All Hallows' Eve 2004

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:00:00 GMT
# Had a great trip yesterday to Manchester (NH). There were about 15 Free Staters there, including 3 other clairefiles members. Good food. Good company. Great shooting! Rented a Beretta .45 auto (they were out of .454 Casull ammo for their Taurus hand cannon), and fired .38 special from the other guy's rented .357 magnum wheel gun. Then he rented a supressed select-fire MP5, and we each shot half a box of mixed single-shot, three shot burst, and full auto. Couldn't keep the sights on target in full auto, so if I were to use that gun for defense, I'd keep it in three shot burst mode. He enjoyed my fun gun (Marlin 1894p in .44 magnum, cowboy action loads), and who with a pulse wouldn't? I performed quite well with the Beretta, likely due to practice with my CO2 pellet pistol. Now I want to try a light-weight pocket .45 (or .40). The full-sized .45 was a piece of cake for a guy accustomed to shooting magnum 00-buck from a pistol grip 12 gauge.

# Harry Browne at - World Safety - two choices for America's future, police state or liberty. Bush and Kerry will both take us down the fight-terrorism-abroad-forever-and-grow-the-police-state-here path. [smith2004]

Libertarians for Bush: Here is an amalgamation of two emails I've received. . . .
At least four celebrity libertarians that I know of, at least some of whom are Libertarian Party members, have issued statements of support for the reelection of George Bush. They urge libertarians to vote for Bush, instead of voting Libertarian. I know you don't agree with them, but I do.

While too many libertarians keep their heads in the sand, George Bush has stood up to terrorists and is taking steps to fight them.

There has been throughout history, and continues uninterrupted today, hordes of people who need no more excuse than their own bloodthirsty and genocidal impulses to aggress on others. Think about the sort of being that enjoys slowly sawing off the head of someone else. Think of Hitler's concentration camps and gas chambers. Think of Stalin's gulags. Think of Mao's mass starvation. Think of Pol Pot's killing fields. Did they do these things because they had legitimate grievances?
I don't know. Do the people inside America -- who kidnap, torture, and kill other people -- have legitimate grievances? Should we start bombing New York? Chicago? Washington, D.C.? -- to get rid of the thugs inside America?

What I do know is that there always have been and always will be thugs in the world. Mostly those thugs are feared and condemned by respectable people. But when millions of people -- well-meaning, relatively decent people -- give their support to those thugs -- as they did with Hitler and as they are today with the terrorists -- you know that there are legitimate grievances that allow the thugs to command the respect of others. To whatever extent you dismiss those grievances, you multiply the support given to the thugs. What the thugs are doing is wrong -- just as it was wrong to commit the acts that created the legitimate grievances.

# Robert L. Kocher - The Foundation Party - long (60 pages) piece on the imminent collapse of America, the evil of Islam, and much much more. Why America badly needs to eject the Democrat and Republican parties. Many more essays at The Analytic Papers Series. [clairefiles]

It has been my observation from reading history that no great nation or empire has ever survived the softness enabled by its successes. It has also become my conclusion that unless there is serious comprehensive change, America is entering its final days in accordance with that principle.

The present American political condition resembles a bizarre TV plot or movie. It is difficult to ascertain whether what we are watching is a comedy, a series about the triumph of an insane subversive ideology, a documentary of the nation's destruction and decline into a turbulent third world swill, or a plot centering upon Elmer Gantry type personalities deceiving or manipulating people in ruthless pursuit of personal ambitions. It is possible that the American people have spent so much time watching such things on TV and in theaters that such has become acceptable in their personal lives as well as in their national leadership. They are no more disturbed by reality than they are by that with which they are surrounded for amusement each evening.

The American nation has not had a president since Reagan. Bush The First dissolved the Reagan momentum into a fog of functionless congenial blandness. For a 20 year period the nation had been imprisoned in an environment of craziness. Reagan gave people confidence the nation was returned to the hands of intelligent sanity. Then Bush acted out the role of a mindless smiling country club social lush who had been stuffed by a taxidermist, resulting in the subsequent turning of the country over to another nutcase. Throughout most of the 1990s America was in the hands of a defiant psychopath such that a high school girl dare not enter the Oval Office without prospect of getting her cloths torn off. Bush The Second is a combination of Inspector Clouseau and Chauncy the Gardner out of Peter Sellers movies. His actions would be a hilarious comedy if this were a movie and if he were not really president. In the nearly six years I have been watching Bush Junior, he has yet to say or do anything intelligent or insightful. Like his father before him, he has conducted a presidency without content or direction.


Islam operates like a malignant melanoma. It breaks off malignant cells from the continually expanding main malignancy. Those cells take hold at non-resistant sites of opportunity. During initial infection, Islam occasionally carries on religion of peace public relations routines until powerful enough to kill. There is expansion at those new sites which becomes increasingly militant as the sites become powerful enough to express and impose their will. The infected sites expand and merge. The finality is that the entirety is taken over by the disease and all else dies or is killed.

A declared intent of the American leadership in the War on Terror is the establishment of democracy in Iraq. That intention is attempting to impose democracy upon people whose religion and religious leaders view democracy as an absolutely intolerable blasphemy against God, as well as a criminal act against Islam and Mohammed. A basic tenet of Muslim theoretics and theology is that people are imperfect, corruptible, and fallible. The word of Allah as revealed by Mohammed is, and will remain, perfect and not to be subject to vote. Consequently, rule of man by man through democracy is a blasphemous imperfection. Law and rule are to be the perfect word and law as revealed through Mohammed and interpreted through an all-powerful religious leadership. Apart from belief, that leadership has a vested selfish self-interest in such a system. Regardless of hypothetical perfection of a deity, the belief is interpreted by people no less corrupt and self-serving than those who would vote in a democracy. The possibility that existence of Islam, itself, is an expression of man's susceptibility to corruption and corruptibility is not to be considered.

In an internet blurb quoting a forthcoming Time magazine piece on tapes of jihadist training sessions at Attawhid wal Jihad, "...Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, one of al-Zarqawi's key commanders and a member of the organisation's religious committee, preaches that any nation built on secular principles is "in the light of Islamic law a tyrannical infidel and blasphemous state." "

This theme is recurrent throughout Islam and jihad.

Secular principles means anything other than Mohammed and Islam. There will be only one allowable government and system of law. That will be the law as stated by Mohammed. Mohammed will not be subjected to popular vote to remain in office.

Such a system might work if its founder is not a madman. Unfortunately, when a "religion" such as Islam is founded by an aggressive hallucinating psychotic killer obsessed with sexual maladjustments and fantasies, the system is oppressively crazy. Such a system is intrinsically at war with democracy or with any other system not sharing its beliefs. In the event that the general population has been brainwashed and coerced to the point where it can be certain that population will not contest or deviate from the insanity of the system, a measure of democracy can be permitted.


Since the mid '60s there has been no agreement at all on what constitutes reasonable sanity versus insanity. From thence, no judgment can be made even in what are obvious circumstances. Secondarily, no degree of defense or self-protection is allowable.

One of the principle social and philosophical thrust of the '60s counterculture was that accurate and reasonable judgments were to be immobilized. One, among several purposes was to prohibit reasonable evaluation of behavior and to procure license. An additional result was to procure license for vicious passive-aggressive and/or borderline psychotic personalities which acquired massive social and political leverage during the period. That which is not allowed to be accurately perceived or labeled is not to be defended against.

In succumbing to the social and legal pressures of this social and political thrust, America and Americans rendered themselves defenseless to the point of being masochistic as well as blind to reality in a self-hating and suicidal course.

Americans need to be unchained. It is the business and responsibility of life, and of survival, to make accurate observations and judgments. It is NICE to avoid that responsibility, but life is not nice.

Judge not, and ye shall be enslaved.


The assertion is made that criticism of Islam would antagonize the Islamic world. It should then be asked what the Islamic world would do if it were antagonized. Would it begin running airplanes into buildings? Would it begin spreading anthrax? Would it behead hostages in Iraq and elsewhere? Would it kill probably 100,000 people in India? Would it kill and riot in Africa? Would it kill 10,000 Christians in Indonesia? Would it terrorize and kill thousands in the Philippines? Would it kill a school full of kids in Beslan? God forbid Islam should become irritated and such things would begin happening.

It doesn't take much to irritate Islam. All that is required to provoke Islam is that it not be given its way. Its way is complete world conquest without the slightest hint of resistance or reluctance to be dominated. The result has been constant temper tantrums and enraged killing for fourteen hundred years.

As a corrective beginning, Islam must not be falsely dignified by being called one of the world's great religions, but must be called the aggressive sadistic group psychosis that it is.


It is difficult not to believe the swiftboat vets and others. The persistent continuing pattern by Kerry is one of absence of conscience or integrity in pursuit of personal ambition. Without embarrassment, Kerry claimed to have been sent into Cambodia by President Nixon during a certain period. The claim was eagerly accepted and played extremely well with leftists, counterculturalists, and others who hate(d) Richard Nixon, or just plain hated period. The problem is, Nixon wasn't even president during the stated period. Kerry lies at convenience. Those predisposed to support him believe and support anything he says. Those without such predisposition understand that nothing he says should be believed.

As pointed out in the analytic papers, people who employ lies and distortion to manipulate other people without conscience are psychopaths. When they begin to believe their own lies, they become psychotics --often dangerous psychotics without conscience. How much Kerry believes of his own stuff is unknown. One way or another, we have a serious problem in Kerry.


Americans now find ourselves being confronted by two figures running for president in the major parties who are obviously unfit and unqualified for the presidency measured by mature intelligent adult standards.

They engage in a substanceless public ballet danced to the tune of congenial evasiveness. Neither is saying anything that couldn't be voiced by a high school kid. Both are unstudied in political and economic matters beyond what is required to satisfy crowds in 30 second bites and affect polls. Today, Kerry has been chiding Bush over flu vaccine. It is a safe comment by Kerry which nobody will disagree with. As far as addressing the far more serious major issues affecting the long term direction or condition of the nation, people know no more about them or Kerry's position on them than they did at the beginning of the day. Bush will reply in kind. It has been going on for months.

With seriousness I suspect the lack of substance is not only because of sharply honed avoidance, but is also the partial result of neither candidate having the brains that God gave a chicken. Both are incapable of substance. They don't even evidence curiosity regarding what is happening.


As a matter of principle, unless a dispute involves breech of contract, criminal acts, or infliction of damages, a dispute should be viewed as none of the court's business or not within the court's boundaries of authority. The unhappiness or temper tantrums over not getting one's way about something is not to be considered damages. This is a complex principle that may be subject to minor modification or adjustment in some areas, but is the direction which must be pursued. Most disputes are not to be subject to litigation.

Law has become an erosive crusade against adulthood and adult responsibility. The well publicized McDonald's coffee case is a good example. A woman was driving with a cup of McDonald's coffee between her legs. The coffee spilled and burned her private parts. She sued McDonald's for a large sum of money, and won the suit.

The initial questions in assessing these kinds of suits is was the plaintiff acting in a manner characteristic of a reasonable and prudent manner. Did failure to act in a reasonable and prudent manner characteristic of a competent adult contribute to the damaging situation? If the person had acted in a prudent and responsible manner, would the damages have occurred? Was there a reasonably foreseeable probability of risk in the plaintiff's action? If the plaintiff failed to act in a reasonable and prudent behavior, if the plaintiff acted in a way that had inherent foreseeable risk, then there should be no basis for allowable law suit. There should be summary examination of these elements by a judge and dismissal of a case with prejudice before such a case is allowed to be argued before a jury. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer should also be summarily fined and the defendant awarded damages in the order of 20% of the amount being asked for in the intended suit as a penalty for instituting a frivolous trial and error law suit. It should be the attorney's responsibility to examine the validity of any suit he undertakes. The attorney should be subject to liability for not doing so --including disbarment.


There must be a basic principle that nothing which must be produced is a right. There is no right to food, to clothing, or anything else that must be produced. The very existence of such things in any amount is dependent upon whether somebody produces them. If the economy is destroyed, if people are prohibited from producing, if there is disinterest in involvement in production, then those things will not exist. A society of artists, politicians, social activists, pseudointellectuals, sluggards, and dandys who produce naught, has no right to food, clothing, nor anything else which is not produced or existent in such a society. Neither does a society in which such people predominate have the right to confiscate the efforts of the dwindling proportion who do produce anything.


Kerry asserted Bush was out of the mainstream. The "out of the mainstream" debate ploy is used by inferior or conscienceless minds to shake up hysteria-prone people in audiences who cling to conformity. People making the accusation are backed into a corner without ideas or refutation and have nothing else to say. It is basically a disgrace to the people making the accusation. They are people best avoided.

The first among people who argued that the world was not flat were out of the main stream. Ideas are to be examined independent of whether they adhere to present group thought, or sometimes group delusion. Some years ago Bishop Fulton Sheen said, "Right is still right when nobody is right, and wrong is still wrong when everybody is wrong." All ideas must be examined for their own validity.

That is as much as there is time for regarding issues and principles. It is a start. It would require 50 more pages to go further.

Add comment Edit post Add post