospitalised on the 1st of November. He died three weeks later, of polonium-210 radiation poisoning.

Litvinenko's books include "Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within" and "Gang from Lubyanka". In both he makes allegations that the FSB were carrying out terrorist attacks in Russia and blaming the attacks on Chechen terrorists, and that Vladimir Putin was involved in organised crime. Litvinenko also accused Putin of being a paedophile. He stated that "all the bloodiest terrorists of the world" had connections to the FSB.

So how can a government that kills journalists and political dissents possibly be a Free Western Democracy? Until Putin removes his controls on the Russian media and brings the FSB under control (to stop it killing fellow Russians) his nation can't be considered "free" or a "democracy". However, we have to wait to see if that happens. Like my father said:

"The Communists have reinvented themselves as Fascists".

Sources: Wikipedia-Alexander Litvinenko, Vladimir Putin

Hugo Chavez wins Venezualan Election

Monday, 4th December 2006

Hugo Chavez has won the election in Venezuala, claiming it to be "another defeat for the devil who wants to dominate the world", refering to US president George W Bush.

Mr Chavez vowed to start a socialist revolution, and saluted Fidel Castro. "More than 60% voted for the socialist project" Mr Chavez told cheering supports from the balcony of the presidential palace in Caracas, the capital of Venezuala. He said that his supporters "voted for 21st century socialism, this new era of social democracy".

Hugo Chavez became Venezualan president in 1998. Venezualan law prevents him from running again until 2012.