SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Not a Monster?

PhilipD's picture
Submitted by PhilipD on Fri, 2011-03-11 11:31

SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Not a Monster?

Philip Duck
March 12, 2011

Rikki Leigh Scott Ngatai-Check had to look after the wee boy, Karl Perigo-Check, for only a few hours. He had done that before, and although the boy was not his own—he belonged to his partner, Lilah McGregor—he claimed to love him.

Ngatai-Check began ‘spotting’ cannabis while Karl slept. Later, the little fella woke having wet his pants. An enraged Ngatai-Check quickly showed his ‘love’ for the boy by violently shoving him into a coffee table. Karl’s ribs were broken, a lung was punctured and he began to bleed internally.

Ngatai-Check then simply left the boy alone in the toilet and returned to his cannabis. Badly injured Karl found Ngatai-Check ten minutes later in the bedroom where he was playing video games. Furious that the toddler had some toilet paper dragging behind him, Ngatai-Check savagely kicked him. And then he kicked him again, splitting his pancreas. Karl died shortly after. He was just two years old.

Justice Williams did his best to soothe the feelings of the monstrous Ngatai-Check. When sentencing him earlier this week to a mandatory non-parole period of 17 years imprisonment he noted that the child-killer's time around the Wanganui drug and gang scene had ‘normalised brutality.’ There, "violence is not just OK, it is downright cool," said the judge. What, was he forced to hang out with junkies and gang members, Williams?

Wickedly, Justice Williams offered a further excuse for Ngatai-Check’s behaviour by claiming that an already stressful relationship was compounded on that day “because "you probably didn't want baby Karl dumped on you again and just wanted to chill out."

And, incredibly, Justice Joseph Williams offered this to Ngatai-Check: "You did a monstrous thing, but I do not think you are a monster.”

Not a monster, Mr. Williams? He bashed a vulnerable toddler-twice- and killed him, and he’s not a monster?

To hell with that. Ngatai-Check, a cowardly murderer of a two-year old boy is indeed a monster—a sick, evil, monster. May he rot and die, ever so slowly, behind bars.

Philip Duc: thonburi-1@hotmail.com

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


Early release for police-basher

gregster's picture

It's Easter and in keeping with the dominant altruist philosophy, and blind dumb deaf forgiveness of christians and similarly demented religionists, here is a resounding success for all that they represent. The culmination of >2000 years of their filthy christ figure:

"A gangster who bashed policemen while on parole is set to be released from prison a year early despite concerns about his propensity for violence.

John Gillies was jailed for seven years in 2005 for assaulting two policemen and possessing cocaine and methamphetamine.

He has 106 convictions, 34 of them for violence, including one for stabbing Gisborne policeman Nigel Hendrikse with a screwdriver in 1993.

A Parole Board panel today released its decision to free him from prison in May.

It said Gillies had shown increased insight into his problems dealing with anger and violence and had an improved ability to deal with difficult incidents in prison.

"The Board does note that Mr Gillies has been well-behaved in more recent times and that he is showing signs of maturity. He turns 40 years of age next month and appears to be focused upon now trying to reintegrate into the community and to have the support of his family.

However, the board said Mr Gillies was still assessed as a high risk offender with close links to the Mongrel Mob.

He had also shown unwillingness to undergo a drug counselling programme in prison, its decision said.

"Our main concern has been with what is seen as a high risk rating that Mr Gillies has, no doubt contributed to by the fact that he has in the past escaped from custody and committed serious and violent offences.

"Mr Gillies has articulated that he is well aware that one of the factors relating to his offending is his gang connections and that some of his family are, of course, members of the Mongrel Mob."

Gillies was set to be released from prison on May 17, 2012.

An array of special conditions were imposed on his early parole, including that he abstain from all drugs and alcohol and stay at an appointed address until November unless he is given permission to leave by his parole officer.

He was also required to undergo a psychological assessment and receive drug and alcohol counselling.

An appearance before the Parole Board in 2007 saw him ordered to do drug counselling before he could be considered for parole.

Gillies was one of four Mongrel Mob members awarded compensation and an apology from the Crown in 2000 after they said they were tortured and abused by guards at Hawkes Bay's Mangaroa Prison in 1991 and 1993.

The Crown Law Office, acting under an Official Information Act request, said the total amount paid did not exceed $325,000.

He was also the subject of controversy when it was revealed he had a large "Mongrel Mob Forever" tattoo removed from his face during 15 $300 laser sessions paid for by taxpayers."

Imagine a world without each and every invented god.

How great that would be!!!

"Mrs Meads must have been

PhilipD's picture

"Mrs Meads must have been "utterly terrified" during her final moments.

The shooting was "undoubtedly horrific and indeed incomprehensible".

"But I am satisfied it did not involve a high degree of brutality, depravity or callousness," said Justice Christopher Allan upon sentencing murderer Greg Meads to a minimum non-parole period of just 11 years.

Putting a shotgun to a woman's throat and pulling the trigger isn't highly brutal, depraved and callous? 11 years?!

What's with all these fucked-up N.Z. Justices?

'So where do you stand on

PhilipD's picture

'So where do you stand on your claim that Goode is in error?'

Seems a simple enough question, Kocher. Your response- or lack of- tells me all I need to know about you.

'McVeigh didn't know a day care center was in the federal building and he was jarred by the revelation. The deaths of the Oklahoma children were no more intentional than the accidental hitting of a child chasing a ball out of nowhere by an unexpecting motorist.'
~Kocher

Really?

“If I had known there was an entire day-care center, it might have given me pause to switch targets. That's a large amount of collateral damage"
~McVeigh

'Might have.' Nice.

And don't you think he was a monster if only on the count that he couldn't be bothered to check-out who he was going to murder?

So where do you stand on

RLKocher's picture

So where do you stand on government rogue agents killing 70 people for sport?

Stark pure run amok evil.

-----------------------------------

What is there in the more complete post that you disagree with?

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword

Richard Goode's picture

So where do you stand on government rogue agents killing 70 people for sport?

Stark pure run amok evil.

So where do you stand on your claim that Goode is in error?

So

RLKocher's picture

So where do you stand on government rogue agents killing 70 people for sport?

Kocher

Richard Goode's picture

I have no idea where the quotes he supposedly obtained regarding McVeigh came from.

Does this ring any bells? (It appears the original page is no longer extant, but there's a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 10 Feb 2011 06:50:22 GMT in Google's cache.)

================

Armed Conflict in America

McVeigh and the Oklahoma Bombing

by Robert L. Kocher

This analysis is about a nation of people who are no longer considered citizens, but are now looked upon as subjects. This is about a people who no longer have a government, but rather have a corrupt ideological system, really a decadent pathological system, of control and which has become a tyrannical rogue army imposing social conformity to that pathology. America is under seige from that pathological system. We will examine aspects of imposition of that system and the Oklahoma bombing as a reaction to it.

Factor: The Corruption of Law Enforcement

Years ago, when television was in its comparative infancy, there was an early evening somewhat wretched kid's science fiction series called Captain Video and his Video Rangers. The show had occasional public service announcements aimed at kids. One of these commercials was a song that started out, the fireman is your friend, the fireman is your friend. It went on to sing, the policeman is your friend, the policeman is your friend.

I am not anti law enforcement. Several months ago I was stopped for going over the speed limit by the local big grinning gap-toothed cop. He wasn't looking for trouble. I wasn't looking for trouble. He gave me a warning ticket and we both went on our ways. I don't hold any grudges about it. I chatted with him a few days later at a diner. He's a young guy and has health problems it took me more than 60 years to acquire.

I've known some very fine people who were policemen. I also had occasion to work with the FBI for a brief period during the 60s. I was never a member of the FBI. In those days they were a good and trustworthy group of people.

FBI agents were human beings. In about '67 I chanced upon an FBI agent one night in an all-night diner who was slobbering drunk. He mumbled he had been working for years on a case against a big Chicago mob figure who he said was one of the worst people in the world. He did, however, get his man. A year and a half later the papers announced the agent got the mob boss and made it stick.

When John Edgar Hoover was in command the organization was straight and there was compliance with the constitution. Period.

To understand Hoover, you need to understand a certain breed of men that once existed, but seem impossible by today's standards. General George C. Marshall had a personal integrity that flustered and intimidated President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt once timidly asked General Marshall if he could call him George. Marshall looked Roosevelt straight in the eye and told him it would be completely out of character. Hoover was of the same character as Marshall. Marshall and Hoover were both men who played it absolutely straight and didn't bend.

Hoover had many enemies. For some people, Hoover represented something for which their hatred will be eternal. There has been an ongoing attempt to smear him since his death. I have read articles asserting he answered the door to his apartment wearing pantyhose and a dress. In addition to the fact it would have been an inconceivably stupid thing for Hoover to do, such an act would be completely out of character. But little by little leftists in the media continue their campaign to discredit Hoover with a system of baseless stories that reference and embellish each other in a building haystack and in time the needle of truth will be lost.

During the Hoover period FBI agents took pride in the fact that throughout its history The Bureau had never been touched by scandal. Hoover read his mail and personally addressed any complaints about the conduct of FBI agents from anybody. Internal investigation people would be sent out to investigate any possible infractions by FBI agents.

There was concern within the bureau that after Hoover died The Bureau would degenerate in character and caliber. But for a while, at least, it was believed the older established agents would continue the standards set by the bureau. What the FBI has since become is a sorrow to the American nation.

The Fall of the FBI

After Hoover's death, leftist politicians dramatically whispered to each other, "There must never, ever, be another J. Edgar Hoover." Liberals vowed a campaign to rebalance the FBI against what leftists termed its obsolete and dangerous right wing attitude. I think to serious extent this has been done and now the FBI is being used as payback time by a determined influx of elements within, and outside of it. (For some period radical leftist Ramsey Clark, who ordinarily would be disqualified for a security clearance of any kind, was attorney general, sealing the FBI's fate. America has had at least one president and possibly two attorneys general who would be classified as serious security risks if not active subversives.) It explains recent activities and directions.

The result has also been spies for the Russians within the organization, massive information leaks to the mob and God knows who else which probably places witnesses at risk, documents relating to Ruby Ridge disappearing, 4,000 pages of testimony and investigation of the Oklahoma bombing getting lost, Waco evidence disappearing, the transfer of massive numbers of FBI files on political adversaries of the Clintons to Hillary Clinton without a chain of custody, and so forth. The FBI is evolving into a mickey mouse third rate leftist infiltrated organization with weekly scandals. True to the vow of determination, there hasn't been another J. Edgar Hoover—and it shows.

FBI analyst arraigned on charges he stole files to sell to organized criminals

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (AP 07/13/2001)—An FBI security analyst was arraigned Friday on charges he took part in a scheme to sell FBI files to organized crime figures in New York and elsewhere.

James Hill, 51, of the FBI's Las Vegas bureau, was arrested in June.

Hill was ordered held without bail during an appearance in New York's U.S. District Court.

Neither Hill nor his lawyer, Mark Baker, commented on the charges.

Hill is one of 10 people, including an FBI agent and an investigator for the Nevada attorney general's office, charged in the scheme."

On Tuesdays and Thursdays Hillary got files. On Mondays and Wednesdays organized crime got files. What's the difference?

To serious extent the FBI is also the victim of having expanded to four times as many agents in the last 35 years and having had to find those agents from among weaker generations.

The so-called new direction and the new FBI's so-called successes in the war against organized crime is largely myth. John Gotti's celebrated imprisonment is a joke to anyone who is familiar with the history of organized crime. Gotti was a little above the wise guy level in a decaying organization who would not be considered near the top of the classical mob leadership and would have been sat on to keep him from being trouble. He was more destructive to the mob than was the FBI. The FBI isn't ending the Italian mob. What is ending the mob is the kids who formerly would have started as numbers runners and then become good mob leaders are instead going off to graduate school with encouragement from their parents, leaving blundering low-level goofs in control of a deteriorating organization. There is nobody to replace the guys at the very top who had class and were often in some respects puritanical. Many of them were very anti-drug and anti-prostitution. Some of them wanted to raise the level of the organization or fundamentally wanted out.

A good insight into the mob can be found in films by film producer, writer, and actor Chazz Palminteri. A Bronx Tale was instructive as was his recent film on the life of Paul Castellano.

Coup d'Etat in America?

Americans are taught as children, and later told to believe as adults, that "it" can't happen here in America, but only in banana republics or Nazi Germany. The "it" is complete takeover by jackbooted corrupt authoritarian government and/or experiencing the effects of war on one's homeland. We are one of the few nations in the world not to have experienced direct war. We are also fortunate in that the nation's founder's put together a brilliant constitution that, up until recently, withstood attempts at deconstruction of citizen's guaranteed rights. It's part of the "it" that we'll look at here.

The Oklahoma bombing and the execution of Timothy McVeigh were ultimately the culmination of five interactive symbiotic factors.

1) The condition of law enforcement.

2) The condition of the legal system.

3) The Ring Cycle. (Based upon matured effects of Dadaism and counterculturalism.)

4) The existence of a virtual-reality politics alienated from the American people.

5) The negligible extension of demonization.

Some Realities of Law Enforcement

My mother was an American woman of Scotch-Irish descent who moved from the semi-frontier to New York City to become a model and actress during the early 20s. While she lived in New York she lived with the Italians. I grew up on stories about The Black Hand, some of the mafia, and people such as the Artichoke King. The Artichoke King was in the mafia and controlled all the artichokes coming into New York City. That was his thing. That's what it took to make him happy. Nobody messed with him. He didn't bother anybody else as long as they didn't try to move artichokes into his territory.

A serious fear haunted New York City. The fear wasn't of the mob because they generally left other people alone. The police were a different story. The real fear was of the police. This was particularly so for young women. Some among the police departments were in the business of furnishing women for prostitution houses. The way it was done was for a so-called undercover cop or a confederate to approach a woman on the street. At that point she would be arrested under the false claim she had offered sex for money. She could be, or would be, taken before a judge where it would be her word against one or several police officers. At that point her reputation was ruined and there was the threat of prison time if she were uncooperative. Cooperative meant forced to work as a prostitute. Basically, police were walking up to women on the streets, seizing control of them through misuse of the law, then forcing them into prostitution.

There were several initial ways out of this for the woman. If she had politically connected friends, they could stop it. Or with the necessary contacts, a bribe would intervene. Or, if it were your daughter, your sister, or your girlfriend, you'd need to kill the cop or cops. If you didn't, the woman was going to spend the next 10 or 15 years, however long she could last, as a slave in a whorehouse. There was no way she could leave because police would bring her back by rearresting her as part of an declared ongoing investigation and a repeat offender with a known background. Police were enforcers for the madames, pimps, and whatever.

Now killing a cop to free your daughter, wife, or girlfriend makes you a so-called cop-killer. That label preempts all other aspects of the matter. It calls upon an internal loyalty among police and an ever-lurking them-versus-us mentality that automatically unifies the entire police community and confers license to kill you. You were in a war to save the future of an innocent woman which would get you marked for annihilation on sight.

The rule among knowledgeable young women in New York was to never ever go to a cop for help. Stay away from the police at all costs. In fact, anybody would have done well to avoid the police.

The Mob and Justice

There may be instances when the so-called mob is the only system of justice available in a system of corrupt police, corrupt judges, and corrupt politicians. In the old days a serious Don or Capo was more apt to be interested in justice and more apt to tell you the truth than are corrupt police departments and corrupt judges etc.

A police force with corrupt rogue cops will tree a town, and I've seen it happen. Approximately 35 years ago I lived in a middle-sized city. One of the police officers was dating a woman and someone else was also dating her. One night the civilian drove home after a date with the woman. As he got out of his car three police cruisers converged upon him with their headlights shining upon him. A police officer told him he was not to date the woman.

One of the first orders of vigilance in any, and that means ANY, law enforcement organization is to be on constant outlook for corrupt or rogue officers as individuals or who gather together and form a pack.

An example is the following news item:

Four ex-Alabama officers plead guilty to shakedowns

Source: CNN.com June 24, 2001

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- Four former police officers accused of harassing and demanding money from Hispanics at traffic stops have pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges.

The four admitted Friday they stole from Hispanics and others during traffic stops from April 1998 to July 2000. The indictment also charged the men with stealing items from schools and businesses, including portable radios and a printer.

Bobby M. Hunt, 31, was a sergeant in the Boaz police department. Jonathon R. "Bull" Jones, 27; Rickie T. Dobbs, 30; and 32-year-old Jeffery K. Sanders were patrol officers.

All four admitted targeting Hispanics. The officers believed Hispanics were more likely to carry money, while language barriers and their immigration status would make them less likely to resist or be believed if they complained.

The Hispanic population of Boaz, in northeast Alabama, has grown rapidly to fill agricultural jobs.

The former officers are expected to testify in the trial later this year of former Capt. Timothy Don Hooks, who was also allegedly part of the scheme. Hooks, 40, has pleaded innocent.

The four ex-officers will be sentenced October 26. Civil rights violations carry a prison term of up 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Prosecutors are expected to recommend the men receive lighter sentences for cooperating.

I have a mental image of what officer "Bull" Jones must be like. Basically, while the article emphasis was on Hispanics because it is politically incorrect to do it to Hispanics, anybody who was comparatively weak or docile were the "and others" who would get bullied or taken by the police. With somebody at the police captain level involved, it probably had been going on for many years. If someone had had the guts or sense of desperation to blow one of these animals away the cry of cop-killer would have gone up and law enforcement people everywhere would have rallied in sympathy and anger.

A news release from Jacksonville in the spring of 2001 revealed a pack of rogue police near the area had gone so far as to rent themselves out as hit men and had killed several people on contract. It was the second such ring revealed in Florida in a year. The idea of justice eventually triumphing is a little irrelevant to those who were killed.

The geographic locations fit the much-revered stereotype of a South where the local huge pot-bellied primitive bully is issued a badge, a club, and a gun, but it goes on elsewhere. Most of it doesn't get caught.

Who Is Your Friend?

From my misspent youth I remember being in a night club in Rock Island, Illinois during the late 50s when "The Bag Man" came in. He actually carried a bag similar to a doctor's bag. He walked directly to the back of the club where there was a thriving illegal gambling operation and the bag would be filled with money to be divided among the police, county officials, and whoever, for protection. Five minutes later he walked out with a full bag. It wouldn't have been wise to mess with the structure involved. It wasn't wise to talk about reform, because it might get you killed.

Reclaiming control of any corrupt law enforcement agency is a near impossibility. Appointing a new police chief or electing a new mayor typically won't work. Internal resistance within the organization is enormous. There are corrupt senior officers continuing to coopt, compromise, and channelize the new officers they are supposed to be training into resistance and corruption as they enter the force. Corrupt law officers listen to exhortations and demands for reform with silent amusement, then go out on the streets to continue doing what they want to. You'd need to follow each of them around with an uncontaminated undercover agent to make temporary changes. Reform requires firing nearly the entire police department.

The same is true with federal law enforcement agencies.

Forget childhood songs. No member of any branch of law enforcement is necessarily your friend. Any law officer and any law enforcement agency is to be regarded with suspicion. ANY member of any law enforcement agency, and ANY law enforcement agency, must be evaluated on an individual case by case basis, and on a moment to moment basis. Individuals, groups within, or even entire agencies may turn rogue, may become corrupt, may collude with corrupt judges and politicians. They may become tools for corrupt judges, for corrupt laws, or for corrupt politicians. Some of them may be killers from whom you may be required to defend yourself or your family if you expect to go on living. What you get is what you get.

Factor 2: The Legal Hierarchy

A friend of mine had a tough mean chow dog. The dog was useful because it killed groundhogs for half a mile in all directions, and groundhogs kill farmers. The entrance to a groundhog burrow is difficult to see, but at the same time will catch a tractor wheel and flip the tractor over on top of the farmer. An aggressive tough mean dog is sometimes almost a necessity in certain areas.

I visited his place one day and noticed the dog was gone. I asked what happened to the dog. He replied that the dog started running with a rogue pack of other dogs, they started killing sheep, and somebody shot him. He wasn't angry with the guy who shot the dog. It's simply a fact of life that certain breeds of dogs, and dogs of certain mentalities, have propensities to pack and become killers. When they do, they must be shot.

Law enforcement personal or agencies do not have special privileges. Just like that dog, in the event they start to kill sheep and wantonly kill people, they must be shot as a last resort as a matter of self-preservation. I can hear the melodramatic expressions of horror coming back through the modem.

This is melodramatically criticized as taking the law into your own hands or having contempt for the rule of law. This will be addressed later. Some times actions are decided by law, other times by reality.

The Legal Hierarchy

Judges, prosecutors, and attorneys general are another matter and experience.

The people involved are all dead now. I can't even remember their names since I have a defective memory. What I am about to say is complete fiction, anyway. Having said that, let's go on with the following:

It was the mid 70s. I had an acquaintance, now deceased, named Salvatore. Salvatore was an honest man, but he was what was known as a man of respect. He was intelligent and gave good counsel. Consequently, he was a type of friend and counselori to some members of the New Jersey Italian mob.

He also had a hot temper. A traffic cop gave him a ticket and he blew his top about it. Sal was dead wrong in the matter, but, he was determined to get the ticket nullified as well as get back at the cop. He let off steam to his friend Vito who was respectfully positioned in the mob. Vito took Sal to see the pertinent judge privately for a conversation. He introduced Sal to the judge and said, "Tell him what you want." Here was this distinguished looking man regaled in robes residing in impressive paneled chambers. Sal was a little intimidated. Becoming impatient, Vito said, in front of the judge, "I own the son of a bitch! Now tell him what it is you want!"

Salvatore wanted the cop thoroughly and repeatedly humiliated in court, and the case eventually dismissed. That's the way it came out. In real life the judge's role was to fix more than traffic tickets.

The problem of corruption goes to the very top.

Kennedy Poker

It was the early 60s. Maryland had a number of watering holes for the powerful and well-connected in Washington, D. C. One of them was an area near Annapolis. In particular, there was a night spot owned by a guy of Lebanese/Arab descent somewhat like Danny Thomas. We'll call him Al. He was well liked. Hot shots and powerful from Washington, D. C. occasionally went there.

Al had a fondness for poker, high stakes poker. He was an honest player and simply loved the game. He was good at it. A blowhard from Washington wanted a game, so Al played him, which was a mistake by both parties. Al busted the guy up for an undisclosed amount of money, probably about 25 or 50 thou. To Al it was just a friendly game. The Washington character was a sore loser and demanded his money back. In some quarters poker is considered a gentleman's game, with accent on the MAN in gentleman. One is expected to understand one's financial capabilities before sitting at the table, and accept wins or loses with grace and dignity. Disgusted, Al told him, hell no. The guy told Al he was personal friends with United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy and if he didn't give him his money back he would sic the Kennedys on him. Al was getting angrier by the moment and his answer was repeated.

The next Monday Al got a phone call from the Office of the Attorney General of the United States, Robert Kennedy. Al was told to give the money back or life would become very difficult. Al's answer to the Attorney General was go to hell. At that point All didn't know it but an angry Kennedy promptly went to work on him.

Al was a generous soft-hearted guy. He gave away thousands of dollars. If a horse trainer came into the place and was down on his luck, Al would openly reach into the til and hand him five hundred dollars saying, "Here, use this until you get your money straight." As he explained to a mutual friend, the money meant nothing to him because he could always make piles more of it. If somebody were in trouble, he'd help them out. What the hell. He did it quite openly.

Whacked by the IRS

Now the United States Internal Revenue Service is a full service organization that provides numerous services you don't hear about to the right people with the right clout who know the right phone numbers. It is used as a tool for retaliation or corruption much as a mafia enforcer is used. What subsequently happened was that Kennedy had IRS agents sent to the club posing as customers. They started keeping track of the money Al gave away. The money was never reported to the IRS by Al or the people he gave it to and the IRS nailed Al for deliberate tax evasion for maximum penalties. Al thought it was over. It wasn't. After the first hit the IRS infiltrated the club by having one of their agents work there and report all activity. If he couldn't account for five dollars, Al would be dead meat. They hit him a second time.

The nice thing about employing the IRS as a retaliatory or enforcing political tool or an enforcer to service corruption is that it is entirely legal to do so. The IRS is, after all, claimed to be only thoroughly doing its job. Technically, it is. But with specific corrupt purpose and instruction.

(The quickest way to assure yourself of an IRS audit in recent years was to irritate one of the Clintons. Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, and Gennifer Flowers all got hauled in, in an attempt to intimidate them into silence, along with various magazines critical of the Clintons, and the National Rifle Association. The Clinton's used the IRS like a club. It should be made a federal crime with mandatory penalty of five years at hard labor and $250,000 fine for any public official, directly or through intermediary, to either direct or suggest action by the Internal Revenue Service, or by any Internal Revenue Service official to accept such instigation. It's time to begin passing some serious laws to protect the public from abuses. There absolutely must be serious detailed discussion of these issues during presidential election campaigns instead of having two brainless jay-birds preening and squawking vague evasive generalities.)

Kennedy Karma

When JFK was assassinated Al celebrated. When Robert Kennedy got whacked he celebrated for days. His vow was that when the last one, meaning Teddy, got it, Al would hold a week-long public celebration and give the club away as a door prize. Nearly 40 years, as of this writing, is a long time. Teddy has outlived Al.

Did Bobby Kennedy know Jack was sending out quarter million dollar bags of cash to fix elections? (Which you won't find referenced in his rarefied ghost-written speeches about asking not what the country can do for you, but rather asking what you can do for your country.) Bet your life on it. It was a family affair and SOP. If Bobby Kennedy had had any sincere commitment to prosecuting corruption in America, the place he would necessarily have started was at home. He might also have investigated the phenomenon that people who had been dead for 10 years could rise up and vote four times for his brother as president under the Illinois Cook County Democratic machine to throw a national election. But instead he created and publicized a fight with Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters that looked good and could be exploited for political purposes.

The Kennedy period was the most corrupt administration in American history carried on by America's most successful, but for some people almost transfixingly alluring, crime family.

Bobby Kennedy's representatives approached high level mobster Vincent Alo to have his organization help throw the presidential election for JFK according to an article in the Miami Herald (4/7/2001) in which Alo was interviewed before he died. Alo was a pretty honest guy. It was an offer Alo wasn't supposed to refuse. Alo refused. Kennedy never forgot the insult and systematically targeted Alo upon becoming Attorney General. The lesson was instructive to others.

The Kennedys did manage such an agreement with mob boss Sam Giancanna. As documented earlier in one of my Laissez Faire City Times articles, there were FBI phone tap tapes of mobsters discussing it. What other successful arrangements were made will remain unknown. But Kennedy intent to make such arrangements without hesitation or conscience was clearly demonstrated on multiple occasions.

What existed was not a case of the mob reaching the White House. What existed was a case of one crime family taking control of other crime families. It becomes apparent that the Kennedys, with Bobby as family enforcer, were on the verge of putting together their own supreme family cosa nostra in which, first using Bobby's power as potential Attorney General along with considerable money, then using Bobby's power as Attorney General, one mob family inside government, inside the White House, and using the power of government, could blackmail and control the other traditional mob families to employ them as political operatives in affecting national elections. Bobby was as aggressively psychopathic and ruthless as any other gangster. There was hysterical support from liberal written and TV journalism for anything Kennedy. Bobby was smart enough to pull it off. The order of formal office would transfer from JFK to Bobby, and eventually Teddy. Teddy was the weakling in the male part of Kennedy family and would be a problem. He lacked Jack's wit and charm. He lacks intelligence. He lacked Bobby's incisive ruthlessness. His only talent in this life has been being a Kennedy. But standing between his two brothers, not enough people would have noticed or cared.

Fortunately for America, the situation ended when Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby during his presidential campaign, instantly changing the entire power structure in American politics as well as order of dominance among crime families. But for that, there was no predicting what Bobby would have done. (although the loss of Jack weakened the family position) He would have had full support of an adoring press in doing it, which to this day still shields the Kennedys from the events of the time.

Younger descendants from that family have accumulated a mounting list of scandals associated with everything from rape to drugs to murder because absence of character, absence of conscience, absence of judgment, tendency toward criminality, pursuit of uncontrolled impulses, run through that family as an entitlement the same way as tendency toward early heart disease or breast cancer or mental deficiency run in other family lines. The Clintons tried to catch up, but came in a narrow second.

Bobby Jr. is now moving back into politics after a hiatus subsequent to his being caught making what he calls a "political statement" with heroin during his middle teenage years at age 29, and we're back on the road again.

Is it a coincidence that nearly every important Kennedy enemy, including arch-enemy Jimmy Hoffa, got hit in a wave of unresolved assassinations in 1975? To this day Hoffa's body has never been found. Don't believe it was the tooth fairy who did it. My suspicion is that somebody with some loyalties waited for things to cool down, then settled some grudges. Whoever did it was damned good. Can I prove it? No, and nobody ever will. But based upon my experience and knowledge of politics it's what I strongly suspect. Some of the plots seen in movies are closer to the truth than we wish.

Government, the Enforcer

Be that as it may be, the biggest threat to America is not some low-level hoodlum such as John Gotti, who I have no respect for. A far greater threat is employment of government agencies as enforcers for personal, political, or even subversive agenda. A more serious danger to society is someone like a Bobby Kennedy or the delivery of FBI files without serious chain of custody to a ruthless Hillary Clinton. Hillary is the new Bobby Kennedy. She has hysterical political support and is unimpeded by any residue of sanity or legality that existed 40 years ago.

Attorney Generals are not necessarily your friend or in existence to uphold the law. Bill Clinton was Attorney General for the state of Arkansas when he "allegedly" raped Juanita Broaddrick according to her statements. Allegedly? The act of having Paula Jones dragged into his hotel room and sticking his penis in her face documents his attitude and capabilities such as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the Broaddrick story. To my knowledge he has never denied the Broaddrick act, but instead responded with the comment that the legal system would take its course for any determination on the matter. The leftist media never pressed the question beyond accepting that flip reply. For those who are new in town, that reply is shorthand conferring false legitimacy to a process in which the legal system is employed to create obstruction, in which corrupt or weak prosecutors will be sought out, where corrupt or incompetent judges will be sought out, and the truth can be overturned.

Broaddrick has been criticized for not bringing action against Clinton at the time of the incident. At the time, Clinton was Attorney General for the state of Arkansas. It's a bit much to ask the Attorney General to bring criminal charges against himself. Following that, Clinton was governor. An atmosphere of intimidation? I doubt Broaddick's life would be worth a dime if she hadn't remained silent. The necessary resources to overcome the powerful positions and the forces against her would be beyond anything she had available. She'd need to fight the entire state. It would have been her word against Clinton's if she even got a word in anywhere. At best, she would never be taken seriously and would be undercut and discredited. (As she was later ignored and shunned by a corrupt National Organization of Women who had political interests in supporting the Clintons.)

The Clintons had treed and taken over the state of Arkansas with consequent immunity from any acts of criminality.

In the early 80s I was taking law courses for my own edification. One of the professors was a judge. In fact, several of the professors were judges. I attended his court to see how he worked. A particular case came up and he voluntarily stopped the proceeding at the beginning with the following:

"The plaintiff in this case was a client of mine when I was in legal practice prior to becoming a judge. If either party in this case believes this prior relationship will affect my capacity to render an unbiased verdict, step forward and the matter will be moved to another court."

That is how judges of integrity should conduct themselves. Any prior, continuing, or future relationship on the part of a judge and any parties in a legal proceeding should be voluntarily revealed by the judge and brought before the court for examination of any possibility, or probability, of influencing conduct of the proceeding. This same judge also tended to warn people at the beginning of testimony that perjury would result in time in jail.

In the Paula Jones vs Clinton trial, Judge Wright had been Clinton's former student. It might be suspected, or expected, that the judge was subject to continued sense of feeling of subordination or intimidation acquired as Clinton's student, or had an either conscious or unconscious perception of indebtedness or loyalty contaminating the proceeding such that acting in accordance with law would have been a betrayal of her past or present relationship with Clinton. Had she been a judge of any integrity, Wright would have voluntarily disqualified herself from the Clinton case on her own initiative—if nothing else for the sake of appearance if there were to be a seriously-regarded judicial proceeding.

As it was, the subsequent proceeding was a travesty marked by a laxity that could only be explained by contamination or incompetence.

In my opinion Paula Jones was poorly served by legal counsel as well as by the judge. Clinton was able to act with an attitude of ridiculing defiance throughout the entire trial which never would have been allowed under ordinary circumstances. The Bill Clinton who was of touted brilliance was suddenly allowed to act the part of a naive mental defective without confrontation of the mysterious personality change. At times his testimony was what has been described as maddening in its evasiveness. Clinton's testimony about not knowing what sex was, was contemptuous. The court and the public were asked to believe Clinton honestly couldn't recall if he was having a sexual affair in the White House. The supposed absence of recollection would require him viewing such acts with such ongoing nonchalance as to be easily forgotten crosses the threshold of ridiculousness. That somewhat detached indifference and insignificance, itself, if it were to be believed, should have been used as evidence of predisposing absence of conscience that supported the Jones complaint.

Lapse of Memory

Had I been Jones's attorneys I would have requested an immediate thorough psychiatric evaluation of Clinton to determine the reality of Clinton's supposed lapses of memory as well as his feigned incapacity to understand commonly used words and definitions in standard usage of the English language. Had I been the judge I would have concurred and demanded evaluation by the toughest and most competent analytically-trained psychiatrist that could be found—the next day before there was opportunity for coaching or obstruction because there would be no way I would tolerate the ridicule taking place in my court. In fact, the clever attorney and a competent serious judge might have made such an arrangement previously and privately in chambers in view of Clinton's defiant contempt of the proceedings so that the next time Clinton cocked off to the court there would be a psychiatric panel immediately waiting for him.

Whether such arrangement would be held legally acceptable on appeal is another matter. Necessity to penetrate Clinton's defiance of the legal process in the proceeding should have countered any accusation of wanton collusion between judge and opposing counsel. The result, of course, in any of the events, would have been diagnosis of a combination of serious long term personality disorders which would have also established Clinton as both unfit and dangerous to continue in the presidency. There is no appeal from that.

Factor 3: Legal Dadaism

The Clintons Characterize the Legal Establishment

Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton show evidence of highly developed legal minds. Their schooling occurred at a period when adherence to a type of irrational antiestablishment countercultural radicalism could be substituted for intellect and knowledge of substance of law or anything else. Bill Clinton's legal successes, to the extent there were any at all, were an accumulation of being in an uncontested role of authority in earlier periods, then having a condition of corrupt or incompetent judges together with weak legal opposition in later periods. Clinton's actions in the Jones trial, and later before Starr's grand jury were not particularly clever, but were only insults enabled by weak opposing counsel and/or a corrupt bench.

Investigative independent counsel Ken Starr was known as a gentlemanly lawyer. My impression of his personality and legal expertise is that he is a highly intelligent and thorough legal technician. The problem with this is that he seemed to treat the matter as a detached abstract legal exercise. He failed to communicate the importance of the situation and the importance of the insult being foisted upon the American people. He was entirely too trusting and naive. Gentlemanly law only works among gentlemen.

Starr and his staff were acting on my behalf and on the behalf of the American nation. They owed an allegiance to the nation, to the people of the nation, to the condition of the nation, and to the future of the nation.

He had a duty to perceive and act upon obvious insult and criminality as serious element to be exposed and penetrated. In the event his initial investigations exposed a condition far more serious than was originally thought and that was a threat to the present condition or future of the nation it was his obligation to the nation to correct that condition.

Starr should have had an awareness of the broader picture and obligations in that context. America had a condition where someone who obviously evidenced a serious mental disorder and propensity for contemptuous criminality occupied the White House, but it was like trying to push a string to get anything done about it. It was his competent responsibility to realize Clinton was protected by corruption, indifference, and incompetence. Were the totality to legally prevail it would establish a dangerous precedent for conduct in the Oval Office and a dangerous precedent in the condition of the American governmental and legal system.

As a matter of aggressive legal advocacy under a hostile condition, Starr should have deferred presenting the evidence of the semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress. Clinton maintained he was never in the room alone with Monica Lewinsky. The proper response from Starr should have been, "Does that mean someone else, or several people, were always present in the room with you and Lewinsky?" In response to the yes answer, Starr should have then asked, "Tell us how many other people were in the room when you ejaculated the semen on Monica Lewinsky's dress and what their names were." That would have crushed Clinton and brought down the house.

This would have constituted a form of what could be argued to be witness entrapment. Starr was regarded as too much of a gentleman to do such things. But this particular form of entrapment would have been one, not of dishonesty, but one in which the sequence of witness questioning was adjusted to let a flagrantly dishonest and contemptuous witness entrap himself. You can't entrap an honest witness. Nice guy law doesn't work with psychopaths. Such tactics must be used with a corrupt witness.

Dealing with Corrupt Psychopaths

Starr also should have realized that a corrupt senate would use any excuse to avoid reasonable action resulting from any evidence. I would have hoped he would have had enough commitment to justice to expose Clinton so thoroughly and in such a manner that it would overcome senate corruption.

Bill Clinton is a very primitive immature personality prone to temper tantrums when thwarted or put in situations where he is not in control. An aggressive trial lawyer would have broken Clinton. Clinton should have been broken. He needs to be broken. Hillary should have been broken.

After Clinton's transparent lies in the Jones trial were revealed in the Starr Report, Judge Wright was under serious pressure (as was Bill Clinton). The penalties for perjury in a federal court are substantial while Clinton's legal background dictated that his actions would have necessarily been deliberate calculation and defiance rather than blundering ignorance. Clinton had earned time in jail for his actions. Had it been somebody else, he would have served time in prison. But, what Wright instead did was give Clinton a slap on the hand and a token fine which it was expected his supporters would pay. The token penalties Judge Wright imposed were in seriously deficient proportion to Clinton's contemptuous insulting mockery during actions in all the judicial proceedings. They were also in deficient proportion to the threat the precedence of Clinton's legal prevailing would have on the future of the nation.

Wright's actions accomplished three purposes. First, they were a ridiculous attempt to relieve her of personal professional embarrassment over obvious incompetence or misfeasance she demonstrated during the trial.

Secondly, they were an equally ridiculous attempt to restore some slight credibility to the trial and legal process.

But third, and most importantly, she got Clinton off the hook by closing the matter in such a way that it could not be reopened and Clinton would be freed from any further threat. Once an issue has been adjudicated with imposition of penalties, it can not be reopened for further imposition of penalty. Therefore, the imposition of token penalty extracted Bill Clinton from serious earned consequences. Wright's maneuver was a corrupt act that was another solid win for the Clintons.

It has been mentioned in earlier analyses in this series that there are certain personality similarities between Clinton and charming serial woman killer Ted Bundy. In this case those similarities created legal similarities. Bundy was an narcissist who felt an omnipotence and who expected to conduct his own trial. It was only in the initial stages of his trial when the judge told him his finger-pointing instructions to the judge would not be permitted that Bundy began to realize for the first time in his life he was facing something serious that he could not talk his way out of and he was in trouble. Bill Clinton came into the trial with a similar attitude. The difference between Bundy's trial and Clinton's trials, was that Clinton's attitude was never seriously opposed and by virtue of being allowed to mock the process and convert it into a travesty, he maintained control and was never in a situation of any seriousness or never in trouble.

It has been argued that Clinton's perjury was not perjury because the facts involved in his dishonest testimony wouldn't have affected the final decision in the case. But in the real world the oath of testimony to tell the truth in a trial does not say "except when a witness wants to argue deliberate untruth in an area will not affect the outcome of a case." If the relevance of any line of questioning is not successfully disputed at the time it is brought up, it becomes legally relevant and the witness is obligated to tell the truth under penalty for perjury.

It has also been argued that Judge Wright's imposition of penalties was an embarrassment for Clinton which was sufficient penalty. But neither of the Clintons have shown a hint of embarrassment throughout their lives. Capability for embarrassment would have prevented them from doing the things they did. Their capacity to laugh at what should be an embarrassment subjectively transforms for them what should be embarrassment into personal victory over the annoying intrusion of stupid petty bourgeois morality's attempt to obstruct their self-entitled grandiose personal ambition. Immunity from embarrassment gives such people an intoxicating sense of superiority. It also gives the Clintons a type of emotional invulnerability and cold calculus of mind that allows them no limits or hesitation in exploiting the suckers. Immunity from embarrassment has been both the Clintons' strengths. They grasp, then brazen it out while each grasp accumulates additional money and power. Personal presence of any sensitivity to embarrassment, or personal dignity, or personal integrity would have denied the Clintons their entire lifetime mode of operation.

The Graystone Motel

Several years ago I saw a legal panel discussion in which one of the attorneys was a contentious and aggressive Texas defense trial lawyer, whose name I have forgotten, who missed nothing and would tear the opposition's throat out with his eye teeth. Nobody gets away with anything on his watch. He is the fountainhead of indignation. Had he, or someone like him, been Paula Jones's attorney, or certainly if someone equivalent had been in charge of the Office of Independent Counsel, Bill and Hillary both would have ended up sentenced to spending time in the Graystone Motel. I don't think there is any real doubt about it. That's where both of them belonged.

A series of news reports on 8/8/01 revealed the following:

Drug trafficker Carlos Vignali had been sentenced to a 15-year prison term for conspiring to sell more than 800 pounds of cocaine. Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid $204,000 by Vignali's family to use his influence to get Vignali out of jail. An archives handwritten note on White House stationary from the Vignali files of Bill Clinton's top aid, Bruce Lindsey, says, "Hugh says this is very important to him and the first lady as well as others,"

Bill Clinton promptly pardoned Vignali on Jan. 20, 2001 despite strong objections from the U.S. attorney's office.

This type of corruption and bribery has been a Bill and Hillary pattern throughout their careers and criticism of it is met with defiant indignation by Hillary.

I believe Starr is an honest man whose formal credentials can not be disputed. However, I suspect he was knowingly selected, or allowed to be accepted, because of inadequacy of personal temperament.

In adversarial or confrontational law, or for that matter any adversarial procedure, adequacy of temperament is as important a requirement as any other in determining successful outcome of a case.

As it was, the fix was in. A corrupt senate under inadequately framed pressure refused to act on obvious evidence and an obvious condition. Bubba, who ran a campaign against the greed of the 80s, is now blithely raking in $100,000 or more a night for speaking before corrupt organizations, with corrupt critically placed people within those organizations in control of money financing him. Hillary is now a United States Senator getting $8,000,000 book deals and heading for the presidency like a guided missile. According to every present indication she will be successful.

The question is, what did all this do to people's respect and faith in the legal system, the justice system, and the government in the United States of America? A precedent of deliberate defiant corruption was set.

What now exists is a legal and justice system functioning like that found in the most corrupt banana republics. Legal or constitutional processes are contorted. Government agencies are systematically misused. Certain people or groups are immune to justice or any legal process while others are selectively targeted by twisting the same. There seems to be no way to break into the system to change it. Many people, such as the Clintons, don't want it changed. The corruption is also a necessity to achieve certain ideological purposes. There is nothing rigidly remaining of illegality. There is no protection from distortion of law and a legal process which can be selectively strained to be applied for misuse. This has been an ongoing development for some period. There is no discussion of it by political candidates.

Importantly, the distortion of justice and law is a victory for the sophisticated contempt enjoyed by people who believe they are of the elite fashionable sophisticated contemptuous. The new Robin Hoods are people such as the Kennedys and the Clintons who are elected as an expression of that sophisticated contempt. Sophisticated contempt for those who do not share that sophisticated contempt has become a major thrust in American politics and, as we shall see, has become dangerous to those who do not share it.

The condition is not only corrupt, but is crazy. It is supported by a complicated pathological sociopolitical structure. This leads us to The Ring.

The Ring Cycle

The Ring consists of a series of stations positioned around an abstract circular path. The rules and actions upon which society operates are either validated or invalidated by reference to people or organizations at the various positions or stations around that path. The Ring references people or organizations within itself while outside influences are excluded. For the moment the ring may be conceptually unclear. We will return to it in a few moments. But first let's a look at the ring's center which turns out to be basic. The center has constructed the outer ring to impose its will and views.

After years of study I believe I understand the passive-aggressive sadistic ring center, but the problem is explaining it fully in less than years of graduate study. The best that can be done here is a description and paralleling of certain aspects of it.

For this purpose I'll begin with something called Dadaism which was a school of philosophy and intellectuality in the last part of the 1910s and the first half of the 1920s that became highly represented in the arts and literature. There are apparently still some adherents to it today. Over a period of nearly 40 years the descriptive or intellectually diagnostic label Dadaism keeps leaping out at me in recognition when observing political and social trends.

As described in a condensation of definitions, Dada or Dadaism was a nihilistic movement advocating the principles of deliberate irrationality, anarchy, and cynicism along with rejection of all laws of beauty and social organization. It expressed a severe hatred of bourgeois values.

An idea of its nature can be obtained by reading some of the movement's poetry.

What a b what a b what a beauty

What a b what a b what a a

What a beauty beauty be

What a beauty beauty be

What a beauty beauty beauty be be be

What a be what a b what a beauty

What a b what a b what a a

What a be be be be be

What a be be be be be

What a be be be be be be be a beauty be be be

What a beauty.

XIII

DADA is a virgin microbe

DADA is against the high cost of living

DADA is limited complany for the exploitation of ideas

DADA has 391 different attitudes and colours according to the sex of the president It changes - affirms - says the opposite at the same time - no importance -

shouts - goes fishing.

Dada is the chameleon of rapid and self-interested change.

Dada is against the future. Dada is dead. Dada is absurd. Long live Dada.

Dada is not a literary school, howl

Tristan Tzara

Factor 4: The New Dadaism

XVI

howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl

howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl

howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl

howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl
howl howl howl howl howl howl howl howl

Who still considers himself very likeable

Tristan Tzara

[from Dada Manifesto on Feeble and Bitter Love]

preamble = sardanapalus
one = suitcase
woman = women
trousers = water
if = moustache
2 = three

stick = perhaps
after = sightreading
irritant = emerald
vice = screw
october = periscope
nerve = [picture of a hand pointing right]

or all this together in any old savoury, soapy, brusque or definitive

order—
drawn by lot — is alive.

It's tempting to make the wisecrack that the logic shown in the above approximates the logic in recent court decisions as well as the editorial content of TV liberal nightly news. In fact, there is a connection.

This was considered serious stuff. Some people still consider it so. Followers, then and now, say it has something they call authenticity. More of it can be found on the Internet by doing a Dadaism search. You'll also find some self-flattering definitions of Dadaism.

The above type material is subject to some interesting psychoanalytic and other clinical interpretation of the condition and background of the people who wrote it. But it is long past the time when we should be beginning to doubt whether sitting about analyzing the results of someone's either refusal or blocked capacity to state the constituents of their maladjustment directly should transform those results into the legitimate art or intellectual forms it has supposedly become. Among the educated classes there has evolved a system of pseudopsychiatric social interaction and psychiatric art where artists and other people are essentially patients while social and intellectual life consists of amateur psychoanalysis of those patients. The original artistic or intellectual content in minimal. What eventual content that emerges is nearly exclusively conjecture and interpretation from devotees. What is labeled art or intellectuality has become little more than a signal or reflexive trigger to begin endless psychobabble. This is taught in college literature 101 where we are asked, "What does the author mean? What does this symbolize?" It symbolizes the fact many people don't have enough to do in their lives other than become involved with such things while pretending they are doing something important. Trying to run our lives or the nation in this impressive sophisticated mode doesn't work very well.

Intellectual life, and personal life, have become fashion-led group un-therapy sessions where otherwise boring people demonstrate personal cleverness or creativity by exhibiting as much provocative convoluted confusion as possible while defying other people to penetrate it and obtain admission of the truth. People now play psychiatric interpretation the same way they once worked jig-saw puzzles or played bridge. Alienation has become a fashionable art form. Left wing politics has become an extension of this for people who have nothing else in their lives.

Healthy personal psychological adjustment deflates the basis of the entire balloon and is to be demeaned and subverted at all costs. I mean, the quickest way to cast a pall over modern social and intellectual relationships is to suggest a person's life would be less miserable and less chaotic if they'd quit playing around on their spouse. But what the hell would revelation of such direct truthful observations do to discussions of modern sublimated literature or to the convoluted evasive song and dance acts that make up our social lives.

To augment the situation, many popular daytime TV shows are talk shows, televised divorce courts, or whatever, featuring streams of people with character disorders and psychoses as hosts and guests alike. They were unfortunate desensitization in preparation for tolerating the Clinton White House.

Our entertainment, our social lives, our intellectual lives, and our political lives consist of far too much involvement with psychiatric disorder, and too much involvement with the challenge of irritating mental disorder.

Hebrephrenia

In psychiatry and clinical psychology there was once described a condition or diagnostic category termed hebrephrenia or hebrephrenic schizophrenia. I don't know the extent to which it's still taught that way, and at any rate classroom teaching regarding the area varies with the school of thought.

The hebrephrenic exhibits disorganized fragmented silliness and obstinance of thought along with verbal or other ritual that seems to have a rebellious or angry quality. Closely associated is expression of constant expressive diffuse antagonism. Hebrephrenics were described as marching and stamping their feet around the mental wards repeating silly words, phrases, and twisted verbal rituals resembling Dada poetry.

I view Dadaism as paralleling a position along the developmental spectrum of hebrephrenic intensity or involvement in which there is slightly more capacity to function in daily life—to the extent we still consider serious functional capacity in psychological evaluation. With the affluence and ease of modern life there is greater opportunity for parasitic existence concurrent with less need for capacity to function seriously day to day anyway. Thus, cultural affluence has become an enabler or cushion for conditions of serious mental disorder. Necessary functionality in daily life is becoming downgraded ability to that level necessary to function within a system of parasitism and artificiality with the result it's becoming irrelevant to determine who has capability to function rationally by evaluating the adequacy of their capacity to survive. In contemporary psychological society, TV, journalism, academia, and the acting profession now provide highly lucrative positions for people who would formerly have perished by consequence of near-psychotic incompetence. The influx of the maladjusted and incompetent into the growth of such professions and industries, particularly into academia, can only half-humorously be argued to have become a viable placement alternative for kooks that has resulted in reduced need for formal mental hospitals—while converting America into a mental ward.

One of the implicit prerequisites for the existence of Dadaistic-type poetry and movements is, after all, the existence of economic softness and social support such as to produce a class of people who have little else to do, and little other responsibility, than to orient themselves toward, and involve themselves with, such things. The exponential growth of that class has become a threat to society at large. The information age is becoming the age of near-psychotic parasites.

To some extent Dadaism and hebrephenia are differentiated in that Dadaistic patterns often tend to be somewhat willingly pursued or acquired as an attempt by people to make themselves interesting and make themselves different along with fabrication of a veneer of intellectuality, while hebrephrenia begins as a less controlled internally-compelled distorted aspect of a person's life. But that which is willingly acquired can become ingrained and reflexive. It can displace other elements in a person's life. It can channel people into self-destructive behavior, and can produce life deterioration, such that the final debilitated conditions resulting from willing adoption of Dadaism or its evolving parallel forms, versus hebrephenia, begin to converge.

There are conditions of mental disorder and problems that tell people with mental problems they don't have problems. These conditions, combined with larger vocabularies, and an organizing strength of numbers either sharing the specific problem or similar problems, aggressively work to convert forms of severe mental disorder into supposed schools of intellect along with issuing personal demands to be classified as committed advanced intellectual adherents instead of just plain damned nuts. The process has been quite successful, with consequent debilitation of society.

Power Defines "Sanity"

With some degree of sarcasm it must be said that before we can now talk about a category of thought or behavior as indicative of severe mental disorder we must now first see if liberals have succeeded in elevating someone with those characteristics into the presidency or the supreme court or into being something such as surgeon general—which then has the effect of erasing the corresponding category of psychiatric diagnostic disorder. Events of the Clinton period substantiate this.

Little by little the concept of mental disorder has been eroded while what once would have been considered serious mental disorder has been elevated through contorted interpretation into being intellectual diversity and creativity. It is now possible to do graduate work in pursuing borderline psychosis with doctoral degrees being awarded for attainment of the debilitated condition simultaneous with expulsion of, as being right-wing extremists, those remaining few who more appropriately view the condition for what it is. Convoluted and encrypted mumblings that disturb and produce migraine in normal healthy people signify readiness for graduation. Grappling with the debilitating condition after having attained it produces what is called serious involvement with intellectuality. To dangerous degree higher education is becoming a system of self-replicating self-protective tenured mental illness producing immature graduate cripples incapable of function in any other life or any other purpose.

Parenthetically, all the factors mentioned so far have worked synergistically to produce an extensive culture of irrelevance, or subculture of irrelevance, that is far distant from production of necessary goods and services. The inhabitants of this subculture are typically well educated. They believe they are sophisticated. They often hold serious positions in government, academia, the media, and elsewhere. They believe their ideas are correct and important because they primarily talk with and reinforce each other without intervention from any other world. They live in a subcultural isolation. Their ideas are important only in so far as they are able to impose or act upon them. There exist virtual economics, virtual social studies, virtual science, virtual art, and sets of values relevant only to this fop subculture and which may, in the context of reality, extend beyond mere irrelevance and into that which is dangerous. In their association exclusively with each other in the artificial environment they have constructed, inhabitants of irrelevancy have lost track of how nuts and useless they really are. In many cases it is a continuation of a mentality, well-developed by the teenage period, in which superficial fashions are the only importances and responsibility in life. Chronological transition into adulthood and liberal education polish and reward the condition, but don't fundamentally improve it much.

As one might imagine, people from the world of fashionable irrelevant near-psychotic artificiality are at odds with ordinary people who have concrete responsibilities and are subject to intervention in their lives by unforgiving reality. This is one of several facets of the cultural war Pat Buchanan talked about in 1992. We will return to the area later.

The New Dadaism

The original Dada movement lasted only about a decade, after which it was superseded by surrealism in the mid 20s. What has arisen is a new Dadaism. The new Dadaism is a developmental consequence ultimately resulting from the astronomical rise in numbers of hippie borderline/borderline psychotic personality systems and the borderline/borderline psychotic radicalism of the 60s and 70s. With the large scale development of such conditions during the period and the subsequent generational ascendancy into social and structural institutions, the new Dadaism has become an influential, if not dominant, long term plague rather than passing fashion. It's not called Dadaism because in the necessity to appear creatively avant garde there is a requirement not to be a calling yourself something that has the same name as something with the same approximate craziness that existed before. So you can't be a Dadaist. You need to call it something else. Those on the so-called political right typically employ the terms politically correct liberalism and counterculturalism which have been a social and political force for 35 years. The terms postmodern deconstructionism whateverism are applied by so-called leftist intellectuals.

But it's basically the same semi-psychotic Dada and snobbish rebellious foppishness of years ago. It has proliferated with higher educational levels and with the leniency from reality afforded by affluence.

Typical components are a combination from the following: A type of smug supremely self-confident brainlessness. A system of emotional specious abstract contentless language. Politically correct rejection of rationality, while simultaneously interpreting rationality to be an arbitrary punitive artifact of European culture. Deficient sense of cause and effect supporting a coordinate system of confused or deliberately confusing irresponsibility. A belief in an almost magical power of words such that they can be used to argue reality out of existence. A type of subjectivism which denies absolutes. Emphasis on subjective feeling. Feelings of specialness and frustrated entitlement. A personal life style and existence of boring self-absorbed silliness and triviality. A cycle of self-indulgent dulling excesses the consequences of which are attempted to be relieved by escalation into still more extreme dulling excesses which then feed back into the cycle. A reservoir of anger that is released upon society in indirect passive-aggressive forms that have become fashionable. Construction of, and adherence to, various political and social doctrines that rationalize inflicting those forms upon other people. An intense passive-aggressive hostility toward adult authority figures which evolved as it became intellectualized and became encoded into sadistic doctrines that allowed rationalized release. Living primarily for the present and present impulses with insufficient consideration of long term consequences. Attribution of personal dissatisfaction to be a characteristic of the culture and society rather than a characteristic of personal choice of irrational destructive self-indulgent behavior that causes it. A resulting militant crusade against the culture in furious retaliation for its supposedly having imposed that dissatisfaction. A compulsive destructiveness—even of themselves. Dependence upon alienation for a source of direction, or interest, and purpose in life. (Bitter alienation is the social religion practiced by millions of affluent soft overweight bored people.)

And, oh yes, the people involved are generally pretty far to the social and political left. They demand construction of a society to support the above condition and the culture of irrelevance.

Forgive Them for They Know Not What They Do

Their views on something such as movie director Roman Polansky drugging and engaging in sex with 13-year -old kids would typically be much blander, much less direct, and much less focused than mine. Bill Clinton's use of the IRS to silence people, or acts such as raping women, or clawing the clothes off little more than high school girls is forgiven, while Richard Nixon will never be forgiven anything.

It is a condition once understood as useless decadence.

The American nation is flooded with nearly hebrephrenic angry immature defiantly destructive aging spoiled little kids stamping their feet and reciting Dadaistic slogans while playing in a virtual reality world. That playing is demanded not to be subject to interruption by outside reality or responsibility. But these are not kids, they just think like kids. They are overconfident and arrogantly demanding because they lost fear as protected privileged teenagers in the 60s and 70s while instilling fear in their parents when it should have been the other way around. They live in an atmosphere preoccupied by an obsessive silly hatred.

This is the center that The Ring services. From that point we return to discussion of The Ring.

The Ring consists of a circle made up of people of the same mentality as exists in the center who reference each other in turn while excluding other views in competently stated form. National forums and TV consist of ring members referencing each other around and across the ring in a virtual reality to interpret political or social events. It's a very powerful condition that has considerable effect upon society.

As has been aptly pointed out on an internet forum, President Eisenhower's somewhat cryptic warnings of the dangerous power of a military-industrial complex many years ago should [can—Zola] be superseded by warnings about the dangerous corrupt power of a leftist media and academia complex. However, those two institutions are only part of the makeup of The Ring. There is an extreme leftist element in printed journalism staffed by a Washington press corps that voted 87-89% for George McGovern and the Clintons, an extreme leftist academia, an extreme leftist element in the judiciary, an extreme leftist element in politics, an extreme leftist element in TV news and TV journalism, a self-serving element in government that perpetuates itself and benefits from leftist social and other programs, and an extreme leftist element in entertainment. They take turns referencing and validating each other and their positions in a virtual reality. We hear leftist interpretation receiving nodding approval from leftist academia, then receiving nodding approval from leftist jurists, then receiving nodding approval from . . . and so on. Anything beyond this is non people and non ideas and non refutation.

Aspect 5: The Machinations of The Ring

For necessary information and interpretation of events the public is steered around and around The Ring in a cycle of unified leftist-biased disinformation.

Because of the hold The Ring has in the mass media, particularly TV, public issues recognized and developed are issues important to people in The Ring.

Issues are created and people are created and developed, personalities are developed and given prominence, and organizations are created, developed, and given prominence.

What is done is to appoint Ring-compatible representatives for various segments of the American people, then recognize, certify, and ascribe credibility to those representatives on TV and elsewhere in media virtual reality while the people supposedly being represented are left out of the decision loop as far as choice or real representation in the matter.

The Ring-appointed NOW

The National Organization of Women is an example of a Ring-created and supported organization created out of nothing. NOW was presented as news. It was never news. What was presented was organizing or coordinating propaganda misrepresented as news. Who decided NOW represents women and must be consulted about anything or everything? Ordinary American women didn't decide it. The Ring appointed and recognized NOW as the representative for American women because the organization represents Ring thinking. NOW is consulted or represented on national issues whether ordinary American women want it or not.

If NOW's positions are completely inconsistent, there's no discussion of it. NOW is attempting to reopen the claims made by Anita Hill against supreme court justice Thomas. Why has there no reopening of the claims of rape against Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick and other women which showed a consistency over many years?

How did the issue of acceptance of homosexuality as benign or normal become important? The American people not only didn't demand it, but were adamantly contrary to it initially. The issue was created, developed, and maintained in the virtual reality of The Ring.

Gloria Steinem has a stern beauty that made her the fashion model for the Woman's Liberation Movement. Other than that, she is one of the most useless pieces of whining junk God ever put on this planet. She's basically boring, irrational, and stupid. That she is consulted on anything requiring mature intelligence is ridiculous. But it makes no difference because other women look at her and fall to pieces. She is strictly a product of the visual impact TV age whose cameras follow her around. She is given softball questions, when questioned at all. She is described in emotional but fundamentally contentless terms such as having set fire to the imagination of a generation of women. We've had setting fire to emotions and imagination. For 35 years I've been waiting in vain for somebody to activate some brains. What the world does not need is more women who believe they are sophisticated when they spread their legs indiscriminately, then embark on a furious crusade against society and men when their relationships end up of no higher quality than what they brought into them.

The assigned leadership for blacks consists of a collage of leftist howling idiots whose opinions are sought out and made prominent as if they were valid. The Tom Sowells and Larry Elders are non-people unworthy of consultation.

In the Nixon days, The Ring electronic and written journalism forums kept the Watergate break-in an intense center of focus indefinitely. The importance of ongoing deliberate Clinton IRS misuse and FBI file unaccountability mysteriously dissipated in minutes.

(Parenthetically, TV news and public affairs recapitulates the Dadaistic iconoclasm newscasters learned in college. They seem to be stuck in reenacting shallow iconoclastic college sophomore 101 and 102 without thought. There has been little self-development to meet the needed transition into wisdom. The number of people who have never left college after 20 or 40 years is unfortunate.

(Over the years I have also come to the conclusion the printed and electronic media are the warped product of time constraints. There is a continuing need for large amounts of material in short periods. This leaves little time for depth. What results is a pool of shallow people within the fields who are adept at presenting superficiality as if it were serious content. Unfortunately, this mode has become internalized by audiences as an acceptable quality of analysis.)

The Dadaistic TV Hologram

American national consciousness is now a Dadaistic electronic hologram where people, political candidates, issues, perceptions, interpretations, and support are artificially created over TV and the visual media. The watching audience is subjected to illusion of mass sociopolitical movement and unity followed by demand and declaration of need for government and social policy to meet the demands raised in the artificial consensus presented in holographic virtual reality.

What is disturbing is that Adolf Hitler's and Dr. Goebbels' techniques of political and social manipulation through mass crowd participation and mass crowd psychology have been duplicated and refined by creating the same force through use of electronic hologram virtual reality on TV and elsewhere to the point of near totality. The most massive propaganda machine in history is operating in America along with the most massive system of censorship by displacement where the left is the exclusive discussion forum on national issues.

The American people live under an illusion of choice in which the options put before them are artificially created and restricted images of false unity. Many panic in fear for not conforming to the manufactured illusion.

All this sounds very conspiratorial. Who is the leader of the conspiracy, and what is it called?

While there may be a variety of strong voices or widely accepted philosophical figures, there is no tightly organized conspiracy. There is no one leader. Rather, there is a political-social movement consisting of countercultural liberalism. A conspiracy does not necessarily need to be presently formalized or led to exist.

Composite poll statistics of students in the last half of the 60s and early 70s produced a profile in which the American higher educational system was producing a product in which about 65 percent of American college students of the period believed America was imperialistic and repressive of dissent, that the free enterprise system was not very favorable, that Marxism was not a serious threat and Che Guevara was considered among the world's most admired figures by nearly 70 percent of American college students as documented in part six of the Viet Nam series here. What was produced was a massive outflux of graduates in a state of bitter hostility and polarization against America and against anything that wasn't themselves. They were released upon America and the world as similar mentalities independently working toward the same destructive goals. Under these conditions, formal organization or further leadership is unnecessary. Turn 'em loose. Let them do the job they were programmed to do while they reproduce their kind. It's much like a bacterial or viral infection. The Clintons are an example.

The original infection occurred in the educational system many years ago as described elsewhere in this series. Instead of being people, the leaders are a nebulous disorganized combination of the ideas of hundreds of people such as Margaret Mead, Boas, Gramsci, Marx, and even Hugh Hefner, many of who have been dead for many decades, but whose ideas were diffused into the basic premises of recognized mainstream intellectual architecture. The ideas are no longer connected with the names, but are taught and now appear as assumed truth along with the law of gravity.

What further evolves is mutual support within a pool of people who immediately recognize each other as having similar disposition. Anything or anybody else is alien and/or a threatening irritation.

Who Rules America?

Who rules America politically? There are basically two political parties in America. The first party is The Ring sociopolitical complex. This first party believes that their condition of being sophomoric self-certified intellectuals and a leftist ideological elite entitles them to direct society. Indeed, militant imposition of such direction is a social duty which non-believers are incapable of understanding. It's part of a continuing hostility toward, or war against, middle class America and bourgeois values that has continued for decades. The second party is those other guys. Those other guys turn out to be those American people who resist that sense of entitlement to imposition.

There is a controlling entry gate in the American political system. Any political figure must come up through the process of media-approved prominent recognition and certification. This determines who exists with importance versus who is a non-person on the national stage. Were I in editorial control of TV news and public affairs content, I could successfully build up and run any of 1,000 people of attractive presentability for president at will by constantly developing their prominence and showing respect for their comments as news, while denying thousands of other people political office at will.

Of course there is no single person in charge of TV content and no single person to do this. What exists is nearly a single mentality controlling editorial content. The mentality and process have been described. The consistency is such that not once in 30 years have I heard reference to a radical left, but there have been numerous references to the radical right. This represents a subjective perception of the difference in position between the left-right groups and the position of the people making the reference. The typical Ring occupant is so far left that large deviance leftward from their position is impossible and is not subjectively perceived. That becomes the language of reporting and analysis.

America's formal political leaders are temporary. The Ring-based complex or movement is permanent and replicating. The true government of continuity in the United States, then, has become The Ring complex mentality that creates or spins off a continuing series of temporal political or cultural figures. Those figures may have their own individualities and ambitions that they pursue, but they are still products approved by, and developed or created by, The Ring.

The society is guided or manipulated through media-recognized and supported intermediaries—the Kennedys, the Johnsons, the Clintons, and even the Bushes, for the Bushes are not a serious threat to the status quo. They are essentially consolidation periods between leftist political thrusts. Bush Jr., as was expected, has never confronted the Clinton corruption. In so doing, or rather not doing, and in not supporting or encouraging desperately-needed public protest, he has abandoned or betrayed legitimate perception of the Clinton period and left the public to adapt to the Clintons. In the Bush view, we are moving on. The problem is, we are moving on entirely too quickly without the serious accountability or corrective consequences necessary to maintain a free nation. For the radical left and the Clintons this is like dying and going to heaven.

The full political impact of TV came into being in 1960 during the Kennedy campaign. Before that, TV was a primitive medium and political figures such as Eisenhower came upon the national political scene from another era and from a less artificial reason for personal prominence over which the present system had no control.

Beginning in 1960 America had Democratic presidential candidates of doubtful or hidden backgrounds who were TV creations and TV supported. Nixon was already known from the old era and was not dependent upon the media for prominence. Reagan came in through the side door and was able to face down the media.

The Outsiders

Occasionally the American people, who are outsiders, achieve temporary representation. When this happens, The Ring and its representative active political candidates or officeholders look at themselves as the rightful government forced into exile. What has evolved is either one government versus what is looked upon as interim intruders with a government in exile working to overturn the elected government through the media.

Bill Clinton is now acting as if he were provisional president forced into exile. It's not being contested.

What exists is a system wherein elected governments are overturned by force of subversive machinery, as in Nixon. Nixon was overthrown by a coup staged in virtual reality which he failed to understand. Was the Watergate scandal so terrible? Next to Kennedy's distributing perhaps as much as millions of dollars to throw elections, or Lyndon Johnson's originally being elected by hundreds of ballots with the same handwriting and the same pen in alphabetical order, Nixon was barely even a novice. Or presidents are deleted, as is done to Reagan. Reagan is barely referred to in historical analysis. He is dismissed as a quirk or as a communicator who managed temporary criminal derailment of leftist historical momentum.

One way or another, when in power, or pursuing power, the movement, or their representatives, does what it wants to, then has it verified by the synthesized crowd in the electronic hologram. The American people slowly adapt.

So, The Ring and its stations serve to validate and protect exquisite passive-aggressive sadism in the center which incorporates what seems to be a silly and nearly celebrated destructiveness. Much of it is a form of sadism and antiamericanism that arose in force during the 1960s. The positions or stations around the ring are people or institutions from the center.

When you have an increasing number of people with serious mental disorders that tell them they don't have serious mental disorders and who furthermore believe their mental disorders are forms of superior intelligence that confer entitlement to rule, you had better start to worry. When they are in critical controlling positions in a society, it results in something beyond worry. It results in imposition of madness.

Involuntary Servitude to, and Enforced Compliance to, Madness

The following is a report of a recent court decision that has become a trend in standards of rationality. The case concerns a person who was listed as male on his birth certificate and who is anatomically male, but who claims to have "female self-identification." On that basis he/she/it demanded free access to, and use of, the women's toilet facilities while working at a business organization, The West Group, better known to lawyers and law students as West Publishing.

11/15/2000 Minnesota Court of Appeals

Male worker with female self-image barred from using women's restroom may sue employer for sexual orientation discrimination.

Goins v. West Group, 619 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a male employee with a female self-image who was barred from using the women's restroom at work can sue an employer for violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. Ann. ' 363.01 et seq. That statute prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Here, Goins who had male anatomy but a female self-image was prohibited from using the women's restroom at work after coworkers complained about Goins use of the restroom based on their belief that Goins is biologically male. Goins's employer directed Goins to use the facility's single-occupancy restrooms, which are not designated as men's or women's restrooms. Goins refused, was threatened with discipline for continued use of the women's restroom, and then resigned.

Goins sued the employer, alleging sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the MHRA. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment.

[My clarification: The district court in which the case was first brought to trial reasoned that because Goins was designated male on his/her birth certificate and furthermore was/is/and always has been anatomically male, he must be male. The court of appeals disputed and overturned that reasoning.—RLK]

Reversing, the appellate court noted that the MHRA defines sexual orientation to include having a self-image not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness. Thus, the court reasoned, the MHRA protects the employee from discrimination based on an inconsistency between self-image and anatomy. Here, the court said, plaintiff made a prima facie case of direct discrimination under the MHRA by showing denial of the use of a workplace facility based on the inconsistency between plaintiff's self-image and anatomy. The burden then shifted to defendant (the West Group) to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to prohibit plaintiff from using the women's restroom, the court explained. The court said defendant's argument that plaintiff is a man and an employer may legitimately segregate restrooms by sex is that it legitimately discriminated on the basis of sex. However, the court emphasized, plaintiff argues that defendant illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Given the unambiguous wording of the MHRA, the court found, defendant failed to present a nondiscriminatory, legitimate defense to plaintiff's prima facie case of sexual orientation discrimination.

Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Joni M. Thome—Bloomington, Minn.

This is not a one-time erratic ruling by an insignificant legal body. It is a ruling by a serious major state court. It is a ruling that has found, and will continue to find parallel agreement with other judgments in other states and jurisdictions.

Under Title 5 of the California state code, gender means "a person's actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person's perceived identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."

According to research an attorney placed in association with an internet discussion of this ruling, as of June 2000, at least 18 jurisdictions including Atlanta, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Mich., New Orleans, Seattle, Washington, D.C., and the states of Minnesota and Missouri had all legally enacted imposition of self-declared gender as taking precedence over contrary anatomical gender in their nondiscrimination codes using language similar to California's new definition and in close agreement and interpretation with the decision made by the Minnesota court of appeals. In all those locales, a person's gender is what he or she says it is, or wishes it were, regardless of original and presently existent anatomy and biology. A person's wishs, fantasies, or demands now take precedence over their obvious and functional physical anatomy.

The rulings are being expanded to additional states.

Part 6: Privileged Pathological Groups

(As an aside, this is part of a larger pathological cultural trend resulting from the ascent of primitive borderline psychotic personality systems during the 60s wherein wishs, fantasies, assertions, and demands are expected to take precedency over any aspect of reality. The temper tantrums over the failure of reality, or the reluctance of other people, to conform to fantasies and psychotic demands are being channeled into the courts systems with laws attempting to overturn basic reality. People are bringing suits, passing laws, and issuing court decrees requiring all of civilization to be as crazy as they are. It's working.)

In the specific case under discussion, what exists is a person who is in every anatomical way a male, but who wishs he were a girl, or claims to be a girl, or who claims to think he wants to be a girl, or something similar. Importantly, any possible existence of serious psychopathology or mischievous intent underwriting such claims or wishes is not an allowable legal consideration in evaluating the circumstances or application of the law, or upon the other people this person affects under rulings by the courts and the distorted laws being passed. An implicit seal of legitimacy is being bestowed upon his condition and is being enforced and imposed upon all people around him. This is an important sentence and concept area we will return to later. Under liberal activist court rulings he/she/it is allowed unlimited a priori right to force absolute compliance to his view upon the people immediately around him, upon the immediate organization, and upon the world at large — even to the point of guaranteed cordial accessibility to women's toilet facilities and any other women's facilities or activities.

In the full legal opinion, and the collateral legal derivations, which are too long to appear here, any place of employment is now required to provide an atmosphere free of discrimination, free of intimidation of any kind, or free from other pressures. It then follows that employers or other organizations are now made legally responsible for inflicting or enforcing full compliance to Goins', and others, demands upon other employees. Any half-measures accommodating the views of other employees are legally punishable if they conflict with, or even criticize, his wishes.

As the law now stands, anyone of either anatomical/biological sex now has a right to access and full use of facilities reserved for use of the opposite sex under various pretexts and/or as result of various forms of pathology. Denial of cordial access, and that means cordial with no indication or expression of resentment or disapproval by anyone, is becoming a serious civil rights violation. It will be subject to $250,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment. —And this is a free country?

Liberal activist courts have overturned the way toilet facilities are conventionally used in America. In the larger context, America now exists under a siege condition where one person bringing complaint, with one lawyer, in collusion with liberal jurists, can force overturn of any major or minor aspects of the entire civilization. People bringing suit against the culture, by virtue of being outnumbered, are automatically conferred minority status, with coordinate protected or conferred biased advantaged victim's status in bringing legal action. Indeed, what seems to exist is an ongoing period of deliberate almost defiantly sadistic Dadaistic incremental cultural disassembly, and enforced public subjugation to that disassembly. While minority status is protected, there is no protection for the culture or the entirety of civilization. Neither is there protection for basic rationality.

Election Debates

This, and the rights of courts and/or legislatures to impose it, should have been a subject of very serious debate in the 2000 presidential election as it is both a serious movement and a source of legitimate alarm to many people, and one of the primary issues facing America. Instead of such discussion what we received was irrelevant and evasive dialogue between one apparent mental defective who looked like he'd just been processed by an undertaker, and an inarticulate grinning moon-faced goof wearing $3,000 cowboy boots who was a descending lost visitor from another private aristocratic solar system as far as having any serious knowledge about what is happening in America—on forums moderated and interpreted by members of The Ring.

There has been an ongoing counterculturally based legal crusade to enforce acceptance and servitude to all forms of what not long ago would have been both professionally and commonly been considered serious pathology. The only major form of judicially recognized pathology and unallowable insult is to resist that servitude. For instance, in the above case the idea that coworkers or others would have legitimate or prudent reason to fear or mistrust what is an obvious man, who is even referred to as male by his own attorney, who demands to be accepted as being a woman and who forces this view upon women, is implicitly viewed and acted upon in liberal courts as an anachronistic obstruction to a new social order which is to be summarily dismissed, if not systematically crushed.

What has been created is privileged pathological groups, ne tyrant runamok pathological classes, who are not to be disagreed with to any extent whatsoever. Absolute conformity to their demands must withstand microscopic examination. The condition of mental disorder, the frivolous stupidity of demands, or the frivolousness or fictitiousness of the state of people bringing suit against American culture are not allowed to be questioned.

Thus, what has moved into the entire court system is an enforced Dadaistic tyranny of the psychotic to the point where if a man believes he's a woman, all those around him are required to act as if they believe it also, without question or reservation, or it's a punishable violation of his civil rights.

The American people are being forced into subjection to protected irrationality. If you are a law student, don't press that opinion or you are likely to be expelled.

In another area:

I have no religious commitments. But even from an unreligious position it becomes obvious that within the deliberate and defiantly sadistic Dadaism there is an antireligious crusade and suppression which is being enforced through the courts, the legislatures, and the media.

Affirmative Action Quacks

Another area of madness is affirmative action.

From a news item: "U-M, cheered on by other Michigan universities and blue-chip corporations, currently is defending legal challenges to its admissions policy, which favors black applicants over whites and Asians with stronger academic credentials."

For some years, medical schools have been doing the same thing on a widespread basis. Here is a comment by an internet acquaintance:

"I once asked a friend of mine, who sat on the admissions committee of a prestigious medical school, about the poorly qualified minority students that he and some of his colleagues on the committee were waving through admission. "But when you admit these under-qualified students, and then the faculty passes them through also, in spite of inadequate performance, aren't you exposing the community to unacceptable risk of mayhem?" You know what his reply to me was? He said, "We have to correct for past discrimination, and you can't make omelets without breaking some eggs."

In a criminally insane triumph of fanatic doctrine over intelligent reason and regard for human life, medical schools and other training facilities have been systematically bringing unqualified blacks into medical school and pushing them out with medical degrees. Then what?

The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation is responsible for licensing all of the licensed professionals (doctors, nurses, engineers, etc.) with the exception of attorneys. Out of the total number of licenses revoked or suspended during the ten-year interval of 1991-2000, 37% belonged to black professionals. That's within a cultural and legal environment where criticism of blacks is nearly prohibited.

How does producing marginal physicians who maim or kill people and who should legitimately be mistrusted as a statistical class correct for past discrimination? Does it bolster the status of blacks and black professionalism or instead make people legitimately frightened of them? Who gets to pay for the funerals? But what the hell, killing and maiming other people is real commitment to social progress.

Revocation of medical license is usually the result of repeated obvious dramatic gross incompetence such as horribly incompetent surgery. Much poor medicine is less dramatic, more subtle, and not apt to be caught. I am a type II diabetic of which there are probably four or five subtypes that haven't been thoroughly differentiated and understood yet. I also have low thyroid and severe genetic blood lipid problems. Thyroid, lipids, and insulin utilization interact in a very complicated manner. I can raise my blood sugar through the roof by eating sunflower seeds because the particular oils and fats in them block my insulin utilization. Paradoxically, increased sugar consumption only marginally affects me.

I practice defensive medicine out of necessity. I have a biological studies background and research any illness I incur to prevent mistakes from doctors—and from new doctors. Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology is one of the world's most authoritative texts, now in its 10th edition. It describes a complicated interaction wherein if body cells are denied glucose for food as in diabetes, they may begin utilizing their own protein for food, with disastrous consequences. An inappropriate increase in thyroxine will markedly aggravate this condition. The complexities of this are beyond anything tested on medical board examinations and beyond discussion here.

Several years ago I had a doctor blithely nearly double my levothyroxine dosage without doing an appropriate blood workup. It would have torn me to pieces and I altered the dosage to non-destructive levels myself. Had I not been knowledgeable it might have half-killed or killed me with no knowledge or record of serious physician incompetence. I find myself in the position of needing to instruct many physicians on thyroid/lipid/diabetes interactions as well as explain to them why a limited TSH assay is inadequate for determining corrective thyroid medication in diabetics. It often causes defensiveness and anger. Not to do so can cause my death.

The point is, a two or three percent decrease in a doctor's ability might seem arguably insignificant. But it affects second and third tiers of medical knowledge depth resulting in a predictable lethality that typically is subtle and won't be caught by patients or by institutions monitoring professional performance. A five percent deficiency is catastrophic over time.

I recently had a minority woman doctor I was referred to in a clinic, a product of various affirmative actions, describe me on her clinical workup as a 61 year old black male who had lived all his life in Virginia. I'm white, born and raised in Iowa, lived 20 years in Maryland, and am living in West Virginia. She was proud as hell of her report as she strutted around like a peacock. Slipshod work licensed under special entitlement had become a proud way of life. If I had gone in for hemorrhoid surgery and somebody had noticed the only person listed as a white guy scheduled for surgery that afternoon was due to have brain surgery, affirmative action would have chopped off my head as a proud expression of the ascendancy of a multiculturalism wherein everybody gets to play doctor regardless of sex, race, personal maturity, or competence.

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night screaming. This is not a bizarre nightmare. We are not going to wake up and be out of it. It's real. It's part of a Dadaistic psychosis diffusing through every aspect of American life.

The quoted admissions committee person bears knowing calloused responsibility for graduating incompetent doctors who eventually will kill and maim more people than did Timothy McVeigh during the course of their career. People are being killed as an Dadistic act of defiant ideologically-mediated sadism. I hope to see the day when such people are brought to trial and executed for wanton premeditated murder in their responsibility for the deaths they are imposing upon the American people — the deaths that are blithely dismissed as broken eggs. That is what will be required to restore an atmosphere of sane seriousness and accountability.

In another area: Some time ago I had the unfortunate experience or riding in a car with a minister who spent much of the ride raving and shouting that those who do not accept the fact that Jesus Christ died for their sins are going to hell—an assertion that it's somehow my fault or it's what I'm doing that is responsible for what happened to somebody 2,000 years ago. My evaluation is that he had serious problems. I wouldn't want him inflicting or imprinting guilt on my kids with authority before they had capability to deal with it. I wouldn't want him and his problems in my life or the life of any members of my family.

This brings us, obliquely, to the matter of homosexuality.

Gayly Licensed

I have better things to do with my life than obsessively peep in keyholes. To some extent what people do in private is of little interest to me. Accordingly, I have no obsessive interest in homosexuality. But the condition does become of concern when it enters into, or makes demands for, aggressive imposition upon me or people I care about.

My first encounter with homosexuality was somewhere about the fourth grade in the 40s. All the older boys in the elementary school were brought into the auditorium to hear a presentation by two men from the YMCA. The teachers and principal, who were somewhat naive about worldly matters, looked at it simply presentation by a Christian organization and therefore safe as well as interesting for boys. They had gymnastics, swimming, and various other activities. Near then end of their presentation the faces on these characters lit up while they shouted, "And what do we wear at the 'Y'? OUR BIRTHDAY SUITS!" At the time I wondered why it was so important to these two that boys be completely naked. In retrospect from a more experienced and less naive condition I eventually came to realize these were two homosexuals in marginal control of themselves out trolling for kids.

That last sentence is sufficient to cause outbursts of explosive indignation. What has evolved is a verbal maze requiring the skill of a tight-rope walker to negotiate without temper tantrums from the gay and lesbian community as well as their supporters in The Ring. In particular, there is a crusade to differentiate between gays and pedophiles as if they were entirely different mutually exclusive groups of people.

This attempt is entirely artificial and strained beyond healthy acceptability. My view of homosexuality is simply and directly defined. Any person who engages in what is commonly acknowledged to be sexual activity of any kind with other people of the same sex is homosexual. Bill Clinton type contortions and definitions don't apply here. If the other person involved is of the same sex, it is homosexuality. Period. Whether various other people agree or disagree with that definition is not of interest to me.

Whether the other person is 21, or 18, which in many legal jurisdictions is viewed as the age of sexual consent, or 17, or 16, or 14, or 12, is of little concern in the definition. At some entirely arbitrary point along this age spectrum the more precise subset of pedophile may be additionally applied to somewhat more accurately define a given person's homosexual preferences and patterns. However, defining a subset does not nullify the inclusive superset category.

Some time during the mid-late 80s I attended a lecture by a clinical social worker and psychotherapist on a subject that ostensibly had nothing to do with homosexuality. Throughout the lecture there was a subtle cumulative distortion of interpretation and of thought. Everything he said had a slight twist coupled with a looseness of thought and disconnected logical processes. His cognitive processes were avoidently inaccurate. A warning flag kept coming up in the back of my mind that said, "This guy has serious problems."

After the lecture I approached him out of curiosity. Eventually he became angry and said, "Can't you see I'm gay," while pointing to a tiny pin signifying some kind of gay organization on his lapel that my eyes are too poor to see. It had been apparent that he was some kind of something messed up from word one.

I won't deny that I dislike gays and lesbians. I dislike gays even before I know they are gays. Their sexuality is a secondary spin-off from a mentality I consider a distorted aggressive abomination. I'm also at the point of age-licensed impatience in life where social pretense of liking someone, or accommodating people who represent a personal imposition upon me, is no longer a social or professional necessity with which I wish to be bothered.

In social or professional relationships too many gays show twists and silliness that is neither clever nor entertaining to those who don't share the immature condition. I find them to be superficial. They seem to have various obsessions. There is an avoidant inaccuracy of thought that greets my incisiveness with temper tantrums or resentment that I don't want in my life. Many of them demand some kind of supportive emotional and intellectual teat to suck on. I don't want to be bothered with it in my life. I've never been a willing or good dancer. I do not want to dance to their tune.

Part 7: The Homosexual Lobby

My theoretical views are held without apology. While homosexuality is of several forms, I consider it overall to be a serious disorder marked by various forms of highly motivated thought process distortion which adherents, especially with the rise of the gay and lesbian movement, demand be found accepted, militantly proselytize, and forcefully inculcate, or in other cases transmit because it is the basic believed operating premise in their life and they know nothing else. Many gay personalities are characterized by instability with unpredictable and driven impulses which may be only transiently resisted or transiently oriented in direction. For this reason I am adamantly against homosexuals having access to, or being conferred legitimizing authority over, kids. It is ill-advised and imprudent to the point of violating a fiduciary responsibility to, and disregard of a reasonable or prudent standard of care for, the kids. The courts and other parts of the legal system, if they are not willing to recognize this fact, should at least allow parents or organizations entrusted with the care and maturing of children and teenagers the right to make such evaluation themselves and act accordingly—and in a free society the primacy of such rights supersedes the wishes being asserted by the homosexual world.

Are there vast psychodynamic differences between people who engage in homosexual acts with adults versus those who engage in homosexual acts with kids? It could be argued to be so, and is being so argued. Anything and any position can be argued. However, given the serious pathology of either condition I would doubt trustworthiness or stability of the distinction between the two. Don't expect any slack. Get your head straight before being allowed access to kids. In a free society I am allowed to hold that position and apply it in my own life. In a free society I am allowed to form associations with those of similar views and we have the right to apply those views within that association.

Competent, and that means COMPETENT, psychotherapy would in many cases relieve homosexuals of internal stresses they don't know they have while also relieving them of their condition. Whether they want to undergo that difficult process is their own decision. Whether they want to vehemently deny such possibility exists for purposes of defending biological/organic permission or other argued validities of homosexuality is also their decision.

Empty Heterosexual Sex

I also believe we are seeing conditions of something approaching pseudohomosexuality brought on by feelings of emptiness in hostility and fear-filled heterosexual sex lives. There has arisen the unfortunate and destructive myth that two shallow heterosexual people who have substantial real reason to mistrust or be disgusted with each other should still be able to meet on a bed and have ecstatic meaningful sex lives because of physical attraction. But, mechanical heterosexual physical attraction can not be expected to overcome everything. It really helps if you like and respect each other and not very many people in recent generations are likable or respectable. The failure of unreasonable sexual fantasy to conform to reality, and the occasional interference of negative feelings with sexual functioning, leads people into confusion and doubts about their sexual orientation that breeds sympathy with, or support of, the gay-lesbian movement. In fact, some of these elements are factors underwriting homosexuality. That's an area society and the mental health professions must examine and act upon.

I long ago became absolutely convinced that mental illness, or mental disorder, or whatever it is being called now, is a communicable disease. It is communicable through the pain and distortion those with mental disorder inflict upon others around them or under their control. In those instances where a mental disorder has strong components of thought disorder rationalizing or structuring it, mental disorder is communicable, especially to the young, by inculcating, infusing, or rewarding that thought disorder. Teaching a person components of thought disorder produces, if you will, a debilitating condition of cognitive astigmatism which distorts their perception or interpretation of events and/or subsequently warps their view of life, which lessens their ability to deal with life, and which makes them more accessible to or susceptible to or redirects toward, further pathological processes. There are systems of interpretation or thought that are designed to undermine other people.

That is one of the reasons why, during a saner age, we used to insulate the young from corrupting influences. However, in recent periods, a race has been on by adults or those a little older than the young, to insulate the young from healthy influences while substitutionally corrupting them as early as possible for ideological purposes, for purposes of engineering a long term sociocultural condition tolerant of various forms of pathology, for creating a social condition where various present forms of adult pathology will not be challenged by future generations, and for creating more of what exists in the corruptors in successive generations.

The acquisition or inculcation of mental disorder is the reason I wouldn't want that lunatic minister [see Part 6] around my children. I wouldn't want them desensitized or pounded down by his warped raving. I wouldn't want them acquiring his premises in life. His ravings are something they need age and a well-developed grounding and stability to deal with. I wouldn't want his guilt-laden accusations placed on a five year old.

Aside from the possibility of their physically acting out any sexual propensities, I would not want homosexuals around or in charge of, or teaching, kids for the same reason I wouldn't want them around that minister. The homosexual condition has components of thought disorder rationalizing or structuring it, as I heard in the gay clinical social worker, that I wouldn't want taught or sold. I wouldn't want homosexuals modeling psychologically undermining astigmatic cognitive processes for kids. Neither would I want the condition or the thought processes integrated with homosexuality indirectly validated through conferring authority upon such people.

Religion Doesn't Help

Please note that none of this has anything to do with religious convictions. I have no religious interests beyond consideration of how various religions affect individuals and society.

(I do have concern about religion in this particular case because religious figures and many religious people turn out to be my, and society's, worst enemy in discussion of this and similar areas. The minister who strides upon a forum to shout THIS IS SIN! moves nobody but those already convinced or those with tendency toward easily-induced hysteria. While it may provide a brief moment of self-deluded and self-serving drama and glory for those making such statements, it does not work in an unreligious world to the point of being catastrophic. Religion may produce personal comfort derived from blind belief in pronouncements from ultimate authority, but it does not produce understanding. Understanding is necessary as a basis to form a rational political or social movement. Such activity displaces other vitally necessary serious analysis containing broader functionality. Such people are typically used and paraded as exclusively representative and the single alternative view, while simultaneously allowing the political and lifestyle left to make the specious claim that opposing views are being represented in discussion when they in fact are not.

(This is my one quarrel with Alan Keyes, who I supported for president. He has one of the better minds in the country, but when he talks about sin from the basis of his sincerely-believed Catholicism it weakens the depth, comprehensiveness, breadth of functionality, and strength of his positions. If people were concerned about sin, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. However, the desperate need to see an intelligent mature adult in the presidency, for a change, trumps minor imperfections.)

A problem with the gay and lesbian movement is that under the massive increase in mental disorder documented earlier in this series, and with the militant Dadaistic counterculturalism since the mid 60s which to serious extent is an expression of that increase in mental disorder, the gay and lesbian movement is powerful and on the muscle. Strengthened by the support it receives from The Ring, it has become powerful enough to impose it's will upon the people of the American nation.

The California legal definition of sex mentioned earlier was authored by a lesbian California lawmaker. It is part of a national campaign to blur the importance and distinction of anatomical difference between the physical sexes. To the extent the campaign is successful, it will secondarily blur the distinction between gay/lesbianism versus what was previously viewed as sexual normality. Gay/lesbianism will be moved into being an arbitrary position along a continuum of purposely-confused sexuality in which anatomical physical definitions or boundaries have been removed and all judgments or expectations based upon biological anatomy will also be expunged. This thrust has become highly successful with consequent judicial imposition of this view as exemplified in the Goins v West case. As an aside, I don't believe such deliberate attempts at producing confusion are a good maturational environment for kids.

(Parenthetically, the pathologizing of America into a thought-disordered condition of blurred importances, of blurred distinctions, of avoidant inaccuracy of thought, is a necessity for selling, accepting, or living with, a wide range of recent patterns and activities that would not be acceptable to an incisive healthy mind. Hence, gay arguments find receptive ears in a wider spectrum of the population living lives underwritten by, and requiring, attenuation of incisive rationality. With the rise in proportion of compromised corrupt lives, corrupt thought processes necessary to underwrite those lives have evolved from an initial condition inhibited by at least some embarrassment and social stigma several decades ago, to presently being a dishonest social and political crusade. Contribution to deconstruction of mental accuracy, as well at the generalized attack on the culture are welcomed from any quarter, gays and lesbians included.)

Contesting legally imposed pathology would require placing the issue before national forums for detailed examination and discussion, subsequently creating political and social pressure that would overturn the pathology. Instead, the issue is moderated by The Ring virtual reality where the campaign is either not seriously acknowledged or made visible with ongoing consideration for the issue to become developed, or is not adequately questioned, or is supported.

I notice one of the producers of CNN was arrested for soliciting sex with 13 year olds over the internet. That condition is part of what influences the media and Ring focus.

Doing It For, and With, the Children

In 1973 the homosexual lobby was powerful enough to succeed in getting homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders acknowledged by formal psychiatry despite the fact 70% of psychiatrists still considered it a disorder. This has since been celebrated by the gay and lesbian movement as uncontrovertable certification of non-pathological normality (which it wasn't) that has become both a social assertion and has also worked its way into being enforced under law. We are now at the point where reputable psychological journals are publishing papers describing sex between men and boys as benign "intergenerational intimacy." There was some apology after exposure and strong public criticism, but the demonstrated inclination by some journal editors was to view the position as acceptable enough to publish. The view is looked upon as too premature in terms of public acceptance rather than personally or scientifically objectionable. The view finds sympathy in some university departments training students and clinicians. Concurrently, I am seeing a campaign to marginalize any effects of adult homosexual activity with kids on the kids.

At the present rate, within a few years, prohibition of homosexual relationships with children will be overturned as a form of discrimination. This has already been facilitated by legal reasoning that considers activity only as a civil rights issue while skipping over pathological or consequence matters. There is nothing in recent laws or court decisions to prevent it while the logical consequents of laws and court decisions are easily applied in that direction, in some cases by deliberate strategic intention. The arguments are being marshaled with increasing boldness. This was well on its way to becoming de facto law with successful legal action against the Boy Scouts for discrimination against homosexuals with their refusal to let gays become scoutmasters. Lower court actions forcing gays into scout leadership were barely overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a five to four decision affirming Boy Scouts' constitutional right to freedom of association. With the change in one supreme court justice, the court will overturn the previous decision through employment of slightly changed suit wording and manipulation.

Here are excerpts from The Orange County Register, July 28, 2001. Authors: Greg Hardesty and Monica Valencia

Kenneth Teague, who abused as many as 15 boys, remains unremorseful.

Kenneth Eugene Teague, who testified that having sex with boys as young as 9 was therapeutic for them, did not speak at the sentencing, which ended a lurid trial in which the former computer consultant from Irvine acted as his own lawyer.

"I don't consider these to be criminal or bad acts," Teague, 43, said in a jailhouse interview. "I consider myself to be a political prisoner. I'm going to be imprisoned for what I believe, just like a lot of other folks have been." "I've just always had this capacity" for being sexually attracted to boys, Teague said.

In his defense he cited a 1999 study published by the American Psychological Association, the so-called Rind study that concluded child sexual abuse is not necessarily harmful — especially for males. "If done right, in my opinion, it can be a positive experience, a constructive experience," Teague said.

Teague said the activities were a successful way to break down communication barriers with boys and improve their grades in school. They also were acts of love, he said.

"If done right, in my opinion, it can be a positive experience, a constructive experience," Teague said. As Hillary Clinton would say, it's for the children.

It can be seen that various published studies and recent rationalizations have become integrated into his mentality and arguments. This has become a serious trend.

If Teague had not acted as his own attorney but had instead procured a clever civil rights lawyer, he would have stood a good chance of getting a similar ruling by an appeals court that Goins did through parallel rationale.

The present rationale consists of a pattern of leapfrogging over specific reality and important intermediate elements into bland or glittering abstraction. The abstract argument is made, and accepted by the courts, that a person is being persecuted for his beliefs or discriminated against merely for being different. The integrity, quality, rationality, or sane acceptability of those beliefs or differences is skipped over. The distinction between discrimination versus prudent observation and recognition has long sense become a lost concept since the construction of a pathological and sadistic language structure during the 60s. In response to legitimate parental criticism 30 and 35 years ago, a generation of radical or irresponsible brats retorted they were being persecuted for what they believed in. Now, the same illogic is in the court and educational systems.

The Right to a Child

The gay world wants free access to kids. One can argue about what personal investment and ultimate reason there is for their wanting that access. In all matters of human dispute and intent, a mask of insincere pretext can be synthesized and attempted to be substituted for true intention while both denying and ultimately obtaining that intention. In the field of international politics and negotiation, this tactic is a freely practiced expectation. It is now becoming standard procedure in various organized social movements who are hiring and otherwise employing the techniques of convoluted legal advocacy and public relations with increasing cleverness and strategic plan to obtain their goals.

It is either arguable, or deniable, that access to kids obtains the ultimate goal of providing homosexual elements with targets of opportunity for sexual practices. The underlying truth may be completely contradictory to the verbal assertions.

There is also the element of pathological evolution. A given form of pathology demanding to be accepted as healthy and normal receives criticism from the social environment. To defend themselves from this initial criticism various rationalizations are devised and superficial forms of behavioral changes may be adopted by the pathological. In response to still further observations and criticisms, further rationalizations and behavioral changes are interposed in defense. These rationalizations and changes were not a part of the original condition, but are subsequently adopted defenses to obscure, and deflect criticism of, the condition. They continue to be created and superficially adopted to plug holes in the dike. They become desperately held and take a pathological life; including a social, theoretical, and political life; of their own, and may even obscure the original condition from the people with that condition. As part of the evolving theoretical life of its own, there are lesbian professors at what are for practical purposes gay and lesbian departments at universities moving heaven and earth to prove lesbians make the best mothers, with students being expelled for doubting it. As the evolutionary process continues to develop and new layers are added to it, finding the real basis and purpose of anything becomes more difficult.

Pathological evolution is much like a person creating an onion around a self core. New layers of distortion are grown to protect the distorted core in response to external stresses and criticisms. There are assertions and attempts to believe in the layers by those creating them. Successive layers my not even agree with each other, but the outside most recently created layer takes precedence in the attempts to construct defenses.

The homosexual community wants to argue that they are healthy normal. To do so they are pursuing superficial imitation of normality in which heterosexual institutions are being mimicked and the trappings of participation in heterosexual activities will be strategically employed as both argument for, and verification of normality. Thus, although common usage and the dictionary define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, homosexuals demand their activity be called marriage also. Nothing less will do. Conformity to that demand is being imposed by law. For the same purpose homosexuals demand participation in normally heterosexual institutions involving kids. Forced certification of physical trust with children is part of the long term strategy legitimizing and enforcing an image of normality.

So the homosexual world has a number of vested interests in securing free access to kids, any of which may be denied. Anybody is, of course, allowed to disagree with what I've said here. Take your choice of what to believe.

At various homosexual demonstrations one hears the chant, "We're queer. We're here. We've come for your kids." Others in the gay and lesbian world say such people are too radical and don't represent the true gay and lesbian world. Make your own evaluation, sort out who's who, and believe what you will.

Aspect 8: Matters of Legal Standing and Parity

There is an abstract description of the gay and lesbian movement as a social struggle. Terms such as "struggle" seem to feed into the emotional aspects of other people who are in conflicted struggle and turmoil in their own lives to produce instant hysterical bonding. It's part of a coalition of people suffering similar shared diffuse agony in an increasingly disturbed general population.

One major focus of this thrust in recent years has been the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts said, no access. The gay answer was, if you refuse us access, we'll sue to force you to provide us with access.

Boy Scouts Under Siege

The Boy Scouts organization is now under siege from all directions. They are being subjected to repeated financially draining legal assault until cumulative mistakes are made, until corrupt or incompetent judges are found, or until incremental small compromises add up to total deconstruction of the Boy Scout's position and gays get their way. The ruinous cost of legal and other defense is a form of ongoing attrition and blackmail which entails little cost from those employing it. Anyone with a law degree and little else to do can tie any organization in knots with repeated legal action requiring constant costly response.

Since the supreme court decision, the campaign for access has expanded its array of tactics. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Scouting for All, American Civil Liberties Union, are working toward a series of legal or collateral efforts.

Simultaneously, the scouts are being denied use of facilities and funding whenever possible by liberals in various organizations. Organizations including National Education Association, American Medical Association and United Way chapters are using their influence in an attempt to force the BSA to change its position. As a result, at least 359 school districts in 10 states have taken action against the Boy Scouts because of the ban, according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

Concurrently, the scouts are under still further siege from yet another direction. People with sexual interests in kids have infused into the organization and are springing up like dandelions.

Gay Boy Scout Leader Charged

Associated Press: July 8, 2001

Scout Molestation Case Opening

By Adam Gorlick

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. Many people considered Christopher Reardon to be truly trustworthy, with a resume that included youth minister, Boy Scout leader, YMCA swim coach.

Within days, the police investigation blossomed into what prosecutors say is the state's largest ever child-molestation case. Reardon, 29, has pleaded innocent to 130 charges including rape, molestation and disseminating pornography involving 29 boys.

Jury selection for his trial was scheduled to begin Monday in Northampton, where the trial was moved out of concern he wouldn't get an impartial jury close to home.

A source close to the investigation, however, told The Associated Press Sunday that Reardon is expected to avoid the trial by pleading guilty to most of the charges against him.

Police say he admitted molesting some of the children and using pornography to lure the boys. . . .

And so forth.

What were once rare isolated cases increased to about one revelation per month and to thence that approaching once a week that are being caught. The ultimate condition is to deny the Boy Scout organization any power in leadership selection standards while conditions within the scouts are becoming more chaotic and pathological as a reflection of a degenerating culture in the same condition, if we can now even use the so-called judgmental word pathological without getting sued. It's pure smirking Dadaistic sadism run amok. The entire business has become a sadistic game of, "Defend yourself at your constant expense if you can, and catch me if you can."

At this point it's time to turn to a broader view in the discussion, i. e. balance of principles.

"Civil Rights" Attack on Individual Rights

The civil rights movement of the 60s accomplished the leftist long-desired dissolution of personal rights which no people in a free society should ever give up under any circumstances if they want to remain free. This opened up a predictable ultimate state of tyranny. When the movement nullified basic rights against involuntary servitude and nullified right to personal choice of association or disassociation in order to force integration of blacks upon unwilling whites, it established the long-hoped-for leftist ideological license to impose anything on anybody in a society of forced absolute review and compliance. However, in a free society servitude, agreement, or association can not be compelled between people. In a free society social and economic interactions occur on the basis of mutual willingness and mutual agreement between participating parties. That concept has been dismantled and even crushed in service to an entire new social order using accusations of racism and necessity to correct for past discrimination as leverage to silence protest or disobedience. As an outgrowth of this nullification we have now reached a legal condition where we are bound into enforced state of servitude in which certain people must be made to feel absolutely comfortable with their any conditions, some of which are arguably delusions, at the forced expense of other people's discomfort or even other people's required repressive maladjustment necessary to perform such contorted tasks. We are producing increasing numbers of classes of tyrants. We are also producing a massively repressive society under the name of human freedom.

Freedom sacrificed in servitude to social aims or compensation for argued past grievances produces a new class of tyrants licensed to victimize a new class of beaten-down serfs with the brokerage fee of power awarded to those managing the conflict.

Furthermore, Americans gave up those important basic rights in servitude to a class of pathological and sadistic elements in the society who have increased in number and boldness as a result of licensed unrestrained exercise.

There is, within many human beings, and within the human population, a latent tendency toward primitive resentment, viciousness, and sadism. Release of that latent sadism created Roman gladiatorial exhibitions in which people were ripped to pieces by animals or slaughtered for amusement. Unrestrained sadism was the rule of the day in Nazi concentration camps.

Any time you are weak, helpless, or without rights in this life you will attract sadists and sadism like bees to honey. Your condition will evoke growth and release of sadism within people in whom it was formerly repressed.

Sadistic madness is held in check only by being recognized and being acted against by personal counter-force, by social forces, and by morality. The absence of any of those counterbalances to sadism is disastrous. It's not uncommon to see psychiatric patients who have suffered an undermining and sadistic brutalization enabled either by their non-recognition of what was happening to them, or their having been immobilized from resisting. Sadism is a madness that feeds on, and grows bolder with, helplessness, immobilization, or pacification of victims. If it isn't resisted or fought, it proliferates and kills. It must be countered by assertion of personal rights and by defensive capacity of potential victims.

Individual Rights: Protection Against Madness

The only initial protection against madness of any form, be it from emperors, from individuals on a daily basis, from judiciaries, from entire governments, from irrationalities of democracy, is the personal rights that we in America allowed to be taken from us.

Direct physical sadism is easily perceived by the healthy eye. When sadism becomes channeled less directly into intellectual forms its perception becomes more complex and interpretative, more subject to specious counterinterpretation and denial, and we're in trouble. Invoking the noble-sounding principle of academic or intellectual freedom confers immunity upon creation and imposition of intellectualized sadism while the necessary counterbalancing brakes are removed. When intellectualized forms of sadism become channeled into various political and social theories, society is in bigger trouble. When intellectualized sadism becomes elected politically applied and imposed sadism, we're in yet the worst of all troubles. When hate and sadism take intellectualized forms, over time people adapt to it in themselves and no longer recognize it in themselves with resulting dadaistic madness.

The 60s radicalism produced the most highly developed group-held system of sadism in human history. It took intellectualized forms exquisitely designed to undermine and torment the adult world, but in which the sadistic intent and content would be denied. It was integrated with a supposed universal non-violent movement. A sharp distinction should be observed between non-violence as opposed to non-viciousness or non-sadism. Non-violence is often used as a tool to acquire physical immunity from reprisal while inflicting exquisite intellectualized viscousness and sadism. The non-violence movement had effect of producing a condition where attacks by intellectualized sadism and viciousness flourished while immobilizing the healthy anger the sadism knowingly produced as well as immobilizing any corrective response. The violence and sadism were there, but were being pursued through indirect, passive-aggressive, and intellectualized forms which produced an unbalanced unopposed condition. Sadistic patterns grew like crabgrass within a generation. (The subsequent effect these patterns had on their interpersonal relationships and marriages, including a 60 percent divorce rate has left a legacy we're still struggling with.)

It can not be overemphasized that the ascendancy of a sadistic generation along with the values and patterns developed during the period has culminated in an increasingly sadistic society. Consequently, a criminally sadistic element has moved into the court system. Law is being misused and contorted to enforce sadistic patterns with any resistance being labeled attempted overthrow of the rule of law.

In my opinion the Goins suit is exemplary and was in substantial proportion a sadistic act which Goins, with eager cooperation of people of like mind awaiting such opportunities, could inflict upon others and society at large who were and are immobilized by psychotic levels of sadistically oriented twisting and misuse of law.

My view of Goins is simple. Ms/Mr./Miss Goins or whatever he calls himself today is a spoiled arrogant brat who plays sadistic games with people and as part of that game demands to destroy a serious company that took years to build and maintain because employees there, quite reasonably, refuse to believe he's a girl. He needs to get the crap slapped out of him or for somebody to find his body in a ditch somewhere. His lawyer also needs a good dose of the same, and so do some judges. There is far too much of this type of thing going on, and far too much tolerance of it.

There is always an equilibrium between sanity versus latent sadistic insanity. That equilibrium is maintained by human rights and personal freedom. the loss of rights or immobilization of the population (as in gun control) creates unwilling victims for sadism. When all else fails, some heads need to get busted.

Sadism is politically exploitable and more destructive than nuclear attack if it can be released, encouraged, and harnessed.

The imposition of madness has become a sadistic war on people. The rule of law has become enforced compliance and review for political conformity in that war.

Matters of Legal Standing and Parity

Somewhere in one's first year of law school there should be discussion of the term standing or legal standing. A person's standing determines whether they are allowed to bring legal action. Only an injured or directly affected party is allowed to bring legal process to bear for remedy. For example, if someone carelessly hits you with an automobile, I, as an outsider, am not allowed to sue the driver for damages. The court would say I have no standing to bring suit, or no standing in the case.

Let's broaden the conception of standing. The question is, when do COURTS have, or not have, standing in disputes?

In a free society, in matters based upon or requiring personal volition, people are allowed unresolved disagreement in which no court has any reasonable standing to force agreement. The authority of courts in a free society is intrinsically limited by the definition of a free society. At some point the argued right of a court to adjudicate disagreements becomes infringement upon the right of people to have independent opinions, to disagree, or to refuse imposition of servitude, and thus becomes a criminal act against freedom perpetrated by the court. Whether such acts are admitted to be such does not change their nature or functionality. The legal system should not, and does not, have authority over every dispute and disagreement. There are issues and disputes and demands which are simply none of the court's business in a free society. Period. There are aspects of life that should not be subject to adjudication or government review in a free society. This was an implicit unstated view for most of American history.

But in the last 40 years courts have been allowed improper intrusional capacity and legal intercession into personal difference of opinion and also been allowed to negate right to personal volition or non-volition to an extent that is incompatible with a free society.

In the case of the Goins v West Group trial the courts should have summarily dismissed the case, including at the appellate level, under the principle that they had no standing in the sense of intruding upon the individual right of one party to disagree with the other. Hopefully, the issue would eventually have been brought before the United States Supreme Court and would have resulted in the same judgment. But somewhere this entire concept has been lost.

When the Boy Scouts said "no" to the gays, it should have been taken as "no" with finality and no further recourse. That "no" was a matter of personal opinion and decline of servitude to gays that should not have been subject to litigation in the courts. The courts had no legitimate standing in the dispute.

My Attorney Says No

I should not be required to hire an attorney and have a trial to disagree with anybody or say no. No means no. My decision is an expression of the supreme primacy of my personal rights within the legal hierarchy of personal freedoms and is not to be brought before a court for review. It is not a signal for people to sue me to overturn my decision to get their way.

The negation of personal right to refusal of servitude has been justified as necessity for desired existence of the civil rights movement. The reality is that the civil rights movement was the destruction of rights movement in which the seemingly incidental effect achieved the leftist goal of subduing the individual citizen to constant review for social servitude. Thus, a manipulatable social authoritarianism could take place over human will and volition.

The guise of civil rights and compensation for past injustice barely masks the real long term intention to produce or justify a new state of desired injustice and sadistic control and review which has been attempted goal to have been achieved for years --an authoritarian state where all is justified and bent to theories of argued social benefit. Further, as was discussed in earlier parts of this series, (Socialism, the Forbidden Ideology) social good is a glittering avoident abstraction devised as a vehicle for enormous amounts of underlying viciousness, sadism, resentment, and irresponsibility.

The second important issue, legal and otherwise, is the concept of parity.

As a general rule there is a persistent bias in The Ring, the judiciary, and elsewhere, in which, when a leftist or counterculturalist is unhappy, there is sensitivity and response such that their complaint needs to be given constant visibility and a synthetic atmosphere of near-hysteria is created until their unhappiness is remedied at all cost and sacrifice by others. The world is under absurd obligation to make leftists and counterculturalist happy at the expense of others. When a nonleftist is unhappy it is to be ignored or ridiculed. There is in this an implicit telling assumption that leftist positions are the only considerations to be addressed. One way or the other, there is an inequality of consideration.

In the case of the Goins v West Group toilet case an implicit seal of legitimacy was bestowed upon Goins' psychological condition, and therefore the legitimacy of his demands, and was enforced. But far beyond that, the concept that Goins' demands or discomfort should be balanced against or nullified by equally considered objection of legitimate discomfort by other members of the community was of no interest. It seldom is. The court imposed one-sided consideration of complaint, and one-sided capitulation or sacrifice.

Could the female employees at West have sued Goins to prevent his intrusion into their toilet facilities? The suit would have been summarily dismissed because there is now no legal parity recognized between Goins and those employees. Goins is a member of a protected group assumed to hold nearly absolute unbalanced legal advantage and is immune to legal confrontation. Additionally, there is determined non-recognition of cultural norms within the legal system. To serious extent the American legal system has become an enforcement arm of crackpot anthropology.

Aspect 9: The Separatist Movement & Ruby Ridge

Why are actions against the Boy Scouts not interpreted as acts of discrimination against organizations promoting heterosexuality? Within the bias of intent established by recent law where automatic victimhood is established by numerical inferiority or by conferring membership within a so-called protected group, the idea of such interpretation becomes dismissed with ridicule. Within the loose equation of emotionally-based thinking the victim can not be guilty of any crime.

The problem is what artificially mislabeled victims are in fact perpetrators.

While minority status is protected, there is no protection for the culture or entire civilization. The lack of parity is in fact a vicious war upon civilization. It is one of the final stages of implementation of the militant Dadaistic counterculturalism of the 60s and 70s.

The brushing aside of standing and parity has resulted in a plague of Dadaistic intrusional litigation imposed on American life which should not be occurring and is an attack on human freedom and individuality. The rule of law has become the tyranny of inquisition and review of conformity to a type of social Dadaism as well as a weapon in the arsenal of countercultural deconstruction of rationality.

An entirely appropriate view is that America is becoming, or is in the grips of, an expansive monstrous psychotic sadomasochistic cult whose fanatic members inflict psychotic cult discipline on each other or upon non members.

Many people want control of their lives back from imposed intrusion of authoritarian review and from the attack on rational individuality concurrent with absolute imposition and submission to pathology. They are developing an entirely appropriate hatred of lawyers and law and government.

The question is, where does all this come from and who gets to vote for it? How do we get control of our lives back?

Getting Control of Your Life

As a practical matter I don't have the opportunity to vote on whether I am going to live in a psychotic sadistic society where judges are going to impose serious fines and imprisonment for failure to believe somebody with a penis and testicles is a girl. I don't have opportunity to vote on whether we should be meeting a social need for producing doctors who will kill me. I have no opportunity to vote for prohibition against the type of government actions seen at Waco. There are no discussions of entire arrays of the most serious issues facing America. All I am offered to vote for is vague evasive deception. After elections there is a surprise party where lunatics who have worked their way into both political parties, into government agencies, and into the judiciary start coming out of the woodwork. My vote is meaningless.

The American political process has become a condition where politicians appeal to opinions and approval expressed by The Ring and questions framed by The Ring while the American people are left out and disenfranchised until the last moment when they are given the choices the ministry of propaganda prepared for them.

There is complaint that few Americans vote. A major reason they don't vote is because the candidates no longer represent the general population. They are created by The Ring, and represent The Ring, but there is nobody to represent the people. Unless I am homosexual, a Jesse Jackson black, a counterculturalist, I have no stake in the election. My options are one between immediate imposition versus temporary cosmetic delaying tactics. Since Reagan, the only presidential choices in the two major political parties has been between countercultural socialists versus people who lamely apologize for not being socialists. Some voters grasp at straws and desperately cast their vote for what they hope are delaying tactics, but there is no real long term difference while I and millions of others am without a voice in anything.

There is no appeal to the people, but instead is appeal to The Ring. Politicians talk about what the people won't accept. The people have nothing to do with it. What is really being said is that The Ring won't accept it.

More and more people refuse to vote because voting is an act of certifying and contributing a facade of validity to corruption and disease. This is the clearest political statement being made, but there is determination to disregard its reality.

Trying to break into this system is extremely difficult. It goes way back in depth to the way we educated our judges and journalists to be left-wing crackpots. The system is constantly replenished and expanded.

Beyond that, it requires about $70,000,000 to begin financing a new political party and even begin collecting more funds. A political party must field a full slate of candidates rather than just someone for president. It would take a year and a half to two years to cull through the United States and put together comprehensive quality leadership to fill a slate.

Simpleton John McCain vs. Simpleton George Bush

During the year 2000 Republican debates we saw two simpletons, John McCain and George Bush, taking the better part of an hour accusing each other's organizations of putting negative campaign flyers on people's windshields. They managed to drown out the only mature adult in the presidential race, Alan Keyes, when he tried to bring up serious constitutional issues. But after this supposed cleverness, who is going to show up on November election day to vote for arguments about putting nasty notes on windshields except people who understand such useless mentalities assure non-interference with seriously destructive agenda.

The American people were desperate to vote against Al Gore and the Clinton residue. Bush started out with a 14% lead. The more Bush opened his stupid evasive mouth, the more it became obvious he was useless and it was business as usual. America became disgusted. His poll numbers went down by over 1% a week. Campaigning against a brain-dead leftist Gore, Bush ended up losing the popular vote, but taking the electoral vote by 400 votes in Florida.

The voter turnout was poor because there was no advocate for the American people in the election. Until politicians cease betraying the real people in the American nation while appealing to leftist synthesized virtual reality the turnout will continue to be low.

To great extent the politicians look at The Ring as the people because of its frightening capability to manipulate the people. But one of the reasons The Ring has developed that capability is because it is not confronted by statesmen and political parties of substance who are teachers. Reagan was able to face down The Ring. When Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire The Ring and the liberal establishment wailed in protest and fear. Reagan didn't back down, and was elected.

Clinton was not a particularly popular president. If Robert Dole had said some of the things that have been said here, and some of the things that will be said here, he probably would have become president instead of ending up doing Viagra commercials. Dole hasn't had a serious idea in 50 years, much less the spine to assert one. Instead, he played to liberal TV approval when they congratulated him for taking the high road, meaning saying nothing of importance, in his campaign. In the lowest voter turnout percentage going back to 1924, few people voted for the Clintons, and even fewer voted for Dole.

Much of this has been covered earlier in this series. There is little sense in recapitulating it now.

What has been missing is a president who is advocate for people instead of advocate for The Ring. There is absence of a serious political party that is an advocate for the people and will discuss issues discussed here.

The Reclusive Separation Movement

If America has become a giant psychotic cult, there are people with enough remnants of reasoning remaining to want out of it.

The result of the new Dadaism and the other elements discussed here has been an extensive American population that, for very good reason, feels cornered and without representation or alternative in a world of fanatic irrationality. The response to imposition of Dadaistic madness has been a wide spectrum of various forms of population withdrawal into seclusive or reclusive separation.

At one end of the spectrum one passive separatist form is the home schooling movement. It consists of people gathering in their homes in a type of low-level civil or social disobedience to educate their children separate from the mindless indoctrination of the otherwise contentless liberal educational systems. It is now believed there are about 850,000 American families in this state of resistance.

In the intermediate areas of the spectrum are people such as the Weaver family who quietly withdrew from society and into a semi-wilderness condition. Or people withdraw into areas of the country where authoritarian liberal Dadaism has yet to have been imposed with complete hold. There are states such as Utah and Montana which have become enclaves of a subculture of silent resistance.

At the other end of the spectrum are militia or survivalist movements who, driven to near desperation, have drawn a final line of almost barricaded separation behind which they are arming in preparation for determined unspoken intention of making one last desperate statement of NO. They are demonized and labeled dangerous extremists. About every fifth member is a government undercover agent. Some groups within this end of the spectrum are nutty and are used as examples to smear the entire spectrum. Some of what appears to be nuttiness is an artifact of language and education. Their perception that something is wrong is correct, but they aren't political psychologists. They are dependent upon limited language and concept which sound primitive for explanations.

What is being seen are groups making various attempts to vacate a corrupt and mad society.

(In one sense, white flight to the suburbs is a subtle form of this. Under various social or other pressures people vote for Dadaistic self-destructive liberalism they fundamentally don't believe in, then subsequently attempt to confine it to the cities while deserting and distancing themselves from what they've created.)

It is interesting to note that the people who publish this newspaper (where the analysis originall appeared) are separatists who have withdrawn to Costa Rica.

The Ring presents Dadaistic liberalism in the most polished possible form in a sympathetic atmosphere where any challenge is either token or incompetent. On the other hand the separatists and any other form of resistance are presented with all possible warts in as crude a way as possible. This results in an ongoing compendium of professionally maintained and presented articulate argument which coordinates support of Dadaistic liberalism. At the same time, resistance remains separate and inarticulate with unprofessional easily-ridiculed presentation. People in the resistance know there is something seriously wrong, but lack the training and background to explain it. It's been my experience over the years that people can be correct, but lack the ability to articulate their position without help and encouragement—especially if they are kept off balance.

The Climate of Wanton Unrestrained Government Violence

I'm as dead set against drugs as anybody in the world. There absolutely is no doubt in my mind that drugs will destroy America if not stopped. Drug use is not a victimless crime except in the dazed eyes of those who use the stuff. Those who don't use the stuff are subjected to the social, economic, and political environment created by those using the stuff and who in their state of oblivious escape care naught about living with the chaos they create. People not obliviously stupefied by drugs find living with the grotesqueness of that chaos impossible.

However, after having said that, the excesses I'm seeing in the war on drugs are criminal and unacceptable. We have low-IQ psychopathic thugs who are supposed to be law officers but have in fact become self-licensed murderers running about shooting up the wrong houses, killing people without bothering to check on who they are killing, and wrongly confiscating property with no recourse of recovering that property. There is far too little accountability. The drug war is not the focus of this analysis, but it is part of an ongoing atmosphere of license that has become dangerous and transferable to other areas.

The BATF both has too many trained licensed psychotic killers and is useless. In the 40s and 50s there were few gun laws, innumerable guns in the hands of citizens, and a crime rate one tenth that of the present.

What is of greater concern is a type of politically correct fanaticism and hate-twisted sadistic irrationality which has licensed itself to kill that which attempts to flee from it, questions it, or refuses to conform to it. The sadistic hatred of the radical 60s has become a legal armed hunting party in which the movement first demonizes to create a social enemy it then grants itself license to persecute or kill.

A condition had evolved by the early 90s such that sociopolitical groups offensive to liberalism had been villianized, demonized, and ridiculed on a liberal dominated national stage for ideological reasons, or for sadistic amusement, to the point where hunting and killing them, sometimes for little more than sport, was being regarded as a negligible or acceptable extension of the arguments and mood created. (It is similar to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany during the 30s.) There were mindless or rogue government elements in America willing to act on that mood.

Read that paragraph again as it is crucial to understanding a number of recent events.

While there are groups making various attempts to vacate a corrupt and mad society, there is also apparent considerable resentment or hostility toward their doing so. Separation is looked upon as a form of barely tolerated defiance or disobedience.

The above condition continues to exist, but is temporarily in a less aggressive state.

What occurred at Ruby Ridge? Basically, Randy Weaver and his family were seclusionists not reasonably worth 15 minutes of the government's or anybody else's time as far as their being a threat to anyone.

The Weavers are always referred to in the leftist press as white separatists. Get it? Some leftist/liberal who flees and moves himself as far as possible away from the so-called inner city and sends his kids off to a special school is not called a white separatist. When Hillary Clinton in a momentary loss of control of her facade calls somebody a "fucking Jew bastard," nobody cares what she is. She's part of the leftist "in" group. But the Weaver's were white separatists, get it?

License to Prey

The Weavers had committed no crime except living off in the woods in quiet seclusion. Government agents spent months trying to coax Randy Weaver into doing something illegal that he had no interest in doing. That should have been a signal to leave the man alone. The Weavers had committed no illegal acts. They had no illegal intent. All actions were completely the result of systematic deception and instigation by government agents. After all, when it comes to a point where there was no problem before you got there, no intention of there being a problem before you arrived, and there would have been no problem if you had never come there, but a problem develops when you get there, THEN IT'S TIME TO REALIZE YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THOSE OTHER PEOPLE. But the Weavers were white separatists. Have you got it yet? That's license to prey upon them.

After extensive coaxing and badgering, an undercover agent talked Randy Weaver into to cutting some length off a shotgun. When he did, the agents brought charges against him. Whether the final length of the shotgun was even illegal is even uncertain. Weaver was notified to appear before a court of law at a certain date to face charges for the federally-instructed act of criminality. Six days before that date government agents obtained a warrant to arrest Weaver for failing to appear in court. Knowing full well that Weaver had been notified by the court not to appear for another six days, the judge issued an arrest warrant for Weaver for failure to appear in court. That makes the warrant deliberately fraudulent. Did anybody care?

Without warning, heavily armed federal agents quietly descended on the Weaver's and took up ambush positions. Apparently they didn't bother to bring the arrest warrant with them because it wasn't pertinent to their attitude and what they had in mind.

Striker, the Weaver family dog, sensed them and began barking. Not knowing the reason for the commotion, Randy Weaver, Sammy, his 14 year old son, and friend Kevin Harris went to investigate. It's a wild area and they took guns. Not wishing to lose the element of surprise in their attack, the agents shot the dog from behind.

The feds are good at shooting dogs because they probably suppose the barking of dogs gives them away. The sound of gunfire during shooting of dogs doesn't give them away. The truth is it's part of a fun-filled aggressive-sadistic shoot-em-up mentality that inflicts shock and insult upon those being attacked. It also instructs those being attacked that there should be no reasonable doubt they are being attacked by complete damned idiot madmen.

Dog-shooting has become a sort of hot-rod sadistic exercise of tough-guy defiant attitude among law enforcement officials lately.

Always evaluate the quality and intent of a person by the way they treat a dog. Never, never, ever, expect more rationality, more respect from anyone, or less mistreatment from anyone, than the way they treat a dog. A dog is in many respects a better psychological diagnostic and predictive instrument than all the formal psychological evaluation tests combined.

From Ruby Ridge to Waco

Sammy Weaver came to find the dog screaming in pain and dragging itself by its front legs just before it died. Sammy fired a wild shot into the woods. One of the agents immediately shot him and nearly blew his arm off. When the now mortally wounded Sammy turned and started to run from the agents, one of them shot him in the back with a submachine gun to finish killing him.

Kevin Harris saw the dog being shot then saw Weaver's son get shot in the back as he ran. Harris fired off a quick shot in the direction of the still unidentified ambushers in self defense, and killed one of them.

The federal agents panicked and ran. In their calls for support they claimed they were being pinned down and fired at from multiple positions by what they called heavy weaponry. They presented themselves as poor misunderstood ambushed victims who had not returned fire.

In response, State and federal law enforcement authorities rapidly assembled a force of hundreds of eager armed personnel, better and more completely equipped and in higher aggressive spirits than any operation the U. S. conducted in Viet Nam—all to finish the job on two men, a woman, two kids, and an infant, confused and cowering in a plywood shack.

"Her head exploded like a ripe watermelon."

During the period between the federal agent's retreat and the gathering of a lunatic horde for a new assault, Harris, Randy Weaver, and his wife had taken Sammy's body to a near-by shed. When Harris, Randy, and his daughter, went to the shed the next evening for a farewell, they walked into a new federal ambush. Weaver was shot in the shoulder, Harris was wounded, and FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi killed Vicki Weaver with a shot to her head as she held her baby. At this point there is no real sense in going further into additional brutal detail.

Ruby Ridge was brazen premeditated murder built around purposely fabricated fraudulent justification. That's what the government agents came outfitted for and the opportunity they were hoping for. They seized whatever opportunity they could find to kill anything or anybody. What happened was that a group of severely mentally unbalanced federal officers had formed themselves into a rogue killer pack.

The Weavers were later given $3,100,000 in compensation for the wrongs committed at the siege. This constitutes implicit establishment of some vague condition of guilt by government agents or agencies. But it is not serious accountability. It's the same type of travesty as one witnessed when Bill Clinton or Janet Reno walked up before TV cameras to say they took full responsibility, then pranced off to a cocktail party somewhere. It's empty words to immobilize people and mark time while the intention is that nobody will pay a serious penalty.

Fellows and girls out there listening out in radio land, I have a message you can receive on your Captain Midnight magic decoder rings that you haven't heard before and which will probably seem quite radical. The wanton premeditated killing of people by federal agents is not a TV Survivor series where if they don't succeed in killing you then you receive a million dollars of somebody else's money collected by taxes while they go off to attempt to kill somebody else without personal consequences. It's more serious than that. Accountability in the adult world of responsibility means experiencing personal consequences levied in proportion to the act committed.

The situation had become way out of hand and had to be brought under control. The hammer should have fallen then.

If necessary, a crimes tribunal should have been convened on the Nuremburg precedent. Somewhere, in some court, the federal agents initiating the action at Ruby Ridge should have been brought to trial and been judged guilty of wanton premeditated murder with consequent sentence of death by hanging in the same camouflage costumes they wore during the commission of the crime. The judge who supported the action against the Weavers through judicial fraud while knowing full well that Randy Weaver had been instructed not to appear before the court for another six days should have been judged guilty of deliberately aiding murder and should have been sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor, wearing the judicial robes he disgraced. Sniper Lon Horiuchi, first degree murder. Death by hanging. Keep it simple and understandable. A little rough? Maybe. But it sure as hell would have established an atmosphere of seriousness and such attacks damned well wouldn't happen again. That is the only thing that will establish seriousness.

Justice would have been served. And there never would have been a Waco. And there never would have been an Oklahoma City Bombing.

WACO

Waco was one of the most wanton and vicious acts in American History. I look for a legal or justifying reason for it on the manifest level, and I can't find it. The Branch Davidians were another group of seclusionists with no intention of interacting with the outside world. They were a threat to themselves in the sense of wasting their lives in an involuted cult, but there is no indication they were a danger to the outside world. If left alone, they probably would have died out through slow decline in membership. There is asserted speculation, but poor evidence, that they were breaking laws. For dangerous people supposedly armed with everything short of nuclear missiles, they showed little capability during the confrontation with the government. Attempts to demonize the Davidians fall flat. They were basically unattractive withdrawn kooks who, again, weren't reasonably worth 15 minutes of the government's or anybody else's time.

Leader David Koresh apparently had a cordial relationship with the local sheriff. The idea of conducting a siege or massive confrontation of Koresh was completely unnecessary. He was very accessible and occasionally could be found walking around the street. If federal agents wanted to contact Koresh, they might have been successful by simply knocking on the door. But the federal agents were hyped up for more exciting action than that.

The only reason the massive confrontation and Waco massacre occurred was because the federal agents wanted and created one. They were hoping for trouble and they made it.

Ruby Ridge had been a slightly tentative operation. The absence of any serious consequences or corrective action after that act licensed emboldened commission of more extreme excesses and criminality.

Assault By the Ninja Attack Kooks

What was assembled was a cast of hundreds consisting of every available misanthropic crackpot in every federal law enforcement agency backed up by snipers, helicopters, tanks, and attack-kooks dressed in ninja costumes. The people involved, most of whom had rote-programed wind-up toys for minds, had long since ceased contact with any sense of proportion or with the reality of the situation. They were at the stage of responding primarily to each other and hopping each other up like mentally dumbass high school kids on a wilding spree looking for excitement and thrills. They were drunked up on the exhilaration of power, license, and group dynamics. They went out with a killer mob mentality and equipped to act out a killer mentality. In their mindless giddy chance to attack and kill, there was no warrant present because real interest or intent in serving it had long sense been forgotten.

They stormed the Branch Davidian facility like an army of angry poisonous ants while taking the effort to shoot the Davidian dogs. I saw part of the news accounts of agents in black attack costumes trying to crash in through windows.

What converged on the Davidians was stark pure run amok evil.

The rest is well-known history. Bulldozers subsequently destroyed evidence of what happened. Video tapes documenting misconduct mysteriously became lost.

Essentially, what had happened is that a large group of government-licensed criminal psychotics had now formed their own private army and were acting out their bizarre fantasies upon American citizens.

Had I been president during the Waco siege I would have gone there personally with two companies of army Special Forces. Upon arrival I would have declared martial law. All federal personnel present would have been given to the count of twenty to throw down their weapons, raise their hands, and move quickly into a designated area. At the twenty count, anyone not over that line would have been shot. The count would have proceeded without hesitation. At that point all participants in the designated area would have been arrested for further processing by state authorities and the attorney general on crimes of attempted murder or other pertinent crimes. That's what should have been done if we had a president. Had that been done, there would have been no Oklahoma City Bombing.

Not having done that, what would it have taken to restore government order, reestablish principles of personal freedom, and prevent the Oklahoma City bombing? What was needed was a public presidential statement of the simple truth. The president should have gone on national television to declare an escalating wave of excesses and criminality was being conducted against the American people by elements within the government and that it was going to stop immediately, starting with full prosecution of all people recently committing such acts and continuing with full prosecution of any future acts. The current president should still do the same.

But America hasn't had a president since Reagan.

There must be maintenance of a sense of proportion throughout the legal and justice system. The legal reaction, and any law officer's personal reaction to a person or group should be in proportion to the threat that person poses to society and/or the physical threat a person poses to the law officer. That means unprovoked threat. People defending themselves from abuse or criminal acts against them is not to be considered social or personal threat. If there is no threat or serious problem involved, you leave the person alone. Anyone who can't understand and live by that shouldn't be in law enforcement as a primary officer, or in legal prosecution, or in the judiciary.

Trivialities vs. Sense of Proportion

I'm aware of a debate ploy, and a certain warped mentality, that looks for trivial infraction, abstracts it, then magnifies it through dramatizing it, and then rationalizes killing somebody over the equivalent of a parking meter expiration while theatrically decreeing they are protecting the rule of law. That is not law. It's madness.

Law enforcement must be dominated by a sane sense of proportion and an evaluation of whether a person or group represents a serious threat to other people in the society at large.

Somewhere in Ruby Ridge and Waco, and some other areas, we need to examine the actions for a degree of proportionality.

Is there any degree of proportionality between the degree of lethal action taken by government agents and the degree to which the people attacked were a physical threat to other members of society?

Some years ago psychoanalyst Karen Horney described three distinct types of people. 1) People who move toward other people. 2) People who move against other people. 3) People who move away from other people. The people attacked by the government forces were not attempting to attack society. Quite the contrary, they were attempting to move away from society. If government arguments can somehow be believed, it is defining to note the Davidians made their final act one of ultimate withdrawal by suicide rather than an aggressive attack. That tells the story.

There never was any threat to society by the people attacked. The government attacks were highly disproportionate to any threat to society by the people being attacked.

The question is, is there a degree of proportionality to be found anywhere?

There are only two proportional elements present.

1) The viciousness of the attacks was proportionate to the twisted mentality of the agents participating in the attacks.

2) Very importantly, the attacks were proportionate to the extent that the people or groups being attacked fit profiles that seem to be a subjectively intolerable affront to the prejudices, emotions, and ambitions of modern liberalism.

Generational Brats

The 60s generation radicalism was inhabited by brats who, in their self-centeredness, thought everybody else thought the same way they did, or should have thought the same way, or should have been made to think the same way. They have come to believe THEY ARE society. Hence, they have come to believe failure to conform to their visions or rejection of servitude to their ideas is a punishable crime against society. With ascendancy of this mentality into power and encoded into law, noncompliance is to be met with force, and if an excuse can be found, death.

The Weavers were only of interest as white separatists. They were white separatists, get it yet? That offense is what got them targeted. There was no other significance to them. The Davidians were hyper-religious nobodies who elicit twisted irrational hatred within politically correct liberalism. Those elements may be offensive to the liberal left, but they are not offenses to the constitution. Rather, they were activities protected by the constitution.

After Waco it was apparent things had gotten completely out of hand. Large numbers of people were being killed. There was no foreseeable end to it. Somebody had to do something. Who would undertake responsible remedy?

American politics is filled with numbers of people who are political legacies who support each other as a self-patronizing class. Essentially, many of these are products of someone who made money back in the family line. Subsequent generations in that line acquire social grace and education, but are fundamentally of undeveloped capacity and grit. Politics becomes a playground of genteel ease where members of subsequent generations dignify family social prestige while pursuing an image of purpose and respectability for themselves without need for talent or sustained effort. Many of them are placed upward in political party hierarchies out of class loyalty and name recognition. George Bush senior simply hung around and slowly moved upward in the system. How and why did Bush become chief of the CIA? It was a matter of satisfying tenure and protocol to put him in a spot somewhere. Serving the system long enough confers right to run for president and George's time had come.

Not Just Bush

The phenomenon is not purely a Bush senior phenomenon. Another generation of Bentsens, several Rockefellers, another Cuomo, the Gore lineage, the Johnson-Robb complex, another Bayh, more Bushes, and about 15 Kennedys, are all in office, seeking office, or otherwise involved in political life and clawing for power. For many, it's a matter of dependence. Kennedys are unemployable incompetents for any task requiring concrete talent or industriousness.

I do wish useless privileged people with nothing else to do in their lives would stop inflicting themselves on the country while attempting to dignify it as making the sacrifice of going into public service. There's no sacrifice. It's an intoxicating and glamorous pursuit. You couldn't blast them out of their supposed suffering and sacrifice with a nuclear bomb. Most of them have nowhere else to go, or nothing else to do. They are not serving anyone but themselves and their own ambition. It's become an exclusive club of the inept that is destroying America.

Bush senior was in another world from which he was neither cognizant or in charge. Bush was unideological. His political affiliation was happenstance of fulfilling family tradition and social status rather than one having been achieved by depth of study and understanding. Bush's idea of the presidency was to come from the proper type of family background then coast along through benign aristocratic blandness. Unlike Reagan, Bush did not understand the seriousness of the leftist movement in the United States.

Bush was drifting and directionless during his presidency. The Gulf War provided a momentary illusion of toughness on Bush's part along with a victory celebration. The problem was that the real war was in America and was one of ideology and ideological infiltration. Bush's move was toward ideological truce and bringing us together which had the side effect of relieving him from necessity of ideological depth, clarity, or stamina—which in his case probably never existed and were beyond his capability. He was fumbling around in a job he didn't understand and never should have sought, but which he thought he was somehow owed. The result was rapid dissipation of the direction and force Reagan started, almost from Bush's speech accepting the Republican nomination, while destructive elements found themselves unimpeded and uncontested. When the cat's away, the mice will play. In the case of the Bush presidency the cat was wandering around oblivious while one could see and feel the floor and timbers of the nation being eaten away by busy rats. I kept wondering, when is Bush going to say or do something to confront this? The radical left began to reactivate and move uncontested. They continued to infiltrate the political and governmental infrastructure and reorient it. Rogue government agents were also free to test the limits. Rogue anything went uncontested.

To the subsequent President, Clinton, (remember the dedicated young political radical who went to Moscow out of hatred for America?) the destruction of personal rights at Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact a destructive condition of any kind, would be a source of privately-held vindictive satisfaction and partial achievement of subversive goals held throughout his entire adult life. Inept Attorney General Reno would be an enabler in his expression of that hatred.

The Clintons and their administration were part of the problem, not part of the solution. Infiltration now existed at the very top.

America Under Siege from Within

America had been under progressive siege for some period through legal and judicial means. (It still is.) There had been a leftist anticonstitutional and countercultural revolution occurring in America. This was part of the cultural war Pat Buchanan spoke of during the 92 Republican convention. By Ruby Ridge the revolution was becoming the initial steps of violent revolution of a peculiar sort. Usually, revolutions are described as people outside overthrowing the government. In this instance it was a case of an infiltrated government, with approval from the media and academia, overthrowing the people. The violent phase of this revolution was occurring through nonrestriction of useful idiots and sadists in government enforcement agencies and letting them have their way upon leftist-demonized and/or unpopular people or groups who were offensive to liberals.

People were being attacked and murdered by unrestrained maniacs and wind-up killing machines coming out from under the rug in a type of vague licensed sociopolitical purge. What was occurring was licensed assassination starting with reclusive politically incorrect undesirables. It was perfectly clear that there was not the slightest intention anywhere of imposing any accountability or consequences. There was little examination or confrontation in the modeling and reporting by The Ring. There weren't streams of people on Ted Koppel's Nightline debating the constitutionality or morality. There were no dramatic angry voices in the Alan Dershowitz mode. Virtual reality was approvingly mute on the subject. There was no representation of what you are reading here. Bush was obliviously out of touch. The Clintons were in sympathy with it.

A country watched while what was for practical purposes a small reclusive village that had never harmed anyone was shot up and immolated on national TV with not a serious word of represented outrage and no indication that there would be an end to it.

The prevailing attitude was the same as Clinton's attitude after his rape of Juanita Broaddrick, in which he laughed and told her to put some ice on it while gloating over the fact she was helpless to do anything about it. Non-liberal America was being raped, ridiculed with contempt in their position of helplessness, and told to put some ice on it.

America had licensed proven criminally insane killers on the loose, who were willing and able to kill again given slight justification or opportunity. The American people were helpless to do anything about it. The situation was dangerous.

At this point Timothy McVeigh entered the scene.

And also at this point the amateur psychiatrists come out to put a spin on McVeigh. It's is said McVeigh was picked on in his youth and this made him identify with the Davidians and overreact to their deaths. This is a dangerous focus that dismisses the reality and seriousness of the situation. It trivializes the murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge by placing the events in a category only a neurotic or psychotic would consider important.

When I hear this I also ask myself, is there provision for legitimate anger or indignation in any of this? Is there, somewhere, anywhere, an acknowledged legitimate well-adjusted line in the sand that justifies active indignation and outrage? If it requires being picked on as a child to react to what happened to the Weavers and the Davidians, then it would have been better if 200,000,000 more Americans had been picked on in their youth so that America would recover enough of a soul and sense of outrage to have reacted as strongly to the slaughter as did McVeigh. That there weren't large scale riots throughout America in response to the Waco massacre is a statement that America is a very sick society and a nation that has become dangerously beaten down and compliant.

The Oklahoma City bombing was the direct desperate result of refusal to restore a sense of responsibility by two presidents, by two attorneys general, by congress, by the court system, and by chiefs of law enforcement agencies, who have all escaped accountability.

McVeigh was doing part of what a president was obligated to have done. He was correcting the condition in the cruder fashion available to him, and with the limited amount of selectivity available to him. He was a focused man with absolute intent on establishing the inevitability of personal consequences and accountability. Somehow, somewhere, that had to be done.

Was McVeigh a monster? Far from it. McVeigh is deliberately misdescribed in the leftist media as a terrorist. The suckers buy into the language structure they are fed and they bought into that language structure. They also let their decisions and reactions be determined by that language structure. If one can control the structure of language, one can limit the scope of analysis to the prejudices inherent within that structure. There was nobody allowed on the national scene to revise that language structure.

It was never McVeigh's intention to be an indiscriminant terrorist. He wasn't a terrorist. McVeigh didn't know a day care center was in the federal building and he was jarred by the revelation. The deaths of the Oklahoma children were no more intentional than the accidental hitting of a child chasing a ball out of nowhere by an unexpecting motorist. All indications are that he wouldn't have set the bomb if he knew there was a day care center in the building. The deaths of the children were not an act of intent, but a tragic accident of ignorance. In his own words he was sorry about the deaths of the children. His references to their being "collateral damage" seem cold and mechanical, but were an artifact of his limited verbal capacity and adoption of language acquired in the military. Those words were also an expression of his determination to do the primary job that he thought needed to be done. That job was to bring appropriate corrective consequences upon a corrupt power center where outrage was being dispensed, at the eventual probable cost of his own life.

. McVeigh had confidence in the necessity of that decision.

There is also a mode of thinking that occurs among men of determined incisive temperament. There comes a point where they say, "Regardless of what else, regardless of the cost, this, THIS MUST BE STOPPED." After that, they go into a grim tough determined mode where they have made up their mind to the point where that is the way it has to be, and that is the way it had to be. It may not be the way they want it to be, or the way they liked it to be, but it's the way things had to be and the way things turned out. Military officers must make such ugly determined decisions and live with them. Physicians must do similarly. The ugliness of those decision are subject to highly dramatized criticism during debate or assertions. It's easy to point to the children killed at Oklahoma City while hiding behind inflammatory images and accusations.

You Torment People Long Enough, You Force Them to Kill You

But, there are some rough tough rules in life that many people will not want to hear. Eventually, if you mess with and torment people long enough it will come to the point where you force them to kill you. When they do, don't come whining to me about it because I'm not a very good at listening to concocted sad tales, and as far as I'm concerned you got what you deserved. If you can subtly beat people down in stages so they are ground down, whipped, and masochistic like battered women, they will accept continued abuse and you can continue to inflict sadism upon them. But if you do it to a healthy person, or if a sick repressed person regains their psychological health and dignity, you will eventually force them to kill you and anyone you cleverly attempt interpose between yourself and them.

This is particularly so when you start wantonly killing people. That's the bargain you make in the healthy adult world.

Part of the definition of basic mental health is an acceptance of that reality. It's part of the differentiation between mentally healthy people versus passive-aggressive sadists, psychopaths, and similar categories of pathology. Forty-five or 50 years ago not one adult in ten would disagree with that view. Since the developmental prominence of various forms of passive-aggressive, sadistic, and borderline personality systems coordinate with the radicalism of the 60s, that view is now under professional and countercultural siege.

Part of the definition of mental health is also to make the distinction between people who initiate violence, and those acts that become necessary to defend against it. The two actions are not equivalent and the person initiating the violence is responsible for the entire subsequent sequence of events. That view is also now under professional and countercultural siege.

Above all, law must conform to healthy human psychology—not be used as a tool for sadism and tyranny.

The sadism of the radical 60s set out to overturn that philosophy and replace it with an imposed sadistic process. In the 60s and 70s declared violent revolutionaries would get in people's faces and, in the street guerrilla theater of the period, would suddenly take on the role of innocent children and fall down in mock near-mortal injury if someone slapped their face. There was a distorted mentality in which leftists expected to kill other people, expected to announce they intended to kill other people, but not be killed back. Killing was to be a unilateral child's game while people who defended themselves were accused of being maladjusted violent primitives. With repetition and media support healthy reaction to leftist threats became immobilized and subject to an irrational one-way criticism. All I heard during the period relating to threats of leftist revolution was that the only real danger was one of right-wing over-reaction. That movement had remarkable success and has infused throughout American, and even world, culture as part of leftist infusion of ideology. In America, with the advancement of that movement into the American judicial, legal, and governmental systems, it had come to the point were people were being wantonly murdered at will in places such as Ruby Ridge and Waco with any demand for consequences being dismissed at as maladjusted evil right-wing conspiracy.

The Halo Effect of an Archvillain

The American people had been fed a daily diet of insult, humiliation, and outrage for years and had under-reacted. They are still under-reacting. But when the condition evolves to the point where you start brazenly killing people, regardless of whether you corrupt and misuse the law, the judicial system, and whatever else to fabricate and employ a veneer of legitimacy for that killing—in the sane adult world, at some point you really must expect someone to kill you in return. However ineptly, however ill-considered, that's what happened at Oklahoma City.

The accidental deaths of the Oklahoma children turned out to furnish the escape needed for the government agents and the political left to escape responsibility and consequences. What was needed was an archvillain to enable successful shifting of focus away from the realities of the original evil acts and away from necessary just imposition of appropriate consequences upon those responsible for those acts. Similarly, the halo effect of an archvillain could be used, retroactively, to justify the violence at Waco and Ruby Ridge as being a necessity against the same mentality. The deaths of the Oklahoma children and the portrayal of McVeigh as an evil terrorist fulfilled those tasks. The emotional impact of pictures of rescuers holding Oklahoma children's bodies eclipsed all else. Demanding accountability for earlier acts was smeared as being in alliance with indiscriminent killing of children. Children means only Oklahoma children. The children who were gassed and killed at Waco, or the shooting of the mortally wounded young Sammy Weaver in the back as he desperately tried to flee murderous madmen became insignificant considerations. There was conceptual manipulation of the public to treat the Oklahoma bombing and the mass killings preceding it as unrelated events. The real villains and terrorists went free in the refocus.

Was the blood of the Oklahoma children redder than the children at Waco? Was their blood redder than those at hundreds of Ruby Ridges or Wacos to come if the insanity wasn't stopped? Clearly, there was no serious declaration that something serious had happened before Oklahoma, no serious intention to bring appropriate legal consequences to those responsible for the killings, no serious remedying restatement of people's personal rights, and no serious attempt to guarantee such actions would not occur in the future.

The Violent Subjugation of the American People

The absence of such statements and the absence of serious intention implied no serious transgressions against the American people worth considering had taken place. Hence, such acts were now established, by their lack of being seriously contested, as acceptable operating procedure that could be inflicted without consequence in the future. A new level of violent subjugation of the American people had been breached and certified by silence. The American people would be required to adapt to it while the electronic virtual reality hologram looked upon such events with nodding approval. Correct me if I'm wrong in my observation that the American two-party political system would neither discuss the seriousness of the condition nor offer alternative and remedy to voters in recent elections.

The Clintons have already been discussed. There was no mention of seriousness or necessity for remedy by Robert Dole. There was no mention of seriousness or need for remedy by Al Gore. Bush Jr. is temperamentally inadequate and mentally too unincisive to address such issues.

Unless there is a new political party starting as of last year, Hillary will run for the presidency for practical purposes unopposed. (Note: Since the original publication of this piece the destruction of the World Trade Center my Islamic Gihadists had the secondary effect of rescuing the floundering Bush presidency) Like many of the mentally deficient easily programmed students of the 60s and 70s, she was easily brainwashed into a cult mentality that gave her her only chance for a personality and place in life. As it was for many, leftist cult membership was adopted as a life substitute for people with disfunctional selves. She, and others, graduated with a licensing distorted lifetime mission. Superimposed upon this is a vicious hate-filled psychopathic personality without conscience or remorse who feels unbounded narcissistic entitlement. Combined with the rationalizing architecture of 60s and 70s radicalism, that entitlement includes license to kill. Over the last 20 to 30 years she has shown absolutely no reluctance in committing primary criminal acts, nor reluctance to act in a knowing role as an accomplice conspiring to hide criminal acts. Past misuse of FBI files or the IRS is nothing compared to what you will see. Any inhibitions you see are temporary and cosmetic while she manipulates for power. When she calls someone a "fucking Jew bastard," it is the real Hillary. It's the attitude she has toward anybody or anything that thwarts her moods. I would strongly advise people to understand she is of similar cold mentality as the woman who used the skin of Nazi concentration camp inmates as lamp shades. Don't doubt it. She exhibits a peculiar type of paranoia characteristic of the radical left in which appropriate reaction to vicious acts they inflict upon other people are interpreted as persecution from which they are entitled to take all steps to defend themselves. If Bubba rapes a few women, any legitimate reaction to it is subjectively transformed into being victimized by a conspiracy. It's part of a paranoid life pattern of demand for unlimited irrational destructive entitlement followed by claims of persecution and victimization when those demands are thwarted. This is an extremely dangerous mentality that can justify destroying or killing anybody.

Here Come the Wacos

If you think you have seen bad, you haven't seen bad yet. Remember Waco because you will likely see more Wacos in the future. Hillary Clinton will tighten the vise of imposition of an insane sadistic leftist state with more legally dispensed murder for protest or noncompliance. Start getting prepared to hear a defiant contemptuous feminine voice laugh and tell you to put some ice on it.

What now exists is a temporary slight relaxation of governemnt violence. To serious extent I am willing to attribute that decrease in aggressiveness to McVeigh's actions. In the back of at least a few pointed little heads, Oklahoma induced some slight sense of caution resulting from the realization that at least some people had had enough and were ready to fight back. But, regardless of temporary caution, a long term stage has been set for measured escalated legalized ruthless violent revolution against the American people. One should fear for the future of the American nation.

Should Timothy McVeigh have been executed? Possibly. But with great reluctance and sorrow. And only for the deaths of the Oklahoma children.

He would be required to pay the price for the tragedy of his mistake.

McVeigh's attorneys should have burned a path through the center of America and started a movement.

Many people celebrated McVeigh's execution. His death supposedly effected closure. But only to the naive or those whose primary concern was relatives lost in the Oklahoma bombing. The real matter that was settled was that there could be politically licensed murder on an escalating scale without consequences.

Those who celebrated were celebrating having executed what may have been one of the last men of determined conscience in the nation. For a brief moment, however ineptly, one man did what millions of other Americans should have done, and fought back. His tragic ineptitude should not be allowed to be confused with the necessity to restore absolute accountability and consequences for increasingly brazen criminal acts against the American people. It had come to the stage where what Timothy McVeigh did had to be done by somebody. He went to his death like a man. I sensed in him a bitterness and disgust with the American nation.

I am not trivializing the deaths of the Oklahoma children. It was a terrible tragedy. It was purely an accident of ignorance and naivete.

But the killings at Ruby Ridge and Waco were not accidents of ignorance and naivete. They were systematic cold calculated acts of evil premeditated by professionals. They were acts of sociopolitical repression.

Never let that important difference between those two events be forgotten.

The Myth of Liberty and Justice for All

This business about America the Beautiful with liberty and justice for all that you were taught as schoolchild is myth and always has been. There is no secure rule of law, and there never has been. There is no secure system of justice and there never has been. The only seriously functional thing there is, and ever has been, is serious absolute fear of public resolve and public physical retribution. Corruption and evil are the way of this world throughout human history. The world is a jungle with the hyenas attempting to gain control. Intellectual discourse with hyenas is not a deterrent to their nature or intent. Ultimately, the only defense against evil and corruption is capacity for self defense and instilling fear of inevitable concrete personal reprisal within those who would impose corruption and evil. When law enforcement, when the legal system, when the politicians, or anybody else lose that fear, the people lose everything including their rights and freedom—and eventually their lives. When fear is lost the result is disguised predatory anarchy by the privileged corrupt, concurrent with absolute regulation of the oppressed. There develops a criminal oligarchy that infiltrates and then perverts the institutions of law and government to solidify and enforce its corruption while superficially keeping the system in its original form. Inevitably the cry of the hyenas is that there must be respect for hyena law and legal process while knowing full well they have perverted the process. One of the first things to do when misusing the law is to demand absolute obedience to law. Reform is pronounced illegal.

When you see a supreme court decision made on a five to four basis it means the difference between a personal right and a criminal act is the arbitrary difference between whether someone can jimmy in a change in one court justice. It also means four or more people on that court were willing to take those rights away and had support in their attempt to do so from those who appointed them. All law is entirely arbitrary and subsequently decorated through facility of language. Beneath facility of language the law is only whatever any person or group says it is if they have the trickery or force necessary to pass it and force you to obey it. It is perfectly legal for someone to kill you if they pass a law allowing them to do it. It can be made illegal to defend yourself from being killed.

We are finding that out in America. The only existent remedy or prevention is fear. What you have is only that which remains after what you let the criminals and the misguided get away with. The line must be drawn and the reaction to transgression hard.

When fear of direct physical reprisal is lost, the exalted Rule of Law inevitably becomes the rule of evil. It has been that way throughout history from Rome, through Nazi Germany, and now, incipiently in America.

The only thing the individual citizen has working for him is fear. The only thing you have in terms of individual rights, in terms of property, in terms of respect, is what people are too frightened to take from you.

What has happened in America is that the politicians, the judiciary, the rogue government agencies, the rogues in government agencies, the countercultural left, have lost that fear to the point of becoming contemptuously brazenly evil and sadistic. They have confidence in expecting no concrete personal inevitable consequences.

The bottom line in all this is that nobody has suffered consequences for Ruby Ridge or Waco. There is no observable intention of there being any accountability or consequences.

America had licensed, proven criminally insane killers on the loose, who were willing and able to kill again given slight justification or opportunity. The American people were helpless to do anything about it. The condition was dangerous.

There has been no correction. Therefore, it continues to be dangerous. They are still out there on the loose with no fear of consequences and eager to be employed by mentally unbalanced monsters on the near political horizon. Right now, nobody's life is worth a damn. We are still under siege by a pestilence defiantly built up brick by brick over the years. There is no indication that defiance will abate or that there is any conscience in the matter. Healthy people with respect for themselves can not be expected to tolerate this forever.

Unless Timothy McVeigh is replaced by thousands and millions of others, importantly, who don't make his tragic errors, America will become an authoritarian psychotic hellhole.

FIN

Epilogue: The World Trade Center Destruction

Many things have changed since the writing of the Oklahoma bombing miniseries.

The most major change was the destruction of the Word Trade Center in New York City. This led to subsequent and collateral changes.

First, it eclipsed interest in any domestic rights and constitutional issues.

Another spin-off was the temporary political demotion of Hillary Clinton. New Yorkers and others became too preoccupied ducking hijacked airplanes and anthrax germs to pay attention to vacuous promotion of Hillary for president. The focus of attention suddenly centered upon Bush, with Hillary relegated to the sidelines in importance. This may change with time. In fact it has changed. She's climbing back up in the polls. The Clinton followers are as dedicated as are bin Laden's, and will attempt to reassert their movement at earliest opportunity.

What Hillary still has going for her is the short memory span of the American people along with the complete lack of seriousness about any aspect of reality that is not an immediate problem for them. The mentality of foppish triviality has become too highly developed not to return, lifting Hillary's prospects with it. What has been mislabeled American resilience is more accurately shortness of memory, reluctance to learn from experience, and childish preoccupation with immediate foolishness to the exclusion of long term consequences. When things get back to normal, that is when there is no forceful outside intrusion into stupidity and self-absorbed mindlessness, and when past unescapable intrusions have faded from memory or are viewed as having been temporary aberrations, Hillary will rise from the ashes. The Clintons' strength has always been capacity to appeal to, encourage, and represent, complacent self-absorbed mindlessness.

Hillary has been one of the most effective fundraisers in recent history. She's distributed money on such a way that she is slowly buying the Democratic Party. Not only does she collect money for her own political foundations. but an opportunity to view and serve her, unconditionally, in awe, has always been more like a command from The Queen. When she appears at other people's fundraising events, it draws millions of dallars. Her previously unchallenged voracious egocentric internal psychology remains unquestioned by a supportive media.

She has age working against her. Hillary has always been a youthful-appearing attractive cute-looking woman when she turns on before crowds. It looks as if this may have been augmented by a dab of plastic surgery. In a media culture this physical cuteness has served to contradict and deny her raw interior. It has played well, and been a source of political strength. But she's developing an age and weight problem. There are pictures of her during recent periods where she has slipped a little bit in attention to her physical regimen, resulting in a bloated face resembling a baby's behind. When she is tired and bloated now, she looks like a back-alley wino floozie. It won't sell politically. Having to put off seeking the presidency until 2008 could reduce her physical assets.

The Bush presidency had been floundering and aimless, making it equal in impact to the brainlessness of Hillary Clinton while Bubba, uncontested by Bush, strutted about the world acting as if he were still the real president for tributes of $100,000 a night supported by a worshiping media. Hillary was a money magnet like no one had ever seen before, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars at fundraisers and distributing it to various congresspeople and senators for their campaigns and projects. They were becoming dependent and indebted to her. She owned them. The media fawned over her and constantly gave her an image of national importance. She hadn't even started yet. The only issue Bush seemed concerned about was opening the borders to create new Mexican supporters for his 2004 campaign.

The war on terrorism, if we can call it that, is a gift of political salvation that has given Bush an easy illusion of leadership and presidentiality. All he needs to do is look stern and demand action against the so-called terrorists. The terrorists suddenly made Bush's job easy and made criticism of Bush a politically dangerous act of apparent non-support for America. Finally, of dire necessity, Bush is being reported more often and as more important than Hillary.

Bin Ladin, the False Target

But, at this point there still is no real accurate statement as to who is responsible for the attacks on America and why. There are fingers pointed at bin Laden. In fact Mr. bin Laden is a serious problem child whose forcefully enhanced departure unto the nether regions would be entirely beneficial to the world. That bin Laden throws some weight is undeniable. Money talks, and bin Ladin has piles of it.

Bin Laden has been a false target used to devise simplistic ease while avoiding facing uncomfortable realities. Bin Laden is not capable of doing all that is attributed to him.

Bush and the government have created a simplified narrow enemy of political convenience to devise an image of decisiveness and purpose. I'm not arguing that the defining of the enemy is all politically contrived. Some, or even much, of it is subject to the limited mental competence and preconceptions of those making the decision.

To say Bush created an enemy of political convenience as if it were a master chess move is somewhat inaccurate. Bush does not impress one as capable or inclined to crafty manipulative deception. Rather, Afghanistan and bin Laden are early in the order of speculation of who is responsible for the terrorist actions. The acceptance of the Afghanistan/bin Ladin theory superficially avoids so many complications and problems as to make it a nearly irresistibly appealing epiphany of entrapping self-deception by a man who has shown consistent serious limitation in capacity to understand anything in depth.

We still don't completely know who is directly responsible or where bin Laden is, assuming he's even still alive. The Taliban are ferocious individual fighters who are otherwise hyper-neurotic bird brains with limited capability beyond their borders. It is doubtful one percent of the Afghanistan population could even find New York or the United States on a map. Hell, many current American high school and college graduates can't even do it. Bin Laden and company, or others, may have had training camps in Afghanistan, but largely through accident of geography because it's a barren secluded unknown country and that's all it's good for. Demands for delivery of bin Ladin would necessarily be looked upon by Afghans as a haughty degrading foreign intrusion and an insult to Afghanistan's pride and independence. Taliban obstinateness in refusal to give up bin Laden (doubtfully assuming they could even do so) earned the Taliban and Afghanistan a bombing and whatever else can be inflicted upon them. The military action looked good, but is it related to anything real?

Both the immediate and long term problem is Islam. Islam is a highly aggressive inculcated obsessive delusional psychosis that has been on a run amok submit-or-be-killed crusade on and off for over a thousand years. It is a delusional system that is defended with an indignation subjectively justifying violence against the non-delusional world. It shows little indication of mellowing. Bin Laden didn't start this. It should be thoroughly understood he is at best a temporary ball carrier for one play within the action of a team that has been dedicated to winning the game for many centuries. There are hundreds of millions of Islamic fans cheering and supporting him and the total effort. In the one billion strong Islamic world, the sharing and advancement of Islam trumps all else. Condemnations of so-called "radical Islamic fundamentalist" actions by various Islamic states or leaders are empty publicly-presented facades used to deflect criticism or responsibility, under which there is a fondness for a brotherhood expressed in massive street demonstrations expressing support. Whether that is admitted for reasons of maintaining the unrealistic and manipulative show that is diplomacy or ruse is an irrelevant matter.

The game here is one of good cop and bad cop during interrogation of suspects. We have good Mohammedans and bad Mohammedans. The good Mohammedans pretend to disassociate themselves from the actions of the nasty bad Mohammedans. The problem is that the good Mohammedans seem to be enjoying it too much when the bad guys pull off a score. Indications are no Mohammedan group would be seriously depressed if the lead country in the heathen non-Islamic world got hit on the chin decisively. The good Mohammedans smile inscrutably, barely concealing a stance of, "Go get 'em tiger" while the bad Mohammedans make the sacrifice and do the damage to the non-Islamic infidels. It's one thing to be in favor of world Islamic conquest, but the clever Mohammedan man enjoying a moderate amount of personal comfort and prosperity which he would rather not see disturbed, would do well to remain in the background as a deniable instigator while letting the other guys actually do it and take the lumps. (In this sense the Palestinians are being used by their Islamic brethren. They are kept in desperation in the knowledge they will act upon it and do the dirty work.)

The individual who hears protestations and declaration of distance from good Islamics should be prepared to temper his evaluation with the above conception or suffer unpleasant surprises.

Does the Koran preach peace and tolerance? Some passages can be construed to do so. Other passages present violent militancy. There's a double message that can be quoted selectively. What is the real Islam and Koran? Some years ago I met a man whose last name could have several pronunciations depending upon the ethnic background of the person bearing the name. I asked him how he pronounced his name. He smiled and answered, "It depends on who I'm doing business with." What the real Koran is, and Islam is, depends upon if Mohammedism gets the upper hand.

My advice in politics and religion is the same as my advice in evaluating romantic entanglements. Always believe the worst half of a double message. It's the warning someone is giving you about the way things are going to turn out.

Wherever Islamics accumulate in any numbers, there is trouble, whether it be in the form of beheadings of hostages in the Philippines, wars in Africa, bombings in Pakistan and India, riots in Indonesia, self-licensed patterns of hostile gang rapes of non-Islamic women by young Mohammedan men in Australia and Scandinavia, demands for independent enclaves ruled only by Mohammedan law in Great Britain, or any place else.

The Islamic mind is a problem because, not only is the belief crazy, but it is incorporated into a multiplex personality system. A multiplex personality is one that has developed extensive commitment or involvement to collateral beliefs and attachments coordinate with, and supporting, its main personality features. One aspect of psychotherapy is that a therapist should be aware of is that it is desirable and easier to work with a patient before their disordered condition becomes multiplexed. That is, as patients live a distorted mental condition over time, the basis of their friendships, the basis of their marriages, their choice of occupation, and many other things become congruent with, or support that condition. Therapeutic progress then means uncomfortable disturbance of all those life areas, not just the initial problem or direction. Or those life areas developed during pathology work to pull the patient back into that pathology and away from therapeutic progress.

Islamics are raised in total craziness. Each part of it is interlocked with other facets of craziness so that questioning any part of it is a threat to all of it, producing anger and desperation. There is limited toleration of rationality in the Islamic world. Islam constantly defends against rationality. The best defense is a good offense, and Islam is at fanatical war with the world.

There are few isolated issues in the Islamic world. Discussion of anything impinges upon the greater entirety of the Mohammedan world and Mohammedan thought. There are ultimately no issues other than Mohammed. Courts of law, if one can call them that, administer prescriptions from the Koran rather than civil statute. Questioning any small thing whatsoever eventually evolves into a major issue of questioning Mohammed and Allah.

The government of Iran is on a campaign to confiscate all TV satellite dishes in order to keep its people isolated from non-Mohammedan knowledge or influence. Mohammedan education consists primarily of religious study and Koran that entraps graduates with few other skills except to be militant fanatics. Added to this is the fact that the typical Islamic country's economic condition is rooted in a condition similar to Europe many centuries ago, making the prospects for Mohammedan young men in the Middle East even more grim. Nothing in the way of movement or opportunity exists except jihad, which is the dominant product of the Mohammedan world.

Islamic women are apparently reviled disposable people forced to walk about with sacks over their heads while men express desire to die in the service of Allah with the reward of going to the next world in their own Playboy Magazine mansion to hump 72 eternal virgins rather than being centered on a pleasant existence with their own wives. That's where the real action is. Asking. "Well then, do your Mohammedan women get to go to a next world warmly greeted with an endless private array of impassioned handsome eager teenage boys with eight-inch peters?" would be a blasphemy that would get you killed in short order. People dedicated to a rarefied spiritual life will do anything. Be that as it may, if the Islamic position of women in the present is rather drab, and it is followed by a theologically underwritten ultimate retirement program for women which seems also notably lacking in thorough consideration, none of it, or the craziness anywhere else, is to be questioned. There is a group of Christians now on trial in Afghanistan for heretical proselytism for saying much less when they were asked about the nature of their beliefs. It takes very little to offend the Mohammedan world. Short of being entirely blind, deaf, dumb, and devoid of any curiosity or analytical capacity, there is little way an outsider can avoid offense and subjectively justified retaliation.

Whether God keeps track of how many times a day each person lies prostrate with his nose and belly to the earth in religious expression to him is, in my mind, doubtful. But it is not allowed to be doubted in the Middle East. Neither is the obsessive-compulsive atmosphere around it.

Mohammed and Mohammedism are like comic horror movies where the Bride of Frankenstein marries Godzilla to produce I Was a Teenage Werewolf. But these idiots are serious about it and have been on periodic march to impose it for more than a thousand years. Had it not been for the Franks and Charles Martel in the European West, and failures at the sieges of Vienna in the East, even Great Britain might have been conquered and subjugated to Islam by Mohammedan armies. The Serbs are still attempting to expel the remnants of the Islamic invasion to this day. Mohammedism is on the move again with permission from Allah to kill anything in its path that disagrees with it. Anyone who is not mentally deficient or psychotic would be required to disagree with it by virtue of a state of reasonable mental health and wanting to continue living in that state. This is a reality the Mohammedan world finds intolerably offensive. Thus, the entire mentally non-debilitated world is an offense to be conquered or killed. More specifically, a smuggled-in atom bomb set off in a major American city would be considered suitable retribution for such intolerable offense. Does anyone not see a rather intractable long term problem somewhere at this point?

Were I to have visited the United States in the early 1950s my first impression would have been of a predominately proud, happy, zestful, optimistic, productive people. Had I visited Islamic nations during the same period my primary first impression would be, "These people are obsessive-compulsive idiots and nuts." The American condition has deteriorated since that time, which is a separate matter.

First impressions are often correct before they are denied and repressed by the demands of psychobabble sociological relativistic equality among all people. The abstracted assertion is that one is rejecting people because of the strangeness or unfamiliarity of their beliefs and customs. It's racism, or whatever. We are immobilized by a prerecorded song and dance act of sadistic academic one-ups-manship so as to deny to ourselves our primary observations.

No, it's not the mere fact of strangeness that makes Mohammedism perceived as nuts. It is the less abstract detailed content of that strangeness that is crazy. Islam has done little FOR its own people over many centuries as documented by the conditions Islamic nations live under. On the other hand it has done a lot TO its own and other people over the same period. Unfortunately, concerns about this pattern are dismissed by assertion that these actions are compensated for by exclusive focus on salvation in the next life, or in variations on a theme, service to Allah, which is all that counts in the larger picture. Therefore, in this logic of schizophrenic detachment from the present world, chopping off a few heads becomes a licensed inconsequentiality. But it's an exclusive franchise opportunity to be reserved only for Mohammedism.

(This is a dangerous mode of logic too easily adopted by many religions used to make irrational servitude and consequences acceptable. Fortunately, the Christian world has mellowed in this regard, to some extent by necessity resulting from its having been too fragmented to have power to hold absolute power and direction over its diverse parts.)

The liberal declaration is, people have a right to believe in what they believe in. This may be true. But people do not have a right not to be realistically judged and treated according to what they believe. There is no free ride in this world. Calling idiocy, degeneracy, parasitism, psychosis, demand for conquest, a religion doesn't change its basic character, doesn't confer acceptability, and doesn't confer right to impose it on the world. Leave the word religion out of it because it won't get anyone any slack at my house.

We find ourselves defending ourselves against a psychotic system that has made war on the rest of the world for many centuries. Within this, a narrow setback to unified Mohammedism in one area is a threat likely to produce sympathetic actions from other Mohammedan groups or countries, escalating into a confrontation that becomes massive. Another strong terrorist action from another hypotheticalized geographical, and another necessitated military reaction to it could result in world wide conflict along Mohammedan non-Mohammedan lines.

Waco, Mohammedism, and Domestic Terrorism

To end the so-called terrorism, it appears that Mohammedism must be recognized, thoroughly understood, confronted, and thoroughly discredited for what it is. If it can not be walled in and left to rot in its own excrement, it must be expunged from the face of the earth in self defense.

Within that context, the present military action in Afghanistan against the Taliban and against bin Laden, or an equivalent, while necessary, should be viewed as producing no long term expectations and is irrelevant over the long term if the declared limited objectives be truthful rather than temporary deception designed to allow successive defeat of other Islamic strongholds in turn. The Mohammedan threat should be considered diffuse, expansive, unpredictable, and as long term as the continued existence of the religion.

This is a field of thought George Bush is freed from negotiating in pursuing his narrow present analysis and course of action, assuming it is not deception as part of a long term plan.

Islam and liberalism/leftism have much in common. They are both multiplexed quasi-psychoses. Liberalism/leftism is a little more complex than Mohammadism in that it is to greater extent a pathological secondary expression of a deeper pathology.

But, in both instances when either system acquires sufficient power, profession of faith and rigid adherence becomes not a freely chosen option, but an enforced requirement subject to review. Inculcation of belief is to be absolute with censorship of any refuting alternative or evidence. Both are paranoid in the sense of inappropriately blaming the outside world for consequences instead of blaming their own deficiencies. Both groups seem to have an impelling heavy investment in destructive sexuality and poverty of male-female relationships that seem to emotionally fuel their movement. Both aggressively attempt to impose their systems on the world. In both systems doctrine blinds adherents to logic or rationality. In the case of liberalism/leftism, political correctness increasingly condemns rationality as an arbitrary punitive artifact imposed by European culture. Thus, in liberalism there is a important domestic, and international, war paralleling the war with Mohammedism.

Like Islam, liberalism/leftism is on a jihad. The jihad is conducted by persuasion when possible, by censorship and lies as a matter of habit, by subversion as a matter of strategy, and by terrorism and killing when sufficient position is acquired to employ it.

The Islamic terrorist acts and military campaign have been a diversion from political reality. After all, who can think about personal rights, legal issues, constitutional issues at a time like this? For those who are incapable of analyzing such issues, this diversion is a source of relief and celebration as it releases them from necessity of depth and competence. For those who would rather see such areas unexamined, as in not confronted, cause for celebration is at least equal. Crisis is too easily exploited to become an excuse to impose obedience and servitude out of declared necessity which persist to become a draconian plague after the crisis has ended.

The Contentlessness of the Bush Presidency

In the case of Bush senior the contentlessness of his presidency became obscured by the Gulf War. But his detached contentlessness resulted in the festering continuation of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It also enabled Ruby Ridge and the beginning of Waco occurring on his watch. While his election defeat was primarily due to abysmal economic recession that obscured other issues, there was serious trouble brewing in other areas.

Like his father before him, George Bush may be under the mistaken belief that bombing some ragheads fulfills the minimum adult requirement for a successful presidency. While it may produce a surge in popularity, it's not enough to hold a free country together for very long with integrity or rationality. Rather than supporting war, and it doesn't create any distinct long term direction. It's not the real work that needs to be done.

What I see are serious short term economic problems without indication of understanding or explanation of their nature. What I see are political groups positioning to exploit those problems so as to impose a system of authoritarian social servitude. There is a crisis in legal conceptualization. There is an erosion of constitutional principle and intent. There is a loss of public representation in government concomitant with a fundamental control and direction of government remaining in an powerful untouchable leftist countercultural element. (I notice, for example, the California government has refused to enforce or otherwise act upon an anti-affirmative action referendum passed by the voters. Democracy, the voice of the people, and mandates are theatrically described in high esteem unless they contradict liberalism, in which case they are overturned.) There is an educational system that has become little else but a tool for uncontested subversion. There is long term deterioration of the American economic infrastructure. (This deterioration is theoretically welcomed by Marxists and para-Marxists to bring the American economic condition down into parity with that of other world nations.) There is progressive enforcement of servitude to expanding irresponsibility. I see international elements arguing in the United Nations and elsewhere that the United States uses a disproportionate share of the earth's resources and has a disproportionate share of the world's wealth while I'm hearing no rebuttal for such statements. There is widespread demand for economic equality regardless of effort or behavior, with intention to use taxation to guarantee it.

CLASS! PAY ATTENTION! THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WILL BE ON THE FINAL EXAM!

If you don't understand this, you don't know anything. How these areas are addressed will determine the American historical future, the world historical future, and the future condition of mankind. Make no mistake about it, if these, and parallel, areas are not addressed as an immediate primary order of business, no matter what people think is happening, no matter what appears to be happening, no matter what people wish were happening, no matter what temporary highs are achieved by military conflicts, the American nation will collapse from a combination of internal conditions and forces.

I don't see present discussion of this anywhere. George Bush is not an aggressive sound advocate and teacher needed to address any of these important areas. This deficiency is neither a novelty nor an artifact of sudden preoccupation with international problems. There was no discussion of it during the presidential campaign. These are considerations of which previous study are requirements for a serious presidential candidate.

It is being said that George Bush has grown into the job of president. This evaluation is being made on his facing the challenge of Middle Eastern terrorism and some speeches. But Bush's actions and speeches were simple straightforward responses predetermined by the situation, requiring no great insight. Within the boundaries of sanity, they could not have been other than what they were. In fact, Islamic terrorists are primarily responsible for determining much of the observed content of the Bush presidency, not in the sense of collaboration, but in the sense of defining and forcing the direction of all actions and presidential statements. Beneath that there exists a conceptual vacuum that the political and countercultural left continues to fill and dominate ideologically or intellectually uncontested. It is this vacuum that is destroying the American nation.

Have there been any defining statements or principles? Have there been any binding assurances of anything? Beneath it all we are still not far from where we were when the federal agents ambushed the Weavers. Is there any more long term reason to trust the government now than there was at Waco? No. And that's no real change at all.

Let's examine a hypothetical question. Suppose, as a law enforcement official, you needed to question a man. Suppose you could easily do it by approaching him on the street he was known to frequent. On the other hand, suppose you could do it by conducting a four-month long attack and siege with heavy military equipment and a small army in which people were likely to get killed. Which would be the most professional and the most reasonable choice? If the answer isn't clear, the reader is in desperate need of long term psychiatry.

Having, hopefully, answered that hypothetical, How can the lunatic massive operation seen at Waco be justified or be acceptable?

Why has Waco not been labeled a terrorist act? The reason is, nobody, or few people, have publicly done so and attempted to make it stick. A campaign against terrorism should have begun after Waco. I'm prepared to argue that, however inept or neurotically attributed, that's what Timothy McVeigh's actions were.

A horde of government kooks with tanks and armed helicopters way off the reservation and licensed to kill, unnecessarily surrounding people who hadn't really done anything, worries me a hell of a lot more than some foreign goofs flying airplanes into buildings. At least there is proper labeling of the foreign goofs as criminals and subsequent determination to do something to put an end to it. But the domestic problem has remained uncontested, making it an acceptable precedent subject to resurgence, continuation, or expansion without recourse other than popular armed revolt, which is then mislabeled terrorism instead of counterterrorism.

In the serious no-spin, no-bullshit world, Waco was an act of intolerable domestic terrorism not so different than the Arab hi

Goode

RLKocher's picture

I was notified by your site administrator of your post. I wrote this to him in reply:

I have no idea where the quotes he supposedly obtained regarding McVeigh came from. Either goode edited my writing, or his source edited my writing. I vaguely remember writing the piece. The points I tried to make were that McVeigh's actions were an attempt at retribution for the Government's killing of Randy Weaver's wife and whoever at Ruby Ridge as a direct result of his not showing up for trial after his formal notice to show up indicated he was not to appear until a week later. In addition it was an act of retribution for the killing of 70 Branch Davidians, including women and children, babies, at Waco, Texas in a carnival atmosphere. Koresh had a cordial relationship with local law enforcement officials, had complied with all federal paper work and had committed no crime. It would have been easy to take him into custody while he was visiting the sheriff's office or walking the streets of town. The feds came on site with guns blazing and no warrant of any kind. There's more, but I don't want to spend time on it now.

McVeigh was ill-served by legal counsel. His first appointed lawyer was never enthusiastic and quit after threats to his life. His second lawyer mounted a negligable incompetent defense.

Indications from neutal witnesses were that McVeigh didn't even know there was a kid's day care center in a federal office building. A lot of people were angry over the Ruby Ridge and Waco situations at the time and McVeigh was angry enough to do something about it.

When I write on political subjects and put them on the net, anyone can copy them and edit them or change them to suit themselves and their purposes. I don't have a thing to say about it. I'm listed about 100 times on google and other search sites. One goof even has me on her astrology site.

Goode is in error. I believe I'll post this on his thread to clear the air.

Richard

Callum McPetrie's picture

Timothy McVeigh was a "victim of society". Evil

Kocher, you evil bastard.

PhilipD's picture

Kocher, you evil bastard.

To hell with that

Richard Goode's picture

I blame the government

Someone else who blamed the government was Timothy McVeigh, the sick, evil monster responsible for the bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtime Oklahoma City on the morning of April 19, 1995. McVeigh's attack killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, 15 of whom were in a day-care centre on the second floor of the building.

I was surprised to read this defence of McVeigh, by a certain Robert L. Kocher.

The Oklahoma City bombing was the direct desperate result of refusal to restore a sense of responsibility by two presidents, by two attorneys general, by congress, by the court system, and by chiefs of law enforcement agencies, who have all escaped accountability.

McVeigh was doing part of what a president was obligated to have done. He was correcting the condition in the cruder fashion available to him, and with the limited amount of selectivity available to him. He was a focused man with absolute intent on establishing the inevitability of personal consequences and accountability. Somehow, somewhere, that had to be done.

Was McVeigh a monster? Far from it.

Not a monster, Mr. Kocher? He murdered 168 people, and he's not a monster?

To hell with that.

I blame the government

Sandi's picture

They financially enabled this woman to breed. The more kids she produced, the higher she was rewarded.

Meanwhile parents who love and value their children are being prosecuted for disciplining them they way that they see fit.

There is a big difference between a smack and brutalisation and the government absolutely refuses to recognise this.

Where is no justice, there is

Leonid's picture

Where is no justice, there is no organized society, the might is right, end of civilization.

Thanks, Greg. 'The same evil

PhilipD's picture

Thanks, Greg.

'The same evil 'justice' system will get it wrong.'

True.

How about to reintroduce the

gregster's picture

How about to reintroduce the capital punishment for this kind The same evil 'justice' system will get it wrong.

Another from your top drawer Philip.

How about to reintroduce the

Leonid's picture

How about to reintroduce the capital punishment for this kind of " non-monsters"? Some people exclude themselves from the human species, they should be treated as dangerous animals.

Little Karl never had a

PhilipD's picture

Little Karl never had a chance. His father Karl senior, a Mongrel Mob monster is in prison for the drive-by shooting and murder of Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tuaa.

His mother, Lilah Terelyn McGregor, 31, pleaded guilty to two charges related to her son's killing:
McGregor admitted assaulting Karl on October 24, the day he died and she was charged with perverting the course of justice.
Crown prosecutor Lance Rowe said 'McGregor had deliberately given police false lines of inquiry into the homicide of the boy.'

Karl was the youngest of McGregor's 7 children.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.