Thank you for visiting this webpage. We hope this website and its
links will become an increasingly useful resource. Feel free to Add
your name & comments to the Guestbook!
American conservatives and libertarians believe in using constitutional limitations on the scope of government in order to secure enclaves of freedom for people and their non-violent market affairs. By contrast, today's American "liberals" (more accurately welfare-state fascists) believe in making more and more people dependent on big government by imposing high taxes and regulations and controls on the peaceful people. The following websites are among the best at no-BS explanations of the pro-freedom perspective:
Buddy:
I agree; the only thing "idealistic" about socialism and U.S. "liberalism" (welfare-state fascism) is that their "ideals" are unattainable in the real world while they help mask or excuse the true Atillaist nature of their system of legal plunder. For example, the "liberal" Demokrats' Great Society welfare-state programs have failed to defeat poverty, but instead have tended to make more people dependent on Big Government. Yet, those who advocate reform or cuts in "social spending" are called "heartless" and "mean-spirited" by the Demokrats and their media mouthpieces. Sowell is one of my most favorite writers! Thanks, again. You may say I'm a dreamer -- but, I'm not the only one. We hope some day you will join us -- and we can all be as one!
Actually, private enterprise and private property technology have solved far more human problems than the ham-handed, one-size-fits-all approach of Big Government bureaucracy. Government should be restricted to its proper funciton of protecting peaceful people from crime and foreign aggression -- violence -- not in meddling with our private affairs and voluntary (market) relations. Government has no legit business sticking its nose in and meddling with capitalist acts among consenting adults. Well, I believe your eulogy for America is a bit premature. Yes, the U.S. has followed England and Holland down that pink brick road of welfare-state fascism and socialism, but there is nothing in the nature of things that says it cannot reverse that. After all, England repealed 10,000 "corn laws" in the 1840s. There are good people in America who still seek to solve economic and social problems without resorting to coercive government programs and regulations and taxes like a hypochondriac reaches for feel-good pills. The problem you cite about jobs leaving the U.S. is not caused at root by private enterprise but by domestic government regulations and taxes which artificially create disincentives to keep factories here while encouraging their transfer to other lands. The solution is not more government regulations and controls and taxes, but just the opposite. Countries which have pursued the failed mercantilist doctrines of the past have lost out in international marketplace. Spain, once the ruling nation of the high seas, sank to a fourth-grade national economy as a result of centuries of wrong-headed mercantilist policies. It is only relatively recently that Spain has begun to reverse those policiies and is making something of a comeback. Japan, and its regulatory bureaucracy (MITI) pursued similar policies and they backfired on the "planners"! Everywhere you look, rfeal freedom works better than coercive busybodyism, mercantilism, modern "liberalism" (welfare-state fascism) and socialism. Good intentions do not produce good results unless accompanied by the right policies. Government "planning" screws up production and trade. Libertarians are the ones who believe in private responsibilty -- not those who worship the false god of government and politics. In the U.S. public schools are administered by government by defintion; they are forms of socialism -- since the educational enterprise is owned and operated by the political state and the School Board members are generally elected locally. It is democratic socialism in practice -- and is a failure. Look at the record! Home-schooled kids run rings around overnment-run schools. No one has a "right" to force others to pay for their kids' "education"; that is the beginning of evil in society. None dare call it mass legalized theft.
I challenge you to check your premises. Check out the "other side" and not just the propaganda spewed out by the "liberal" (neofascist) Demokrats like Gore and Gephardt and Hillary Klinton and Teddy Kennedy. Their old, stale collectivist ideas have been tried -- and found wanting. It is high time America reegained its roots in freedom and the Constitution.
You may assume that society would fall down flat if government didn't do everything for us, but I can show that isn't so. Traditionally, America had a small, unintrusive central government. While it is true that a strong national defense is necessary in today's world, it accounts for less than one-fourth of the entire federal budget. Do we really NEED a Dept of Energy? Or a Dept of "Eduation"? No! The U.S. did much better throughout its history without such worse than useless agencies. The only proper role of government is to protect peaceful people from those, like criminals or foreign aggressors, who would violate their rights by initiating violence or fraud on them. When government goes beyond that it not only results in counterproductive and unintended consequences, but also violates the rights of peaceful people to their lives and properties. Thanks for your comments in the Guestbook of my crude, still-evolving
website. I am glad you find libertarianism appealing; it is the only political
philosophy that consistently advocates freedom in a social context. It
is true that it is based on the principle of individual rights to person
and property from the initiation of the use of violence by others. But
I would like to attempt a few brief answers to some of your questions as
I believe you may be laboring under a misunderstanding about what "individualistic"
and "individualism" imply. But, having said that, in the real world of freedom and market capitalism,
increasingly fewer people would be in the position of having to do without
healthcare or education because of a lack of financing. In a free market
society, with no income tax or tax on capital gains or inherited wealth,
capital would soon accumulate to levels which would bring the standard
of living so high that even the poorest would be able to afford health
care and education. The government schools have failed to provide real
education, especially in recent years. Government intervention in medical
care has driven up health care costs to the stratosphere. Who does this
hurt? The rich? No. It hurts the relatively poor. The abundance produced
by market capitalism will drive the costs of healthcare services down to
affordable levels. MRIs will probably never be free of charge, but when
people are free to save and invest more of their own earnings, their healthcare
resources will be much more than what is now rationed out by HMOs. The
irony is that those who call for government redistribution schemes are
only delaying or even preventing the day from coming when healthcare becomes
affordable to all. Their "compassion" is misdirected. I don't
believe forcing folks to be dependent on a monopoly government source for
health care or other goods they need is compassionate at all. ************************************************************************
************************************************************************
I eschew prejudice -- especially including the anti-freedom prejudice
& anti-capitalist bigotry of socialists and their fascist first cousiins.
********************************************************* http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/RepVsDem.htm
If you truly believe in individual freedom, you will advocate that
consistently, across the board, for every peaceful adult person, and not
try to enslave some for the alleged benefit of others. What a Libertarian IS -- and IS NOT Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
Emma
Well, I always seek to be as clear as possible in defining the basics of liberty, but there's always room for improvement. As a general rule, American "conservatives" tend to be like classical European liberals in that they favor less government intrusion into the lives and businesses of the people, and in general American "liberals" favor Big Government in the form of an autocratic welfare state with layer upon layer of political regulations and taxes on the people and their businesses. Keep in mind that the term "liberal" in America means roughly the opposite of what it once meant in England and Scotland. American "conservatives" and (even more consistently so) American libertarians are in the tradition of Scot economist Adam Smith, John Locke, John Milton, John Lilburne, French statesman Frederic Bastiat, and American founding fathers George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, & James Madison, etc.
Some Ideological Basics
www.cliches.org
The London Capitalism Web
International Society for Individual Liberty
Sometimes one simple picture or graphic can equal a thousand words. Here is a vertical linear political spectrum for you to consider:
Up versus Down
For more links, see:
More Links
Ideological Certification
Eddie<ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 15:10:22 (EST)
Will someone help me out...I'm looking for easy-to-read information on organic conservatism and liberalism. currently, the articales i am reading are hard to understand bullshit.
emma <gold_desert_angel_99@yahoo.co.uk>
alloa, scotland - Monday, March 18, 2002 at 21:52:29 (EST)
Melchisidec:
Thanks for the comments. Very good points. I am still trying to figure our the various alert colors issued by the Homeland Security Department (Is the Defense Dept being dismantled?)
Thanks. I try to make changes and add some new content every week or so but it is sometimes hard to find time to do so. I will try to do better!
Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 16:01:39 (EST)
Anyone out there taking the "war" seriously? It might be easier of Ashcroft wasn't making commercials equating the abuse of a single Muslim to an act of war costing thousands of American lives. Or if we weren't paying billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Pakistan and others so that they will be our "allies", or admonishing Israel for its reluctance to "negotiate" with the PLO, or searching children and little old ladies at airports while letting Arab/Muslim men go through unsearched so as not to "profile" or "offend"? How many innocent Americans must die before we decide our lives are more than political correctness and before we grasp the difficult concept that a religion that explicitly calls for the murder of "infidels" (that's US folks!) is not a "great" religion that is being "misinterpreted" by a handful of "extremists". Helloooooo?
melchisidec <melchisidec@hotmail.com>
St. Paul, MN USA - Tuesday, March 12, 2002 at 22:55:24 (EST)
it's amazing what you find just surfing around.
Buddy
none, none USA - Monday, February 25, 2002 at 13:29:54 (EST)
When will there be more great info here?
Buddy
none, none USA - Friday, February 22, 2002 at 18:21:34 (EST)
Hello Fellow Constitutional Republic Advocates!!!
Please do me the Favor... Please! Of stopping in to-
.
http://senac.com/boards/1989/
and Posting YOUR opinion !! This is a Constitution/Republic-bashing Site and we must Stand Together to get our opinions across !!!
Thank you!... "Never Surrender" Thanks again!
-SarahAnn
SarahAnnJenkinz <Doctorofdemocracy@hotmail.com>
Dunkirk, NY USA - Thursday, February 14, 2002 at 16:43:22 (EST)
Stumbled across you page via, I believe, google. Cool Stuff! "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." E. F. Schumacher
Bob Frankelheimer
Santa Monica, CA USA - Saturday, February 09, 2002 at 20:33:45 (EST)
Greetings, hope your weekend was the best ever. Stumbled across your website and just -- on impulse -- thought I'd sign your guestbook. Have a great day.
Catherine Lake
San Diego, CA USA - Tuesday, February 05, 2002 at 21:06:46 (EST)
Thanks for the kind words, Shelley. I gather you would have loved Hitler and Stalin. I favor Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Bastiat, and Rand myself.
Eddie Willers <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Tuesday, January 29, 2002 at 17:27:26 (EST)
You seem like the type of person who would do just about anything to get what you want: screw people over, or possibly run them over with a large tank. You should read Machiavelli's The Prince. You would probably find the ideas useful.
Shelley <shelikwa@hotmail.com>
USA - Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 12:17:00 (EST)
One of the biggest abuses of the U.S. government today is their campaign to flood America with Third World immigrants. Americans themselves were never asked if they wanted to become a pre-dominantly non-white nation (predicted by the year 2050) or to have their traditional way of life irrevocably altered.
In fact, a poll conducted only a week ago revealed that the majority of Americans want such immigration stopped, but that Congress, in their arrogance, continue to ignore the will of that majority.
Furthermore, anyone who openly opposes this state-enforced campaign to "multiculturalize" America is denounced, not unlike all those who were once denounced for opposing communism in the former USSR. The new order of the day here in America is blind "egalitarianism"---an egalitarianism based on the false premise that all peoples, countries, and races are "equal", when empirical evidence shows clearly that they are not.
So fight modern mind-control by fighting multiculturalism.
Ward Kendall
author of the very un-PC novel "Hold Back This Day"
Ward Kendall <avaloncolony@hotmail.com>
USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 05:29:40 (EST)
Thanks, Mark! In fact, I have just added Dr. Sowell's BASIC ECONOMICS to the top of my Books, Etc. section. I just finished reading most of my own copy.
Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Thursday, December 06, 2001 at 20:53:59 (EST)
To those guests who say that libertarianism is "idealistic," I invite them to read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy." To me, the idea that a government can solve the world's problems through forced redistribution of wealth seems a bit idealistic.
Mark D. Valenti <valentimd@hotmail.com>
PA USA - Monday, December 03, 2001 at 12:56:32 (EST)
Hi, Eddie! If libertarianism and the free market are scary, then please, please, please SCARE me some more!! I can hardly wait!! :-)
Pam Maltzman <pbmaltzman@yahoo.com>
Bellflower, CA USA - Wednesday, July 25, 2001 at 04:23:42 (EDT)
TRav,
Thanks for your feedback!
Eddie Willers <ewillers@swbell.net>
Kansas City, MO USA - Wednesday, July 04, 2001 at 11:51:18 (EDT)
You people call socialists idealistic but your idea of the market solving all of humanities problems without government invention is really dreaming.
TRav <wace36@hotmail.com>
Melbourne, Vic Australia - Wednesday, July 04, 2001 at 01:18:10 (EDT)
Thanks. Yep: Socialism sucks! And capitalism and freedom swing! Our world's future -- if it is to have a viable future -- will not be one of the tyranny and death camps of hard-core Socialism ("Communism") or the bureaucratic stagnation of the neo-fascist Welfare State; the future hope of the world will be found in private property, individual liberty, and free-market capitalism. The only thing inevitable about socialism is its failure and bankruptcy. The financial failure of socialism is inevitable because of its moral bankruptcy and because it is at its philosophical dead
end.
Eddie <ewillers@laissez-fairerepublic.com>
USA - Sunday, June 03, 2001 at 02:53:37 (EDT)
Hey, Sam! I like the new music! It definitely conjures up the surrealistic feeling we get when dealing with socialists, etc. ;-)
Pam Maltzman <pbmaltzman@yahoo.com>
Bellflower, CA USA - Monday, May 21, 2001 at 22:36:47 (EDT)
You people scare me. Making the world a muche more unsecure place to be. Just look at Bush guy, he is making enemies with china, russia and Europe, not a smart move.
David <davva19@usa.net>
Sthlm, Sweden - Saturday, May 19, 2001 at 19:16:18 (EDT)
The government schools are not doing a good job and are turning out very uneducated people who cannot spell or do math. Public schools are far more expensive than private, market schools. No one has a right to steal the property of other, peaceful people. Public education is socializerd education and is as bad as most other socialist enterprises. Education is far too important to be left up to bureaucrats; it should be turned over to profit0seeking private enterprise. Private tutors and market schools are far less expensive and actually educate.
eddie <ewillers@laissez-fairerepublic.com>
USA - Saturday, May 19, 2001 at 13:29:46 (EDT)
Hey this is a great site. I like your theme "Laissez Faire". I agree that this should be the basic ideal of every government. Although I must say that I agree with public education. It is actually cheap, when done correctly. Although I think private schools should be where most go, for the few that can't afford them there children still need an education. The country is hurt by having uneducated people. Everyone should benefit from at least some education, and I think that it benefits the country more to pay for the educated than get the uneducated for free. The educated pay for themselves. However the uneducatable should be expelled. There is no need to waste money on those who don't want an education.
Visit my website
Chris Hilton <tomcat1689@yahoo.com>
WDM, IA USA - Wednesday, May 16, 2001 at 16:53:50 (EDT)
Derek:
Yes, the socialists and "liberals" (i.e., welfare-state fascists) have done much to ruin this once-great country. But we can recapture our true roots in the AngloAmerican Common Law and constitutional rights traditions and become even more prosperous and solve even more economic and social problems in the 21st century -- if the pall of government taxes, regulations, controls, and meddlesome interferences in the marketplace can be got out of the way. We can only hope.
Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireREpublic.com>
USA - Wednesday, May 09, 2001 at 18:33:06 (EDT)
It's web pages like this that make me glad I don't have the displeasure of being American
Derek Parkin <parkindk@mcmaster.ca>
Hamilton, ON Canada - Wednesday, May 09, 2001 at 12:37:11 (EDT)
Mike Withey,
A welfare state violates property rights by the means of coerced transfer of wealth from one group to another. When one group works by compulsion for the benefit of others, this is known as slavery. Thus, a welfare state is a slave state. Since rights are not arbitrary, the groups involved in the compulsed transfer of wealth is of no importance. Rich, poor, middle-class, northern, southern, Athiest, or Christian: regardless of identity and regardless of who's wealth is redistributed to who, slavery is slavery.
There is no such thing as economic rights. For a man to have a right to a material product means slavery for the man who MUST produce and provide others with it. Thus, another form of slavery. Rights cannot be secured by their violation.
Rights are purely of a social context, ie. the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, the right to expression and it's necessary consequence: the right to trade.
If you do not support the free market then you shouldn't be talking or interacting with any one. The free market is defined as the voluntary association of men who trade with one another. Merely by writing to you I am trading information. Thus, if you are not in favor of a free market, then it is necessary that you are against the rights of man.
I recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand for a moral justification of Capitalism. Also, located in it's apendix is a section called "Man's Rights". Which contains an incredible insight to the nature of man's rights and what rights man possesses.
As for environmentalism: One example comes to mind at the moment. In order for a logging company to sustain itself for a long period of time it must either a)buy more property as it clear-cuts or B)replant destroyed forestry and reuse it's original property. B is the most common occurence in the United States, where the companies plant a multiple of seedlings in the place where one tree once stood. This is an obvious good move, it allows the company to reuse it's property and not have to DEPEND on a buyer willing to give up his own land for logging.
Eddie(and Sam?) your site was one of the first to grab my attention and direct it towards politics, for that I must say thank you!
Jason
FL USA - Wednesday, April 11, 2001 at 20:00:34 (EDT)
I sympathise with most ideologies, though I am a socialist myself (i just wish you wouldn't caracature us in the way you do!!!)
a few ???s to set my mind at rest -
1. surely a government, with its objective stance, is able to use capital to ends which are truly ethical and for the benefit of everybody, ie environmentalism - on its own, corporations would kill the environment, and they need to be reguated to stop this. Similarly with moral rights - Kant's maxim, 'treat all individuals as ends in-themselves', could not be fulfilled in a society whereby there is no morality to regulate
2. No welfare state = poverty = social excclusion = drugs, crime, etc = a bad lifew for the rich. Agree?
3. Liberal philosophy, as I understand it, states that contract, being the free distribution of capital, is the basis of society. But how can you say that state-free contracts are free, when it is obvious that the powers in them will not be equal, aming the strong able to dominate the weak, at the expense of the weak? I think we need government to restrain the potentially disasterous ramifications of this, so that the weak can have theor rights represented.
4. what do you think of Hegel's master-slave dialectic?
For these reasons i am sceptical about free-marketeering. How would you convince me to change my mind?
Mike Withey <iac99mw@gorseinon.ac.uk>
swansea, wales, uk - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 05:50:30 (EDT)
Great site! Just wanted to say hi again! You might be interested in joining my TOP CREATIVE GENIUS List! Just click on the banner on my web site. Take good care!
Tina Leanne Waugh <TLW@waterpoetry.com>
Canada - Wednesday, March 28, 2001 at 19:05:47 (EST)
Dear Bill:
Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Thursday, March 08, 2001 at 01:21:56 (EST)
Can't say I agree with a lot of your Libertarian philosophy. The one problem I have with libertarians is they believe they have no responsibility whatsoever to the country that protects them or to any other citizen in that country.
I agree that government has gone much too far in telling us what we can and cannot do and the tax system is ridiculous. But I do believe every citizen who chooses to live in our representative democratic system has some responsibility for the whole of society. I believe, e.g. in free public education for all children but not to be administered by the government. The government should set certain guidelines and provide funding but beyond that it should be left up to local schools and communities on how best to educate their children. Don't know where that puts me on your political scale.
I am not anti-business. In fact, I hope every business in America makes more money this year than last year, and I hope next year they make more than they make this year. But I do not believe they should continue to get richer and richer at the expense of most of the citizens who are the ones working to make the rich richer. If you are an American corporate CEO and you take your factory out of the U.S. so you can pay $1.50 and hour instead of $10.00 an hour and put Americans out of work then I would charge yo a value-added tax on anything you ship back into this country to sell. If you want to dance, you pay the band.
That's not socialist - that's American as far as I am concerned. We didn't get to be the country with the highest standard of living in the world (before we lost that distinction) by putting Americans out of work and sending our factories overseas. We got that way by working together with everyone's standard of living rising - that is not true today.
Better get down off my soapbox now. If you want to see more you can go to my website:
www.expage.com/page/americaneulogy
Thanks
Bill Pearman <bppres2000@aol.com>
Clinton, IN USA - Wednesday, March 07, 2001 at 11:09:02 (EST)
Hi,
Greetings from Finland.
Jari Peltonen <jari111@excite.com>
Tampere, Finland - Sunday, February 25, 2001 at 15:21:24 (EST)
Just stopped by!
Tim Pashly
San Diego, California USA - Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 03:43:15 (EST)
Dear Eddie,
Wow! What a site. Just saved to folder--'cause can't read now, godda run.
Sue
Sue <SBotchie@aol.com>
PA USA - Thursday, February 08, 2001 at 07:07:41 (EST)
Just to let you know that you are being watched and
monitored on a continual basis. We know who you are and
where you live. See you soon.
Vinnie
Vinnie Terranova <VT@noemail>
Corona, Ca USA - Saturday, January 20, 2001 at 21:27:02 (EST)
Creative. Good stuff.
Digr <Digrpine1@juno.com>
Placerville, CA USA - Saturday, January 20, 2001 at 10:43:22 (EST)
Your lack of web design skills are made up for by your cunning insights into political ideology.
Gabey Wizzard <gabey_wizzard@hotmail.com>
USA - Thursday, January 18, 2001 at 19:27:17 (EST)
**************************************************************
i find libertarianism very appealing, but for
me it's too individualistic. i mean, do you guys suggest that those who
CANNOT AFFORD healthcare and education should be left WITHOUT IT?
*******************************************************************
In a word, YES. If I make so little income that I only have enough to
feed and house myself, those basic necessities come first. Healthcare and
education come when I can afford them. There is no such thing as a right
to healthcare or a right to education since that would mean a "right"
to force other people to pay for those things. Theft is theft, no matter
what the excuse.
****************************************************************************
you know how many people are don't have something
while they don't deserve it? do you think a person has no responsibilities
whatsoever towards their society?
**************************************************************************
The only (and very important) responsibility any individual has toward
others (the rest of society) is just this: to refrain from the initiation
of the use of violence (force or fraud) against anyone for any reason.
That is a good citizen who restricts his actions so that he does not violate
the rights of others thru the initiation of the use of violence. Logically,
there can be no social obligation beyond that, although any individual
may CHOOSE (voluntarily) to actively assist others in need with his own
money or money VOLUNTARILY contributed by others. No one has a right to
steal from innocent people. If a person grows up learning how to live his
or her life without stealing or hurting others, he is a good citizen and
nothing more should be required of him or her.
Are those who call for concern for people around
you labeled as villains who limit your unalienable rights?
********************************************************************
They are villains if they steal from me or anyone else or support the
system of systematic theft with government as the muscle. . Pretending
concern for others is no excuse for villainy. The allegedly noble ends
(helping those in need) do not logically justify evil means (mass legal
thievery and plundering of a nation). The motive does not change the nature
of the crime.
i am not communist, but i support the integration
of some elements of socialism (there's a huge distinction between socialism,
communism, and neo-fascism)into a capitalist system. what i read on your
page is one of those things in response to which i just feel like saying
out loud "yeah, i am a hardline COMMIE...and proud", if only
as an expression of defiance to such a degree of prejudice and one-sided
presentation of the info. by the way, the use of the term "commie"
shows bias and does not do much for the credibility of the site or links,
unless those of you involved are writing only for people as biased as you
are.
***********************************************************
I use terms honestly and accurately. If a person advocates Marxism-Leninism,
he is a "commie" or communist. You should do a bit more research
and you may find that your idea of communism does not square with the brutal
realities of that system. You say you "feel" like you are a Communist,
but emotions are not means of gaining knowledge or truth. Your feelings
are just prejudices in favor of a system you know nothing about. Live in
Cuba or North Korea or talk to a refugee.
As a side note, i believe very strongly in representative
democracy, and individual freedom. my respect to everybody regardless of
their opinions, D. i soooooooooo disagree
************************************************************************
Democracy and freedom are mutually contradictory systems. In a democracy,
the rights and freedoms of the individual or any minority can be voted
away. Check your premises. Check out this brief essay:
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/libertar.htm
USA - Thursday, December 07, 2000 at 23:59:10 (EST)
Thanks, Mr. Donlin:
Thanks for bringing that book to my attention; I will definitely
check it out. It sounds like it may be a valuable addition to the library
of anyone who deals with the welfare-state fascists who are called "liberals"
in America today.
Eddie <ewillers@Laissez-FaireRepublic.com>
USA - Thursday, December 07, 2000 at 23:50:19 (EST)
You decadent peeg, you! The enemies of socialism will be destroyed! We will bury you!