No More Mr. Nice Guy : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I think it's time for a reality check here. There are estimated to be over two hundred million pivately owned firearms in this country. Those weapons have a useable lifetime of around a hundred years on average. I don't know about you but I'm not turning my guns in no matter what kind of stinking unconstitutional law they pass. I'd bet a pretty penny that far more than half of all the other gun owners wouldn't either. And that half of gun owners who would refuse own far more than half the guns because that's just the kind of son of a bitches we are.

I don't know ANY gun nuts who own just one gun. More like ten or fifteen and thousands of rounds of ammo to go with them. the goobermint isn't completely idiotic. They know that guns can never be succesfully outlawed in this country. They know that any attempt at door to door confiscation is going to result in instant civil war, and Washington will be burned to the ground. They know that liberal pansies will vote for them if they make a lot of noise and attempt to pass laws but they also know just how far they can go, and they have almost reached that point.

As far as I'm concerned none of the gun control laws that have ever been passed are constitutional. Not one. The second amendment is very clear on the point that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms so that they shall be able to defend against foreign invaders and domestic government run amok. Not guns, ARMS. The militia is expected to appear if called bearing arms of the type and kind currently in use by the armed forces. The militia consist of every able bodied male in this country between the ages of eighteen and 50 I think. If I am not mistaken the types of arms in use by our military are all either full automatic or selective fire with full auto capability. Therefore every man in this country is legally obligated under the constitution of the United States to posess a weapon capable of full automatic fire.

Further, since the Illegal standing army the government maintains in direct violation of the constitution also uses Tanks, Jet fighters, bombers, missiles, poisonous gasses, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons the constitution clearly states we must have equal arms as citizens. The constitution is VERY clear on this point. At no time is the government to maintain a standing army with superior firepower to the citizens it represents.

That sounds pretty hysterical I know, but if any of you watched what went on at Waco, you realize it is still a valid argument. While the Branch Davidians were heavily armed with semi-automatic weapons they were absolutely defenseless when the government brought in tanks and helicopters. And I guarantee you if they had the weapons to take out those tanks and helicopters the government would have brought in B- 52's and carpet bombed that place into a moonscape. And if they had the missiles to take out those B-52's the government would have nuked them.

Somewhere back around the time of world war one governments became obsolete. With the invention of nuclear weapons they became obscenely obsolete. I'll tell you a little secret too, the governments know it. They know their era is over and they pass law after law, bind the shackles tighter and tighter, take away freedom bit by bit in their ongoing effort to hold that power over the people. There can be only one end to this road we are following. The genies of nuclear and biological weapons are forever out of their bottles and it is only a matter of time before these obsolete governments destroy the planet in one last desperate attempt to hold onto power. 1999. It's later than you think.

Now before some of you blow a gasket thinking I've turncoated to the NWO let me assure you that is exactly the opposite direction I am going with this. Recent trends towards global corporations and banks in the interest of increased productivity and profits clearly show that they leave disenfranchisement and economic devastation in their wake. Major segments of the population are left unemployed with no hope of reemployment short of migration to chase ever more elusive and technologically demanding jobs for which they are ill prepared to compete. While the collective Bankers and major obsolete governments work towards one world government the fatal flaw in their plan is never mentioned. The flaw is simple, and as old as time. Power corupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is and never has been any human or group of humans capable of weilding that kind of power without abusing it. The fact that the greediest and most power hungry among us are the most ardent pursuers of this ponzi scheme absolutely assure that it will be corrupted from the start, and decline rapidly to the point of global slavery from which there will be no hope of escape.

The answer to these problems and the model for the type of government needed to adress these concerns already exist. It lies in decentralization of power with local governments empowered to react to local situations. The stripping of power from a central government, and the weaponry maintained by a civilian militia united under the auspices of a collective of local governments. In short the Constitution as origionally written.

The more I study the Constitution the more amazed I become. The sheer brilliance of this simple elegant document completely belies it's human origins. When in the history of mankind has such a collection of genius assembled under one roof at one time dedicated to a unified goal? Like the works of Mozart, Beethoven, and Michelangelo this document rears like a monument immune to the ravages of time from the disposable junkyard society mankind has created. It dances in eternal point counterpoint waltz with the enigma of the pyramids. A manifest refutation to the theory of elitism. Who can doubt that the hand of God was as surely involved in its creation as the Earth itself. Like a postscript to the Bible it roars, "SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!"

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999


bump to recent answers.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.


If you're so tough, why don't you post your real name and address here? Talk is cheap. If the Feds came pounding, you'd cough up that arsenal in a hurry.

-- Cah Queen (RichLady@$$$.com), April 28, 1999.

"If the Feds came pounding." My point exactly. My arsenal, as you call it is all legal. Even under these Unconstitutional Constraints imposed by the increasingly Unconstitutional Fed. Do you ever feel kind of hypocritical demanding something of others which you will not do yourself? Or is you real name cash queen?

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

I have posted this before, but it bears repeating.

If you have not done so, go out and buy "When Corporations Rule the World", by David C. Korten.

It will change your world-view and lend much credibility to Nikoli's argument.


-- Roland (, April 28, 1999.

I agree with most of what you say Nik, but I feel that the NWO will "win" for a time, and a 1 world government will come into place, with the antichrist as its leader, which will rule until Jesus returns with his chosen. I feel that the people will side with the NWO because they will have lost everything, and will be willing to trade freedom for food, and water. I also think that the rapture discribed in the bible will not be all christians shimmrering away in an instant, like the crew of the Enterprize being beamed up, but it will be the people who side with the NWO, slaughtering us, and commiting genocide. After y2k the world will be placed into the NWO's hands, which is way all their cards are being played NOW. prepare for persicution, and death, becuase as people like y2kpro have shown us, we will bee blamed, and killed( we being christians, a few resistant jews, some rebel moslems, and anyone who prepared for what was coming, or who spoke the truth about the loss of freedom. Again, this is just IMHO.

-- Crono (, April 28, 1999.


I'm a proud gun owner myself and I truely understand your rant here but I have a ? for you, If the civilian militia is to be equally armed as the standing army where you gonna park your tank? How are you gonna afford the upkeep? Ihope you will agree w/me that armed forces the quality we have are necessary in the world we live in for,let's face it,to be the policemen of the world. You spoke of nukes and bios, I truely believe no matter how deluded Clinton maybe that the best defense is a good offence. It is better for us to be the top dog than someone else!

-- Johnny (, April 28, 1999.

Johny, you misread my meaning here, MY fault not yours. What I am saying is that heavy weaponry such as those you mention should be held by the state governments and not the Federal government. As is abundantly clear right now our Federal government has become far to free and easy with using that weaponry, a condition forseen by the founders and provided for in the constitution. I do not advocate the ownership or posession of Nukes or biologicals or other heavy weaponry by the citizens, but I do advocate that these weapons be under the control of and available to the free standing militia, and any standing army which the Federal government needs to raise to fight a legally decalred war can draw on those forces as needed to fight.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

When Corporations Rule the World - here is a link with some excerpts..

We now live on the third mall from the sun

-- humptydumpty (, April 28, 1999.

"The more I study the Constitution the more amazed I become. The sheer brilliance of this simple elegant document completely belies it's human origins. When in the history of mankind has such a collection of genius assembled under one roof at one time dedicated to a unified goal? Like the works of Mozart, Beethoven, and Michelangelo this document rears like a monument immune to the ravages of time from the disposable junkyard society mankind has created. It dances in eternal point counterpoint waltz with the enigma of the pyramids. A manifest refutation to the theory of elitism. Who can doubt that the hand of God was as surely involved in its creation as the Earth itself. Like a postscript to the Bible it roars, "SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!" "

If any foreigners here think that all Americans are as self obsessed, arrogant and aggrandizing as this over the top doofus, think again. I apologize for his jingoistic remarks, they are an embarrassment to the country. Sorry, free speech means letting kooks have their say.

-- America (n@bozo.smasher), April 28, 1999.

America, wait, shouldn't that be American? Are you so self obsessed that you presume to speak for the entire population of this country? My views are just that. My views. I didn't claim to speak for everyone I just expressed my personal opinion. I will admit that last paragraph was overgrandized, and intentionally so. No apologies.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

I guess another way of getting my point out is without our strong military we would not have seen the fall of the Berlin wall and the USSR. Presidents from JFK to RR were able to stand with strength BECAUSE of our military strength. I think if this were handed over to the states we would never be as strong as we once were. Our big stick is our military and localized militias would be a bunch of small twigs.

AMERICA, you talk about free speach and you use an alias. Are you scared to put your name on what you say? We should be apologizing for YOU because you dont't understand the price that was paid for YOUR free speach!

-- Johnny (, April 28, 1999.

My hat is off to you, Nikoli! You are a true patriot and a true American! 99% of Americans have no clue and walk around with blindfolds and live a life of complacency!

The ONLY way for Americans to be free is to make yourself free! I have been self employed for 40 years and have NEVER asked the government for permission to work! In other words, I have never bothered to obtain a business license!

I also have taken the liberty to free myself of government slavery by not filing a 1040. Former IRS Agent Joe Banister (search for his website) claims that Americans are not subject to the tax and are not liable and are not required to file a 1040!!!

Hey, it's great to live free in an un-free country!

The patriots that dumped tea in the Boston Harbor were true American hero's. America needs hero's like that again! That's why I have stopped filing! According to the IRS, 35 million true American patriots have stopped filing! Only the sheeple still file! The dummies!

-- freddie (, April 28, 1999.

Were you ever a "Mr. Nice Guy?"

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 28, 1999.

Johny, I have to disagree with you an the bundle of twigs. The assembled whole of the force would be just as strong, if not stronger then the standing army under federal control. Unit pride and competitveness would be increased tenfold as a natural consequence of the soldiers in the units coming from the same states. The huge amounts of waste and maintainece cost could be tanslated into newer and more abundant equipment as unpaid civilian volunteers performed routine maintainence and training. As provided by the constitution in any crisis meriting a declaration of war by congress the whole of the military would instantly and without reservation come under control of the Federal government. In addition the uniform distribution of these forces throughout the country would greatly reduce their vulnerability to foreign attacks.

doomslayer, that depends on whether I'm talking to someone who has actually read and understands our constitution or some socialist nwo jerk.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

No apologies Nik. Tell that slimy piece of worm-ridden filth calling himself America to fuck himself.

What a shame when we have our own people viewing the Constitution as nothing more than shit paper. It's over. The nation is forever lost, now it's just time to wait for our burial.

But some like myself will stand until the last moment. We die free men, not enslaved to an immoral king and a Socialist system of a Pseudo-Represenative Republic.

Tell it from the mountain Nik, these slumbering fools need to have the truth proclaimed to their ears - though they will not listen- so that a witness is presented before their destruction. This so they cannot claim ignorance or wonder why we have been brought to utter ruin.

Crono, your insight seves you well - but one theological point: The Rapture is not scriptural- the word is found nowhere in scripture, and though folks say the principle is there, what Paul was describing was the Ressurection of Firstfruits at the time of Christ's return. The tribulation is NOT God's wrath, but Satan's wrath on God's disobedient people. The rest of your speculation on the horrors to come is right on target - that is the tribulation as described, with a NWO pursuing and destroying the opposition globally.

I also do not apologize for my negative use of language here. Our very lives are at stake here, and these moronic idots need to be called what they are and where to shove it - brutally and forcefully.

-- INVAR (, April 28, 1999.

Nikoli, My hat is off to you, you have thought this out more than me. Now that we know how you feel, why don't you drop the alias it will set you free!

-- Johnny (, April 28, 1999.

Nikoli, I admire your passion for this country as it once was so long ago. However, I am sorry to opine that the world in general and America in particular is too far gone. The NWO momentum is too great now. The rot is too advanced to reverse. The lunatics are indeed running the asylum. Duck and cover.

-- Jeremiah Jetson (laterthan@uthink.y2k), April 28, 1999.

INVAR, "But some like myself will stand until the last moment. We die free men, not enslaved to an immoral king and a Socialist system of a Psuedo-Represenative Republic." I'm interested, Do you pay income taxes? Do you pay sales tax when you purchase something?

You are a slave you just despise the master.

-- Johnny (, April 28, 1999.

Crono, sadly I pretty much agree with what you wrote.

INVAR---Call em like you see em bud.

Johny---I didn't think this out, the people who wrote our constitution thought it out. It's all there in black and white written in plain english for anyone who is so inclined to read. As far as revealing my identity I can see no net gain or purpose in that. If it were not our curent governments policy to harass, terrorize, intimidate, and persecute people who speak the truth I would have no problem with that whatsoever. I realize they have the capability to track me through my ISP but I see no reason whatsoever to do their dirty work for them. Believe me it wouldn't be some awe inspiring revalation anyway. I'm just an ordinary working class American living an ordinary life. I am not and never have been a member of any organized militia or militant group. I do not have a college education or degrees of any kind other than my high school diploma. I run bulldozers for a living. Will that suffice?

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

____. I also think that the rapture discribed in the bible will not be all christians shimmrering away in an instant, like the crew of the Enterprize being beamed up, but it will be the people who side with the NWO, slaughtering us, and commiting genocide. After y2k the world will be placed into the NWO's hands, which is way all their cards are being played NOW. prepare for persicution, and death, becuase as people like y2kpro have shown us, we will bee blamed, and killed( we being christians, a few resistant jews, some rebel moslems, and anyone who prepared for what was coming, or who spoke the truth about the loss of freedom. Again, this is just IMHO.


Could it be that the bible actualy describes the destruction of the western world and christianity in a nuclear war??

-- could it be? (youhave_to@studythe, April 28, 1999.


An unwitting slave - yes. Unfortunately to be truly free of the system, it would have required the knowledge I possess now employed many years ago when I first filed a 1040 at 18. I hate the master yes. Worse, I hate the prevailing zeitgeist that loves the master whilst he abuses us, then decries those that point out our bondage as "extremist, seperatist, mean-spirited children-hater".

What I refer to now, is the enslavement of our ideologies and physical selves to a tyrrannical boy-king and his Socialist lackeys hell-bent on handing this nation over to our enemies and laying us upon the mercy of the criminals and the lawless.

I stand free on ideology, and holding desperately in defiance of public opinion and the government - my remaining Constitutional rights: to keep, bear ARMS and to express myself without restraint.

Yes, we are ALL slaves. Liken to the ancient Hebrews who lived in Egypt peacefully and prospereously for many years, until slowly they became slaves.

We have been slow-boiled over many decades. True freedom as described in the Constitution is non-existant unless you are a hermit that lives in the forest and off the land.

Stand now for freedom. Cry out: "Don't Tread On Me", and declare the famous quote of Patrick Henry, and write it on your heart.

THAT truly, is freedom's last stand.

-- INVAR (, April 28, 1999.

Since this thread started, the KOOK-A-METER has been blaring non-stop. Now that the mouth-breathing INVARiably Stupid has entered the fray, I fear we may break the thing...

"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon

"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North

-- Y2K Pro (, April 28, 1999.

Y2K prophylactic,...... oh hell why bother, some people just aint worth the effort.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

The root post here is very eloquently written. However, the practicalities of it are intractable.

Is every state to maintain a full strategic, tactical, and nuclear capability ? That will bring them to financial ruin. How then would we define 'state' ? The current 50 ? Can Rhode Island align with Connecticut ? Would there be a 'New England bloc' ? Eventually there'd be warring mini- principalities like Europe in the Middle Ages, or China before the Qin dynasty. Eventually a 'great unifier', like Toyotomi Hideyoshi in Japan, or Liu Bang in China would emerge and snap all the pieces back together for another Imperial cycle. It's never going to end, we're talking human nature here. There is only one eternal verity, and unfortunately it isn't the American Constitution, or the Bible, or the Koran, it is simply, as a wise Greek philosopher put it:

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 28, 1999.

Fuck-off Pro (Y2K Prarie Dog), You're the kook, the spook whom derrides us to embrace Socialism and blind faith in complacency.

You reek. You smell.

I spit on your like and will trample you underfoot.

Don't tread on me asswipe. You don't want to go there.

-- INVAR (, April 28, 1999.

While I have grown tired of the arguments here and mostly lurk nowdays, I feel that I need to stick my oar on the water on this one.

Nikoli has stated things here that, IMNTHO, should be an integeral part of the "NEW Federalists Papers". No one that I know of is collecting and publishing the thought of today as was done in the original Federalists Papers. Someone should. This entire thread above should be part of it.

I am ready willing and able to stand for the same values as expressed here by Nikoli and INVAR. There is little that I feel that I can add to what they have already said.

I can only hope that, should the ocassion arise, that I have the honor to die beside men of such character.


-- Got Compatriots?

-- Greybear (, April 28, 1999.

Thanks Greybear, and you too INVAR. I assure you the feeling is mutual.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

The little man known as INVARiably Stupid, excretes some more barely literate gas. A paranoid, hateful diminutive human being, pumped up with self-importance, he threatens from the safety of his computer. How sad

-- Y2K Pro (, April 28, 1999.

Blue, I'm surprised at you. Why would the Sates be bankrupted by maintaining forces which already exist and they have already paid for? That makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't say anything about the Statesw maintaing a full nuclear arsenal, merely that the existing arsenal should be evenly divided amongst them and redeployed to their individual territories. The one and only time in the 200 plus year history of this country that balkanization of the States has occured and led to revolt was brought about by the Federal governments usurption of the States constitutionally guaranteed right to self determination and governence.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

This is good, real good. Nik, INVAR, Greybear, and others, I sure wish you guys could get on national T.V. some night, during primetime and tell all the college-educated, 3-car-garage, SUV, designer-clothes-set that their world is about to EAT THEM ALIVE. No one that I talk to seems to give a shit about any of this. It scares the hell out of me. Isn't there a passage in revelations that mentions that at the time of the rapture, not all will see death, meaning that some belivers will actually be beamed-up, sort of?

-- rick (I', April 28, 1999.

How about the Jerry Springer Show?

-- Cash Queen (RichLady@$$$.com), April 28, 1999.

Thanks Rick, I'll have to pass that bible question on to INVAR, he's far more literate than I am in that area.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

"I sure wish you guys could get on national T.V. some night, during primetime and tell all the college-educated, 3-car-garage, SUV, designer-clothes-set that their world is about to EAT THEM ALIVE."

Maybe they could build a set that would look like the inside of a trailer park. We would laugh ourselves silly at the sight of three tabacky chewin', hillbilly endomorphs blathering on about their latest conspiracy theory. Heck, I'd watch that...

-- Y2K Pro (, April 28, 1999.

I have hung with this thread as long as possible because I knew it would generate a lot of negative responses, and I wanted to be able to stamp out the half truths and outright lies before some unsuspecting person assimilated them in his conciousness and forever warped his understanding of our Constitution. Regrettfully I have a friend to bury and must depart for a few hours. INVAR, Greybear, Rick, and the others of you who understand the critical importance of this message not being perverted, I would appreciate it if you would cover my ass while I'm gone. Thanks.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 28, 1999.

Nikoli, ok - you are correct, bought and paid for. That's true, but where are they to be based, if they are shared resources ? Possession is 9/10th's of the law. However, I'm sympathetic to the ideas in your original essay. To me, Orwell's 1984 is the foundation document of the 20th century, and I really admire the spirit of yourself, Greybear, INVAR and others who take threats to freedom seriously. But I'm like Benjamin the donkey in Animal Farm, I think human nature will always and everywhere prevail. Freedom is impossible in this world, but we need guys like yourselves who are still willing to tilt at that windmill. But most people, quite frankly, don't really want to be free.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 28, 1999.

Blue, most people may not want to be free, but you will not know until those people have to make a choice. In countries where they are already at least seemingly free, like the USA, they have never been faced with that choice. When freedoms are taken away from man, those freedoms which he used to have, that is when you see what his mettle is and what he is willing to do without.

Nik I agree with you completely. I see the constitution as being the closest to 'holy' that a secular thing can be. The more one learns about government and freedom and the aspirations of mankind, the more amazing it is.

Unfortunately, it is too late. We live in a time where we will get to watch the utter destruction of the things that as children we were taught were noble and were necessary for mankind and freedom.

We live in "interesting times."

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 28, 1999.

Nikoli -- "My arsenal, as you call it is all legal."

Interpretation of existing law has been known to change. Nor are new laws unthinkable.

Re-allocation and transfer of control of the nuclear arsenal to the several states would exponentially increase the risk of theft or misuse. Think Arkansas. Think Louisiana. One reckless launch could initiate a global war. We have enough trouble, IMO.

-- Tom Carey (, April 28, 1999.

Yes, excellent points like those Tom Carey made show that it really is too late, the technological or bee-hive/social-insect imperative is now operative and cannot be resisted. Well, maybe this imperative always was operative. Most human societies have either been feudal slave-states or close-knit tribes that permit little freedom as Americans have traditionally understood the concept.

PJ, you are correct, but the mettle was tested and found wanting sometime ago. It's history my friend...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 28, 1999.

"Like a postscript to the Bible it roars, "SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!"

And the Lord looked upon His people and said..."Make it so!" and it was done.

-- freeman (, April 28, 1999.

Have read this whole thread, Greybear, INVAR, Nikoli, It is an honor to know you all. I only wish we were not so dispersed. The kind of moral quality that you mention, and show, is truely lost on most of this generation. Sophomoric egotists that are driven only by their own desires. This nation was built by individuals who were willing to die for this nation as a whole to be free. That moral character is not in the majority in this country any longer. So I add this. Even though the noise of ignorance is becoming defening, (I steal from a poem here)Rail at the dieing of the light! Do not go quietly into that goodnight. On the Bible subject in Revelations The beast will make war with the saints, and he will overcome them. God never promises an easy exit, only that He will be with us when we walk through it.

-- Paladin (HaveGun@Will.Travel), April 28, 1999.

I have posted these titles in the past and I feel it is crucial for anyone attempting to formulate an educated opinion on threads such as this one to seek information out themselves. Don't shrug it off. Educate yourselves.

If you cannot afford to purchase these books, go to a library that does interlibrary loaning. Most, if not all of these books are available through the library system.

"The Shadows of Power : The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline" by James Perloff

"On the Horns of the Beast : The Federal Reserve and the New World Order" by Bill Still

"Prince Charles : The Sustainable Prince" by Joan M. Veon "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Clarence Mullins

"Secrets of the Temple : How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider

-- (, April 28, 1999.

Yeah right, Paladin.

"I spit on your like and will trample you underfoot. "

Real moral character, that INVAR.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 28, 1999.

Good job Nikoli.

Cash Queen,

I've been labled, they got nothing on me except that I tell them they are wrong and are leading us to war, we want to be free and are sick and tired of their Socio-fascist dictates.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Nikoli, If you're so tough, why don't you post your real name and address here? Talk is cheap. If the Feds came pounding, you'd cough up that arsenal in a hurry.

-- Cah Queen (RichLady@$$$.com), April 28, 1999.

-- freeman (, April 28, 1999.


Cash Queen,

I've been labled, they got nothing on me except that I tell them they are wrong and are leading us to war, we want to be free and are sick and tired of their Socio-fascist dictates.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Nikoli, If you're so tough, why don't you post your real name and address here? Talk is cheap. If the Feds came pounding, you'd cough up that arsenal in a hurry.

-- Cah Queen (RichLady@$$$.com), April 28, 1999.

-- Mark Hillyard (, April 28, 1999.

Doomplayer, Though INVAR may be hot headed, and quick to rile. He probably has a better understanding of the "Don't Tread On Me" slogan than you do. I would rather hold a conversation with someone that is passionate about his beliefs, than listen to the yappings of heel nipping lap dog that can only take cheap shots.

-- Paladin (HaveGun@Will.Travel), April 28, 1999.

No Paladin, I don't think INVAR, you, or Nikoli really understand the Constitution as well as you think you do. You seem to forget that it starts off with We, the people,... That means that collectively, we, the people, have a right to rule ourselves. The type of freedom you seek sounds too much like anarchy to me.

Nikoli said: "Therefore every man in this country is legally obligated under the constitution of the United States to posess a weapon capable of full automatic fire. "

This is B.S. There is no such legal obligation for every man in the U.S. (I wonder what the women would say to this). The Constitution says the people have the right to bear arms, it does not obligate them to do so.

There are constitutional scholars that don't agree on these issues. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

I believe that we, the people certainly have a right to regulate firearms without infringing on your rights to own one.

As for nipping at your heels, well sorry if I don't possess the talent for writing long half-literate essays like so many of your "moral" friends here. It's not necessary to rant on when one sentence will get the point across.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 28, 1999.

Ah, Decent conversation. GREAT! Doomslayer, you say that the constitution starts out with "We the people" True enough, It's that very statement that we lament. Most of we the people have given up that RIGHT to govern ourselves. By default that right to govern ourselves is being taken away by corrupt egomaniacs. We the people have given up the right to influence our children's beliefs. We the people are too interested in our creature comforts to get involved. We the people scream for big brother to pass a law to correct our immorality. We the people say, "Take away all of the sharp objects, so We the children don't hurt ourselves. We the people have forgotten what individuality, and freedom really are. It's not that Nikoli, graybear INVAR or I don't know the constitution. It's that the majority don't care. And yes, if you or anyone else regulates what guns I may own, When I can own it, or how I must keep it. you are infringing on my right to bear arms.

-- Paladin (HaveGun@Will.Travel), April 28, 1999.

I wonder if the desire for freedom has any gender specificity ? Many of the most concerned libertarians/survivalists seem to be male. Is it that women feel they'd be oppressed or unfree under any kind of society ? Or that they feel free and content in and of themselves in any kind of society ? 'Course there are plenty of exceptions to any generalization. But overall I haven't seen/heard as many women show as much concern about freedom in the abstract as I have with men. I hear more from women about security, as opposed to freedom. Well, maybe I'm just not hanging with the right people. But there is a gender discrepancy in Clinton's popular support.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 28, 1999.


Thanks for the thoughts. Condolences for your friend.


I fail to see what people find so incendiary about your thoughts. This country so dumbed down that in addition to having to print pictures of hamburgers on cash registers, they couldn't find their way back to actually reading an original document that this country was founded on. Forget about them remembering much of the resultant history. Thank you for your insights and reminders of the principles our country was founded on.

Blue Himalayan,

Concerning your ideas about gender specificity and ideas of freedom....spare me!

Don't forget many Colonial female patriots to numerous to mention. Perhaps you forget that due to the anoymous nature of our handles one many times cannot determines one's gender. In addition, women may hesitate to reveal their gender on the internet.

-- texan (, April 28, 1999.

Forgive errors above...

I wonder how many people have joined the NRA in last couple of days? I hear that that their lines have been jammed and website slowed down due to the volume. People that normally wouldn't have joined or bought a gun are doing so in reaction to BJ's incoherent speech on gun controls.

-- texan (, April 28, 1999.

Nik, I can't believe this thread got so long! Please don't think I was disagreeing w/you I was only exploring my own thoughts and feelings on the subject. I've been riding a tractor for a couple of hours an d am inside now and I got to hand it to you, I'm looking forward to your next post!

-- Johnny (, April 28, 1999.


Great link, read the whole site. Big business necessitaties big government to police its excesses. Big government is used by big business to privatize bsuiness profits and social business costs. When at the extreme, either situation is a danger to the individual and his democratic institutions. There's apt to be a lot of turmoil up ahead...

-- Nathan (, April 28, 1999.

OK, Texan, thanks for putting that one to rest. No substance to it then. Been away from the USA too long I guess... (btw I was thinking mainly about general population, where a lopsided proportion of Clinton supporters seem to be female, hardly a freedom loving political stance I wouldn've thought.) Thanks fer puttin' it to bed so convincingly!!

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 28, 1999.


What the simple-minded emoting dips that make up our population as of late find so incendiary about my posts is that 1), I stand on principle. Black and white, no "big grey area" and that is intolerable to the elite minded because I do not emote to their arguments. 2), The Constitution, the Freedoms contained therein are dead, and I bring them back up. The people traded the vigilance of freedom for wealth, complaceny and quick pleasures. They ceded it to government and public opinion. They want the freedoms but not the responsibilities of freedom, so they relegated it to a totalitarian pseudo-democracy that has slowly noosed our freedoms for "safety and security". Because folk don't want responsibility, they attack anyone that poses a threat to their perception of safety. Because the government WANTS to hold responsibility (power), they also attack, but more deceptively, unless you're a church from Waco.

The Co. shootings are a case-in-point. We don't want the responsibilities we once had of disciplining children and raising them right. We relegate it to the schools, and decry morals as intolerance. Kids are taught to "feel". They are told everything is being done "for them". We've created princes that have no regard for law or morals, because we left them up to the school to teach. "Not my job" some parents actually said in response to the question of disciplining kids. They want to be their kids' friends, not their parents. Thus the Columbine massacre.

And now society blames the "gun culture" instead of the two asswipes that did the killing. "But we want to find the root cause" the journalists say. Read the above paragraph again for the answer.

But no, today, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson would be labelled as "Right Wing Extremists" and "dangerous". King George would have loved our society today. Blind emotional allegiance to a king.

They hate us because we don't emote, we think and reason.

That is a threat to those whom desire the herd to move in a singular direction.


You don't know shit about the Constitution boy. You've never read and understood it, or you're subjecting its intent to suit your fucked-up ideology.

We do not have a pure democracy in this country asswipe. "We The People" does not mean majority rule. That would be mob rule, and I daresay if that was the case, slavery would still be legal. We have a Represenative Republic. We elect represenatives from our districts to use their judgement in matters concerning the States.

In regards to the 2nd Ammendment, the RIGHT to bear arms "Shall NOT be infringed". Do you know WHY the 2nd Ammendment was put there? (forgive me for dumbing-down your post Nikoli, but these are idiots I'm dealing with here). Not for hunting or can plinking. Not for collecting. The 2nd Ammendement was put there SO THE CITIZENS COULD OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT IF IT BECAME A TYRRANNY. Period. End of sentence.

Clinton knows this, so has the rest of out leaders for decades. But slowly over time, the importance of the state became more important than individual freedoms that GAVE POWER TO THE STATE.

We were bequeathed with the right to consent to be governed, and we were also given the right to withdraw that consent. Thus the 2nd Ammendment.

Civil war was expected by the founders, by those whom were vigilant to freedom and remembered the yoke of subjectdom.

The Supreme Court is as politicized as Reno's office. When Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall declared of the Constitution "We're here to improve an imperfect document", your beloved Supreme Court is null and void in my eyes. Nothing more than a group administering litmus tests to Social Engineering claims.

Of course this is treasonous to you Socialists and loyal subjects to the Zipper.


If you think I represent the epitome of Right Wing Nutcase and Paranoid, good. I stand in the company of George Washington, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry - patriots all.

So as Mr. Henry said: "Give me liberty or give me death".

I imagine death will be the answer by this society.

But I warn you: Don't Tread on Me. You DON'T want to go there.

-- INVAR (, April 28, 1999.

Nikoli, Invar, Greybear (glad to see you again), and all.

To know peace, one must prepare for war. To be free, one must, indeed, be prepared to defend that freedom.

Far too few of us nowadays know what we are willing to die for.

Sometimes it is easier to judge a man's mettle by the enemies he makes rather than the friends he choses. Friends are rare, while fools and poltroons are legion.

Fare the well.

-- Jon Williamson (, April 28, 1999.

To add to a breathlessly lonnnnnggg post, I would take issue with the statement "It's not that (we) don't know the constitution. It's that the majority don't care."

In my circle, the 'majority' don't believe their constitutional rights could ever be compromised. They are not guilty of indifference, they are guilty of too much trust in D.C., the media, the continuity of their lives. It's too mind blowing for them to conceive it all could be taken away in their lifetimes.

-- (, April 28, 1999.

Nik - good job! anyone who has done sufficient reading of the founding fathers understands that their intent was indeed to insure that no standing army of any sort would ever be more powerful than the citizenry. While we may not have all of the fancy high tech stuff, we can make up for a great deal of it through a combination of refusing to be engaged under unfavorable circumstances, and making use of improvised weapons as neccessary.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, April 28, 1999.

Blue, you wrote:

I wonder if the desire for freedom has any gender specificity?


Maybe some women are too busy worrying about the freedom to have 10 spare minutes in a day apart from work/kids/husband/ home to spend quite as much time focusing on the nation at large. Any woman I know with kids has job, kids, housework, cooking, etc. etc. and absolutely no personal life or time whatever. This might force a focus on the here-and-now for that segment of our culture. (I also think it's related to the divorce rate et al -- in today's culture women simply do not have the necessary personal space/time/quiet for any inner peace.)

Then one apparently female person responded and you said, okay, like that wraps it up. It takes more than one human to speak for an entire gender. :-) Heck that's half the problem with the "women's groups." I don't know who they're speaking for but I'm a woman and it apparently isn't me.

Many of the most concerned libertarians/ survivalists seem to be male.

I'm thinking..... er.... well actually, almost everybody who comes to mind for me in this category IS male, -or-, is a senior citizen. Most the females I know, in fact, are liberals. I don't know why that is. Just my bad luck I suppose. This explains why most of my friends are men.

Now that I think more about it, I think it probably relates to education. Men often end up in types of job or sport (hunting/ firearms especially) where they're exposed to people that in turn expose them to education about certain things. What most of us know coming out of public schools sounds like a marketing cliche. It takes some exposure to broaden one's horizons to change that.

I can tell you -- and it's painful -- that on most mass-type social occasions, as well as family social occasions, if I go stand around with the men, they're discussing the state of the world. The women are usually exchanging potato salad recipes or something. I've been griping about that most of my life, and it's part of why I really hate social occasions, just an old habit.

I used to try and bring up politics or something with women I worked with. They were always such braindead liberals my mind was boggled, and since I was management I couldn't really debate with any fervor, so I just smiled and let it slide. The men on the other hand usually had a little more of a clue. I don't know why. I just admit that was so.

Is it that women feel they'd be oppressed or unfree under any kind of society ?

I doubt it. But as mentioned above, in the culture we're in (this relates to culture more than gender), women often get the here- and-now focus on life more than men, I think. By that I mean, the millions of trivial details that make up the complexity of a day with kids and meals and jobs and so on.

In fact, long ago when the company I was working at required constant overtime and drop of a hat travel, I went dramatically out of my way to avoid hiring females in any role but secretarial. Because everytime I did, they just couldn't deal with it. Kid sick? They take off work to stay home -- husband goes to work. Overtime? -- they gotta pick up the kid from daycare, make dinner, clean the house, give the kids baths, etc. etc. Spontaneous travel? (hahahahaha!) On the other hand I could ask the men for overtime, to jump on a plane and deliver a proposal, or whatever, no problem. In short, men DO have a great deal more freedom. Obviously this is not a real blanket statement -- everything is individual. It's not always true and it's not fair, but that IS the way it has been in my reality anyway.

Or that they feel free and content in and of themselves in any kind of society ?

Yeah. Right. :-)

I hear more from women about security, as opposed to freedom.

Hmmn. I'd relate that to children, but then, I think it's probably somewhat true even of women without them. I've noticed that women who were highly athletic, or trained in martial arts for example, in their younger years seem to be a little more independent later, and have a different mindset. I think a feeling of self-security, a lack of feeling a need for protection from many facets of life, might be part of that.

I know that I was ruthless and masculine until I had a baby. Then all the sudden I had a massive personality shift. Hormones can do that to you I guess. I am far less inclined toward the 'battle for freedom' for example, now, and far more inclined toward the 'push for understanding human development.' I've started to see the world more as an interesting case study, and less like an opponent I need to bash over the head with something.

But there is a gender discrepancy in Clinton's popular support.

I would like to know who the people are that the pollsters question, and how they're asked. It never ceases to amaze me when everyone I know even barely is totally anti- Clinton, and then the papers keep telling us how popular he is. Sometimes I think the media is just sponsoring his popularity by saying that.....

I just had to respond, because this darn thread just isn't long enough....

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 29, 1999.

Hi Everybody, I'm back. Thanks for the support in my abscence.

Doomslayer, prepare to be blown out of the water. Yes you are obligated to own a machine gun by the constitution and U.S. law. This is one they do not enforce, and do their best to cover up. There are many persons rotting in jail for exercising this right because their lawyers were too chickenshit to risk their good old boy status in proving this case, even though it is self evident and completely supported by supreme court rulings. The supreme court has steadfastly refused to hear cases which involve machineguns unless a convicted felon was involved. the reason for this is apparent if you read the following decison. I will insert my comments where relevant.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court avoided determining whether a short barrel shotgun may be taxed under the National Firearms Act consistent with the Second Amendment, as no evidence in the record addressed whether such a shotgun was, or was not, an ordinary militia arm.(This is important, because it is blatantly unconstitutional to tax a citizen for exercising his rights, including gun ownership) The Supreme Court remanded the case for fact-finding based on the following: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Hump. 154, 158. 307 U.S. at 178 (emphasis added). The Miller court did not suggest that the possessor must be a member of the militia or National Guard, asking only whether the arm could have militia use. The individual character of the right protected by the Second Amendment went unquestioned. (In other words the right of the citizen militia to own military weapons is assumed to be inviolate.) The Aymette opinion stated on the page cited above by the U.S. Supreme Court: "the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments on their rights, etc." 2 Hump. (21 Tenn.) 154, 158 (1840). Referring to the militia clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stated that "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made." 307 U.S. at 178. The Court then noted that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." (DID YOU CATCH THAT? READ IT AGIN NOW, WE WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS)Id. at 179 (emphasis added). The Miller court noted that most states "have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms" but that differences in language meant variations in "the scope of the right guaranteed." 307 U.S. at 182. State precedents cited by the court are divided mainly over whether the respective state guarantees protect all arms or only militia-type arms.2 (

IN OTHER WORDS STATES HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ARMS IN GENERAL, BUT MILITA WEAPONS ARE EXPRESSLY PROTECTED FROM SUCH REGULATION AS THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR THEM IS INVIOLATE.) Miller also cites approvingly the commentaries of Joseph Story and Thomas M. Cooley. 307 U.S. at 182 n.3. Justice Story stated: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."3 Judge Cooley stated: Among the other safeguards to liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms .... The alternative to a standing army is 'a well-regulated militia'; but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms.4

THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1928, imposed a 200 dollar tax on private ownership of machineguns. This was marginally constitutional at the time it was passed because the Army had not adopted any select-fire or full auto weapons as standard armament for its troops. However Thompson submachineguns were being issued to postal employees, coast guard forces, and marine units. They were first used in combat by our armed forces in Nicaraugua in 1927, which predated the 28 act. I'm not going to quibble over details though. The United States Army adopted the Thompson submachinegun in 19323 as a limited procurement item, and in 1936 as a standard issue weapon. At that point in time the gun control act of 1928 came into direct conflict with the constitution and as such is null and void. No tax may be levied on an individual citizen of the United Sates for exercising his constitutional rights and obligations. Since we have both the right to keep and bear arms, and the constitutional obligation to appear if called as militia bearing weapons of the type and kind in current use, provided by ourselves, this law cannot stand. And yes Virginia, you and every other able bodied man in this country is obligated by the U.S. constitution and by U.S. code law upheld by the supreme court to own a machinegun.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.

nik, you are so sadly right. no one i talk to has ever read the constitution, or is in the least way concerned that our rights seem to be slipping away (my father agrees but forgets about it before taking any action). for those who disagree, i would recommend a read of the constitution, and, for your convenience, i include the following from the declaration of independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism [refers to Rights], it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Benjamin Franklin wrote "Those that would give up essential liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security", or something like that. Nik, et al, I will stand to be counted when it comes to that time...

-- sarah (, April 29, 1999.

Hey thanks PJ and Sarah also for some "known female" points of view! Now, here's some science fiction: if society is not taken down by y2k, then within 40 years directed energy weapons will supersede guns (hey this is sf bear with me). When that happens, an entire culture based on guns, the mores of which are beautifully documented in the John Ross masterpiece Unintended Consequences will become obsolete overnight. An analogy with samurai culture can be made. Guns were first brought into Japan in 1543 by a European trader, who was observed by a Japanese feudal shooting ducks out of the sky on the beach. The lord immediately purchased 2 guns from the trader and set his swordsmiths to work "reverse engineering" them. By the time of the decisive Battle of Sekigahara, it is said the Japanese muskets were the best in the world, and were extensively deployed in that famous fight. Thereafter, however, samurai ruling class banned all ownership, trading, and manufacture of guns, and they were completey stamped out in Japan until the Meiji restoration of 1868, when the push to Westernize and modernize began in earnest. Why were the samurai antagonistic ? It makes perfect sense: their sense of honor and self were bound up in their skill and aesthetic appreciation of the sword. The gun could be weilded victoriously by any peasant with a few hours training against a sword master with decades of proud and bloodly, hard-won experience. The gun, as everywhere and always, was an "equalizer" or even represented a "dumbing down" of martial skill to a level the insulted the pride of the admittedly quite impressive samurai warriors of the period, and they had the class hegemony to forbid these upstart weapons.

Now, in my SF scenario above, directed energy weapons are going to come into play. Their characteristics will be: light (ounces); small (like a little bottle of OC spray today; cheap; reusable; sustained energy source; long-range up to say 300 yards; deadly & destructive to a degree that will cause a cultural paradigm shift equivalent to that experienced by swordsmen and knights faced with the gun. Think of laser pointer today, that's what were basically talking about, but imagine the capability to melt holes in people, wood, cloth, and thin metal - anything it touches, like an elongated version of a Star Wars light sabre. Now what ? Any 7 year old can get one, easily carried, no 'training' no knowledge no recoil, no nuttin. No pride. Killing will be no big deal at all. Destruction everywhere unless controlled. How to control ? Sure guns in that world will still kill, just like swords can today. But the pride of the gun culture will be swept away overnight. It will be a loss.

Too far-fetched huh ? What if you'd described the destruction of the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941, from the AIR, to people in 1900 ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 29, 1999.

From others much more eloquent than myself:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

There are people who are so horrified by war that they would do anything to end war forever - even crawl into a cage, remove their brains, and condemn uncounted unborn generations to the same abject nightmare of ignorance and slavery. These people don't think of it that way, of course; their trust is in their leaders and their heads are full of sugarplums for all mankind. -Anon

Note the following from Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government."

"Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." Edmund Burke

"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence I would advise violence." Mohandas Gandhi

"And all the time - such is the tragic comedy of our situation - we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." C.S.Lewis

-- Greybear (, April 29, 1999.

There is a scenario sometimes presented as a brain-teaser on politics. Suppose you have a very large insane asylum. Which form of government would work in that environment: capitalism, communism, a dictatorship or totalitarianism, or what? The answer is: none of them. The people allow and/or ARE the government. If they are insane, the government is too.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 29, 1999.

That's a very thought provoking post Blue. And some excellent quotes from Greybear. Greybear I liked your idea about the new federalist papers. I wonder if any of our current govenment have ever read the origional federalist papers and the constitution? It would seem to me that if we can't get them out of there on treason charges we should be able to prosecute them for civil rights violations everytime they pass one of these unconstitutional laws and the supreme court refuses to do its duty.

Keep hammering on them PJ, I need all the help I can get.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.

Nikoli, GreyBear, PJ, Texan, (were is Andy)

I love to read you guys, but I have to do this. I allways held our constitution in highest regards. A few years ago I discovered the school our children go to doesn't even teach it. I was amazed and researched it further, teaching my 2 girls as I learned myself. I've also given them this info too;

"It's important to remember that the constitutional system was not designed in the first place to defend the rights of people. Rather, the rights of people had to be balanced, as Madison put it, against what he called "the rights of property." Well of course, property has no rights: my pen has no rights. Maybe I have a right to it, but the pen has no rights. So, this is just a code phrase for the rights of people with property. The constitutional system was founded on the principle that the rights of people with property have to be privileged; they have rights because they're people, but they also have special rights because they have property. As Madison put it in the constitutional debates, the goal of government must be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." That's the way the system was set up."

Did you get this people? We don't own property. We are not covered by the constitution. They (coorperations controlling our gov.) can, do, and will do anything they choose.

-- R. Wright (, April 29, 1999.

Forgive me for posting back to back. The previous contains a N. Chomsky quote. Read a little more on what he has to say.

Our own country was founded on the same principle. The leading idea of the Founding Fathers, expressed in what John Jay called his favorite maxim, is that the country ought to be governed by those who own it. His exact words: "Those who own the country ought to govern it." Now they can't do all the managing, of course; they have to delegate that. So they delegate it to people who call themselves "men of virtue." They were going to manage the country in the interests of those who own it, who are the proper governors. Well, that's the fundamental principle of American democracy and American society and it's realized to quite remarkable extent. And many efforts have been made to ensure that it continues to be realized. If there's ever a challenge to it, or a threat, there's a good deal of [cure?]. I'll come back to some contemporary examples. Actually, somebody reminded me on the way in, this is after all Thomas Jefferson's university, and he had some thoughts on that topic too. His thought, and in fact the basis on which he founded the university, was that the university should guarantee the men of virtue, those who were going to govern the country, only have correct thoughts. They have to be indoctrinated in political correctness. It would be extremely dangerous to allow them to hear heretical doctrines. In fact part of the reason for founding the University of Virginia was so that bright young people in the South who were going to be the governing class not be infected by heretical doctrines they might hear in places like, say, Harvard. You know, the center of [laughter]. I should say the British had the same idea. I don't want to get too far afield, but as late as the late 19th century, Cambridge University, which had only total contempt for American studies, of course, you don't worry about the stupid colonials -- some dons at Cambridge decided that it might be a good idea to learn something about the colonies even though they're pretty backward and so on and there was a proposal -- somebody gave some money to bring over a professor from Harvard who'd give some lectures. And there was a big debate among the Cambridge dons and it was finally turned down. And it was turned down because they were afraid he was going to sow revolutionary doctrine and rouse the rabble.

Back to Jefferson, that was just an insult about Cambridge. Now let me return to insults about the University of Virginia. The principle on which, if you look back at Jefferson's letters and the internal discussions and so on about the founding of the university, it was, a major purpose was to ensure that heretical ideas were never thought or were never expressed. There were a lot of problems; it wasn't only Harvard. It's also that the men who were going to govern the country, the men of virtue, obviously had to know the history of England. I mean, you couldn't study law in the colonies without knowing the history of England. And the problem was for Jefferson that the most convincing and persuasive history of England was written by David Hume, who was a Tory and had the wrong ideas. And Jefferson was concerned that people would read Hume's history of England and be misled into improper thoughts. So he therefore proposed, there was a solution, there was an edition of Hume by somebody named Baxter which revised it, cut out all the improper thoughts and put in proper thoughts. And according to Jefferson this was done so elegantly that when you read it, you couldn't tell that it had been revised, it sounded like Hume, although all the bad thoughts were taken out and replaced by good thoughts. And Jefferson tried for quite a few years, I think about twenty years if I remember, to try to get some American publisher to publish this baudlerized version, which of course wouldn't indicate that it was changed, and unfortunately there weren't any publishers dishonest enough to go along with this. But they finally had to, after it became really hard to control the reading matter in this fashion, he finally settled on the idea of ensuring that the faculty would be properly selected so none of them would have any heretical thoughts, and therefore they could be counted upon to constrain, limit the reading material in such a way that the men of best quality would not be tempted into political incorrectness.

The reasons are the same, because if you think the wrong thoughts there might be opportunities for the rabble to get out of their place which is not influencing public affairs. Well, I don't want to go through too much history, but let's just come up to the present. This doctrine of democracy is exactly the one that prevails today. And it has several variants. But a sort of a classic modern formulation of it may be most interesting, most penetrating is by Walter Lippmann. If you look at his essays on democratic and political theory, he was of course the dean of American journalists and a leading and very influential intellectual and on the critical dissident side, I should say, critical of war, the Vietnam War and so on. He wrote one of the major exposures of the American press for duplicity [and wrote big] on the New York Times for the way it portrayed the Bolshevik Revolution and grossly falsified what was happening, as he pointed out, in the interests of state power and policy at the time. So he's kind of on a dissident side, and he wrote important essays on democratic theory. If you look them up in the library, you'll find that they're subtitled "Progressive Essays on Democracy." And he spelled out the way a democracy should function. In a democracy, it's in classical terms, he said there is the problem of those whom Lansing called the ignorant and the mentally deficient. Lippmann called them "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders"; that's the general public. There are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders who are, he said, "a bewildered herd", and we, the responsible men -- the men of virtue who run things -- we have to protect ourselves from the trampling and the rage of the bewildered herd. Otherwise they'll be problems. Now it's a democracy, not a what we would nowadays call a totalitarian state, not an absolutist state, and in a democracy a herd, the rabble have a function, what he called a "function". Their function is to be spectators, not participants. Now it's the job of the respectable people, you know, the 10%, the 20%, whatever it is, to analyze, understand, think, make decisions and so on. And it's the job of the rabble, the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, to stay outside, and we've got to make sure they don't meddle in what's none of their business, namely influencing public affairs.

Now since this is democracy, they have a further function. Periodically, the rabble are permitted to, as he put it, "lend their weight" behind one or another member of the respectable men; that's what's called an election [laughter]. You be our leader or you be our leader, and then they're supposed to go home and do something else and not meddle any longer. And any form of participation in public affairs other than that would be unacceptable. The same ideas are expressed, they go right into the academic literature of political science, primarily through the work of Howard Laswell, who was one of the modern founders of the discipline, who held that, as he put it, we should not succumb to what he called "democratic dogmatisms" about the average man, and we should not forget the stupidity of the average man, we should not fall into the error of believing that the average man is capable of making the right decisions about his own -- always "his" of course -- his own needs and concerns. They can't; that's a mistake. And since we can't control them by force, because it's a democracy, we have to control them by opinion. Now he was writing in the 1930s, when people were a little more open and frank, so he could talk propaganda. He said we have to ensure that there's propaganda, effective propaganda, which will keep the rabble in their place. So the leading, one of the leading figures of modern American thought, Reinhold Niebuhr, who has been called the theologian of the Establishment, he was the guru of the Kennedy administration, and George Kennan and people like that; his view, as he put it, we have to, it's the responsibility of, he said, "rationality belongs to cool observers," a very small group of people, the men of virtue, and nobody else has that gift, but we who have the rationality, we have to keep the simple-minded people on course by feeding them what he called "emotionally potent oversimplifications and necessary illusions." If we can do that, then they'll stay out of trouble, and then the men of virtue can run things without interference.

Tell you what Blue Himalayan, if tshtf, and we have a civil war, it will be the worst guerilla war this planet will ever see.

-- R. Wright (, April 29, 1999.

RW: ref the civil/guerilla war:

ABSOLUTELY the worst.
Remember, there are a LOT of guys who learned the art of guerilla warfare in a much more intensive school, and in a more intensive way, than it is being taught at the War College and the Armor School. Today's 'Jedi Knights' (as they are called), and the 'Nightstalkers' only know the subject academically.

Let's see, a couple minor sticking points and a nit pick.
The nit pick first: it's "Bowdlerize" not "Baudlerize". (If'n yore gonna be pedantic, at least get it right) ;-}

Now the minor points.
First, the founders developed the structure for the country based on an expectation of a somewhat more limited franchise than we "enjoy" today. The original franchise was to be limited to the property owners. The, at that time valid reason, was to ensure that only literate persons were involved in the decisions of government. NOT everyone kicking about in 178X was able to read and understand the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Understanding required a classical education and such was only to be found in the ranks of the landed gentry. This country was never meant to be ruled by the rabble. The founders wanted the franchise to be limited to the land holders because, as land holders, they were considered to have a vested interest in doing things that were in the best interests of their lands, themselves, and the rest of the citizens, in that order. [This is a concept we have so long forgotten that it is foreign to most. This would be a "non-monarchist" noblesse oblige , or the responsibility to the land that you own.] They were also expected to have received the minimum education required to run a small business.

The landholders, large and small were expected to select their better educated to go to the Capitol, enact the minimum required to govern, and return to their lands to continue their businesses. Those selected were expected to do what was best for the country and it's citizens. Government, excluding the Presidency, was to be a VERY part time thing. Somewhere we have lost this concept of the part time legislator and it SHOWS.

The average high school graduate today would have a very difficult time reading the Founders' writings. This high school graduate would have an even more difficult time in understanding what they were struggling to read. And it is to this putatively educated person that the franchise has been handed. I fully understand the move to give the franchise to the 18 year olds, who were old enough to go off and die for the country but were not considered old enough to have a say in the running of the country. I find myself in the interesting position of favoring a change in the franchise laws that would disenfranchise me. I would favor the franchise system espoused by Heinlein in "Starship Troopers" where, to earn the franchise (ooops, for the challenged: the right to vote), one had to complete a term of service to the country. This would make this right MUCH more precious.

Ref the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
As has been pointed out, the Founders were incredibly sanguine about the nature of tyranny, and the ease in which a tyrant might arise. The Sacred Second is there to ensure that the rest of the Constitution may be preserved. The First is there to ensure that the Creator will always be honored, and that the expression of beliefs, opinion, and religion will not be infringed (so much for that!), while the Second is the Enforcement Arm (if you will) of the People. Realizing that the "People" here literally refers to the landed citizens of the Founders' day.

I find it one of life's little ironies that the "American Civil Liberties Union", originally founded to ensure that the Constitutional Rights would remain inviolate, has become the chief rapist of the Constitution.


Now, having let the cat out, to get back to bed.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 29, 1999.

Putting this off-topic topic aside, this is what many find so repulsive about you INVAR:

"What the simple-minded emoting dips that make up our population as of late"

"You don't know shit about the Constitution boy. You've never read and understood it, or you're subjecting its intent to suit your fucked-up ideology. "

"We do not have a pure democracy in this country asswipe. "

"Of course this is treasonous to you Socialists and loyal subjects to the Zipper.


You don't desire a debate INVAR. If someone disagrees with one idea you have you immediately generalize and characterize them. What the hell do you know about my ideology? I didn't vote for Clinton. I pride myself for being an American when others around me criticize us.

I actually agree with *some* things you have said on this forum. However, because of your generalizations and characterizations I find you to be one disagreeable person.

There is one other thing you seem to be forgetting about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. And that is that everything they wrote was the result of long, arduous debate between reasonable men disagreeing reasonably. I fear that many of you here are influencing others far and wide with your unreasonableness.

I think that if you were to take a tour of America and talk to the average people on the street you might find that most of us are not the "simple-minded emoting dips" that you have concluded us to be. I think you seem just as much a victim of the media as you claim most of America is--you're mind's image of other Americans seems to be tainted by media images. Remember, the media gravitates toward the spectacular. The average American will never get his/her 15 minutes of fame.

I also think that if Thomas Jefferson (whom I admire greatly) and the other founders were to have said something to the effect of "forgive me for dumbing-down your post Nikoli, but these are idiots I'm dealing with here" they would have been laughed out of the deliberations. You show little respect for your fellow man unless he agrees with you.

For what it's worth, there were many good posts here which reminded me that one must do more than simply read the Constitution. There are many court cases which clarify what it says. Thanks for the reminder.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 29, 1999.

Doomslayer, you are absolutely correct that much more than the actual reading of the constitution must be done to understand its meaning and the intent of its authors. Reguarding supreme court decisions they used to be a good general guide as to these meanings and definitions but in recent times the supreme court has abdicated its responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution in favor of a policy of reinterpreting it and reshaping it to fit the events of the moment. Once this line had been crossed the supreme court became irrevocably corrupted, and stands in direct violation of its own oath. For anyone seeking an understanding of the constitution and the intent of its authors the only really good source of information is the Federalist papers. With thousands of quotes and essays from the actual authors of the constitution, bill of rights, and the declaration of independence they leave no confusion at all as to what the constitution says.

As we speak the Texas congress has before it a bill to make it a felony state crime for one or more militia members to assemble for training purposes or practice with their weapons. This law would be so blatantly unconstitutional that any person with even a passing aquaintence with our constitution could recognize it as such. The fact that these learned men with their law degrees and background of government service are even contemplating passing such a law shows that without doubt our government has gone beyond the pale of pushing the legal limits and entered the ground of tyrrany. In essence this law attacks the right of the people to peaceably assemble, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, the constitutional provision for a free standing unorganized militia, and the first amendment right to free speech. George Bush jr. is pushing for this legislation to pass, so if any of you gun owners out there are planning to vote for him in the upcoming presidential elections, you better start shopping for a new candidate. This is just another NWO lackey in Republican clothing, like father like son.

For the essays above which seem to make the point that there is some kind of dark secret of our constitution which limits power to only an airistocracy, that is horse crap. This is not, and never has been a democracy. I keep hearing this word about a hundred times a day on the idiot box and most of the general public repeat it like some kind of damned mantra. I don't know what they teach in the schools nowdays but when I graduated in 1976 we were still taught that we lived in a constitutional republic with a representative form of government composed of three branches of government. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The government was specifically designed to have checks and balances which would serve as safeguards against tyrrany. The president was limited in power by the legislature from taking unilateral actions, the legislature was held in control by the veto power of the President, and the Supreme court watched over the whole affair to make sure no laws were enacted which violated the constitution, or our rights as American citizens. We have reached a point in time where not only the supreme court has abdicated its duty, but the legislature has allowed the president to usurp its authority and continues to pump out unconstitutional laws at an ever increasing rate. The executive branch has completely overstepped its boundaries through executive orders, police actions, and the War Powers Act. Our government has been siezed by hostile forces whose agenda is the complete destruction of american sovergnity and the institution of One World Government run by elitist bankers over an unarmed and enslaved populace. There is your dirty little secret.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.


I can care less about what people think of me or why they are repulsed by how I say what I do.

Your problem is HOW I say what I do, not the Substance of what I say.

Reasonable debate has been going on for over 35 years in regards to advancing Socialism, and still it marches on unimpeded. And since Clinton, the demonization and demouguoging of those that oppose the PC ideology has engendered a culture war that has now progressed past all reasonable debate.

The nation is in jeopardy --SERIOUS jeopardy.

It is time for the nation to wake up.

If it refuses, it is time for a warning message to be shouted as a witness.

In either case, the time for talk is over. The time for action is now.

Or we perish from this earth as a nation forever.

This is why the gruff language and fierce corrections on this forum.

I'm doing what tiny bit I can to scream aloud and proclaim the idiocy, ignorance and outright bullshit imbeciles post for what it is.

No Apologies, no surrender, no retreat. If I fail, I die standing on principle...not compromise. Too bad if you're offended about the confrontational nature of what I post. I have been confronted for long enough, it's time to fight back.

Read the Cox Report for more proof of what I say.

Then try to sleep at night.

Our time's almost up. Just how much is the only question.

The time for talk is over.

-- INVAR (, April 29, 1999.

INVAR, I hear you brother, amen amen. It is a constant struggle to remain civil in the face of ignorance and apathy with the stakes so very high and the time so short. I know I don't need to point this out to you, but some of the others may not realize that the above mentioned law under consideration in Texas which would outlaw Militia's is a dirct attack on the final safety net installed in the constitution by the authors to prevent absolute corruption of our government. That safety net is the armed civilian militia, who not only have the right, but the OBLIGATION, to hold government accountable for its actions and to forcibly remove it from office if it is out of control.

On a more positive note I caught part of a campaign speech by a Republican named Smith who is running for president. I am not familiar with his background other than he is currently a Senator, from New Hampshire I believe. He is running on a straight constitutionalist platform , vowing to repeal gun control laws and return to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He looks pretty good from a distance so I'll be checking him out a lot closer to see if its rhetoric or he has the track record to back it up. If he's for real it would be a lot better alternative than splitting our critical votes going Libertarian. Don't get me wrong, I am a Libertarian but this election is a turning point in American History. If we lose this one to the damned trilateral commission it's over.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.


Per your last paragraph, I would otherwise agree with you, and while I'd like to have hope for another election to set this nation straight's too far gone to even hope for one.

First I don't expect we'll get to the inaugurations, possibly not even the elections themselves. You have to understand the the LEGACY codes which were lifted from Los Alamos in '95 and contain the launch, abort and maintenance software for ALL our nuclear weapons, is in the hands of not only the Chineese, but also the North Koreans, Iran and perhaps even Libya by intel reports.

Which means depending on when China wants to take Taiwaan, Or Seoul goes under the red flag - a pre-emptive strike using our OWN nukes is possible, to take us out of the equation, not to mention the escalation of the Kosovo war.

Game over Nik. Now it's just a matter of time.

All we have is hope.

Unfortunately, the fact of human nature voids out hope.

What's even scarier is the fact that the Wolf among us, who holds office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., has purposefully opened the door to our annihilation.

The Cox report will bear this out.

If Clinton doesn't burn it first.

-- INVAR (, April 29, 1999.

Once again I agree with you. I think there is a very large chance we won't make it to the end of the year. Still you have to plan for the future because anything that hasn't happened yet isn't set in stone. what is the current status of the cox report? Do you think they will release it to the public? I know they are raising hell about it over at Freerepublic but it seems to me so many heads would roll over it that the governemnt will try to bury it. And it won't all be democratic heads either, The republicans are hip deep in this shit pile too.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.

Depends on who has balls left in the Government. I would hope Mr. Cox has enough patriotism left to demand its release. But the leadership might nute him, or Clinton may classify the report to prevent its release.

Some info in the report has been ferreted out by the NY Times no less, and that info is what's making the rounds. The Administration is already shifting blame by saying Los Alamos labs dropped the ball.

How typical.

My guess is it will be parceled out sanitized and piecemeal, then debunked, ignored and forgotten.

Even if it does get published, it's too late for us to do anything about it. We're toast.

-- INVAR (, April 29, 1999.


You are a man after my own heart. A silent, bloodless coup occurred in America in 1913. In that year, foreign interests laid the foundations to gradually overtake our government through a pernicious manipulation of the US monetary system and, by mammon-corrupting extension, our media, our laws, and, ultimately, our very rights. And the majority of elected representatives then serving aided and abetted that treasonous, unconstitutional, criminal act.

Eighty-six years have now since passed. The old treasons are now as natural as breathing. Most everyone in America has lived under no other system, knows no other system, and can scarcely even conceive of no other system.

The Constitution laid a very good foundation -- an example to the world, and the world sat up and took notice! Unfortunately, it appears the effort required for "eternal vigilance" was too great, or men were too weak or too corrupt. The Constitution penned the hearts and souls of a people at a point in time. It consolidated and made into law the best aspirations and intentions of the People. And it worked incredibly well for five or six generations...150 years. America ascended to unheard of heights because the basis of our system was fair, just, responsible, and sensible. It worked simply because the majority of the people who wrote the Constitution and consented to live under it had these same qualities and intentions.

It is only natural that the Constitution has been under relentless attack these last many years, for it is a defective document in the eyes of the current power structure -- a nuisance to be given lip service, a tool to be exploited when the occasion rises, and a sickly, idealistic pipe-dream to be shredded at the slightest excuse. The practical truth of its workings are no match for the corruption of power, the corruption of speech, the corruption of law, and their originating corruption of money.

Indeed, the second amendment is the final rampart. I fear, I expect, that that too shall be overrun. First the silk glove, then the iron heel, and then it starts all over again. Has it ever been any different? Two steps forward and one step back. One generation must pay the ultimate price in order to relearn the mistakes of all the others that came before.

History, it seems, is only for paranoids...

-- Nathan (, April 29, 1999.

Well, Nikoli, forgive me for getting personal again, but are you a typical, average Texan bulldozer-operator !?!?! I mean, Chomsky used to say that if a few more Americans studiedb history, economics, law, and foreign policy the way they know their sports scores and personalities, the country wouldn't long be media-blinded and controlled by the "Mandarins"...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 29, 1999.

Good analysis INVAR

Nathan you are square on the money. I wonder what these happy-feely socialist grandchildren will think of them when they're paying the price for their grandparents greed and stupidity?

Blue, I had to laugh at that one. No I'm not your average dozer hand, and that is a shame because Mr. Chomsky was right. I have been an avid reader all my life, and had intended to go to college but it wasn't to be. The Air Force offered me a scholarship through their ROTC program but I was born with a partially deformed left ankle and was unable to meet the physical requirements. Mom and dad divorced when I was a senior and I spent the next couple of years supporting my mom till she got back on her feet. I still live next door to her here on the old family farm. My political history is classic I guess. I started out as an idealist bordering on communist and railed about the injustice of the system and how greedy and hard hearted the Republicans were. As I grew older and got some real life education I came to realize that charity and welfare programs, while they have their place, lead to sloth and ignorance when applied to massive segments of the population. I am still not a materialist, I pay cash for everything I buy and refuse to deal with a bank in any way shape or form.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 29, 1999.

Invar, very interesting argument, except for the nagging question of what's in it for the elitists running the global show? After all, this country, through the administrations of the past 90 years has fully armed communist russia and aided fascist germany. We aided the fall of Chiang Kai-Shek to allow Mao Tse-Tung into power. Through the CFR, this country's elite continues to promote communism all over the world.

So I ask, what's in it for them to allow North Korea, China, Russia, or whomever to nuke the United States? (big time, not a wee bomb in one little 'ole city to prove the power)

In order to have a complete view of what is happening on a global scale, you must address this point.

-- (, April 29, 1999.


Can you say valuable farmland and natural resources? Not to mention the elimination of the world's fiercest nationalistic and largest armed populace on the planet? (Pearl Harbor case-in-point -- we'll love ya until you piss us off American mentality - Which I hope is not dead but fear is).

Your history of the Soviets and Germany is clouded at best. We never aided Nazi Germany even during the Weimar Republic, we were busy arming Great Britain. We also aided Soviet Russia only during the latter half of WWII when they were allies against Germany. After 1945, all aid was withdrawn as the curtain went up on the Cold War.

Perceptions of Chaing Kai-shek being felled by our Administration are greatly exxagerated. We aided him against Japaneese Imperialism since 1937.

Mao we could do nothing about. The numbers weren't in our favor and we weren't willing to use nukes.

But as to our fate and the motives by the Global Elites; supression of independence, and conquest of the richest farmland and resources.

Americans (what's left of us) will be slaves ala the ancient Hebrews.

-- INVAR (, April 29, 1999.

Mass delusions, I am reposting this from an old thread i started dicussing the NWO. I would really like you evaluation of my asessment and where your differs. I am struggling to understand this situation but there is so much conflicting information out there I'm going into overload. Not to mention the red herrings and deliberate disinformation being excreted by the government and the media.

I don't think I know anymore than you do, I have theories but doesn't everyone. The CFR and the Trilateral Commission are openly working towards this One World Government, they don't even bother to try and hide their agenda anymore. It seems fairly clear cut to me that the same old world families are the power source behind this movement, the international banking families that is. The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, and the Goulds, and the Getty's. I think Y2K was either a preplanned event by these people, or is certainly playing right into their hands rather conveniently. We have reached the end of the debt cycle of fiat money anyway, and the U>S> and world economies are doomed to first recession and then all out depression Y2K or not. Y2K will merely act as a catylist to accelerate the collapse.

The American people are the last heavily armed populace in any civilized nation on the planet. These civilians and the American Military pose one of two threats to the New World order movement. The other threat is the communist block of Russia, China, N. Korea, The Baltic States, and Cuba. Their time frame is limited in which they can act as weapons of mass destruction proliferate into third world countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. They must act on finalization of their plans before this third threat can fully materialize and the situation becomes completely uncontrollable. I will come back and review these 3 threats and likely scenarios later.

Their methods to date have gone exactly according to plan and can be summed up fairly simply. In 1913 the Federal Reserve was set up as a private corporation to act as our national bank. This was the opening move, and the most critical one of the entire game plan. It was railroaded through in spite of being directly unconstitutional, and gave the power to print money, thereby controlling its value and supply to a group of elite bankers, many of whom were not even citizens of this country.

Through massive manipulation of banking and the stock market in the 1920's these families succeeded in bringing on the crash of the stock market in 1929 and the great depression which followed. After starving the American public for a time by tightening the money supply they were able to implement phase two of their plan via dropping off the gold standard and the New Deal. The Bankers exploited this move by stripping our treasury of its gold reserves, aided by FDR's declaration making private holdings of gold unconstitutional. FDR will no doubt be remembered in long term history as one of the greatest traitors America has ever known. If America continues to exist that is. Using their new tool, the FED, they were able to print money at will, created out of thin air, and backed by increasing public debt. Of course this power expanded their wealth and power to corrupt expotentially.

Loosening the reigns on the money supply America began to pull out of the artificially created depression, though no longer a soverign nation as it had been. We had sold our soul to the Banking Families.

After World war two the MarShall plan rebuilt our enemies into the industrial powerhouse competitors they are today. The United Nations was formed as a tool to erode and eventually destroy the national soverignity of all nations worldwide, and to open the doors for the banking Families to replicate their FED scam worldwide.AS more and more Wealth accrued to the Banking Families They began to attack selective economies one at a time, forcing the governments to abandon the Gold standard and first liquidate their reserves of gold, then go into debt to the IMF. Australia was the last holdout, and they went off the gold standard last year. Having already accumulated nearly half the World's supply of gold bullion they were able to control the price of gold artificially by simply buying and selling amongst themselves in large amounts.

Australia began dumping it's gold reserves last year to help hold the price down while Russia floundered repaying private banking loans which were secured with one third of its gold reserves. They ultimately forfieted their mortgaged reserves as a direct consequence of Australias actions and the American congress' refusal to fund further IMF loans to them. So at this point in time these families privately own nearly two thirds of the entire gold supply of the entire world., and managed to get it by printing their own money. Pretty neat scam huh?

In the meantime they had pumped billions of dollars into those foreign nations such as Japan and Germany building an infrastructure and manufacturing base which was able to capitalize on cheap labor. Our own innefficient industrial base found itself unable to compete with unregulated foreign imports and began it's overseas flight. This process was greatly accelerated through NAFTA and GATT. The Amercan agricultural base was destroyed through similar methods. Generations old family farms were mortgaged to the government in efforts to upgrade efficiency so that they could compete with heavily subsidized agricultural imports. Most of these farms were ultimately lost and mega corporations assumed control of our food supplies. The result of this is that when the bubble burst there will be massive starvation.

Through the downsizing of the military they have been able to accomplish two goals. First they have incredibly weakened our defenses and our ability to rapidly expand the military no longer exist. These high tech weapons systems we use are not only vulnerable to Y2K but they also take intelligent people to operate them and it takes years of training to do so. Secondly through selective promotion and forced early retirement they have restructured the command elements of the military with personality types who will willingly use these forces on the American people when ordered to do so. Case in point here, ever chief of the Joint chiefs of staff since the mid 1950's has been a member of the CFR.

Having gained total control of the world's gold supply, food supply, and national governments we have entered phase three of the plan. They have established the Euro dollar as a introduction to one world currency. Using their vast gold reserves they will be able to sustain or devalue all other world currencies at their will in the coming worldwide chaos. This pretty well brings us to our current moment in time.

Final implementation of the plan calls for a worldwide depression, elimination of America as a military threat, and global population reductions through war and disease and starvation. The American Government has openly started it's villification of opposition groups ala Militia's and Christians. As we approach Y2K they are stomping posse comatais into the ground, preparing for martial law, and getting ready to exterminate the opposition. Civil war is a given at this point in the very near future as patriots fight for their very lives. This will not be an honorable war, it will be a take no prisoners, no holds barred, genocidal free for all. Surrender is death. No doubt large segments of the military will revolt and cross to the patriot ranks, and on these units numbers the outcome of this particular conflict will hingge

In the overall scheme of the Trilateralist plans the short term victor of America's war is not critical, all that matter's is that she be devastated to the point of no longer being able to mount resistance to their overthrow of the rest of the world. Once they have consolidated The United Nations into a one world government they can easily come back here and mop up the survivors if we are locally victorious. This doesn't mean they won't try very hard to win here as an intact America under their control would greatly expedite their overthrow of everyone else.

This brings us to the second threat, the Communist Bloc. These powers have basically the same goals as the banking families, but a different set of leaders as an ultimate goal. Russia is well equipped to overrun Eastern Europe with America out of the picture if the Chinese throw in with them. The recent thaw in Russia's and China's relations is a powerful indicator they are considering just this option. The NWO, recognizing this threat, is positioning the United States to take the brunt of a nuclear exchange should it come to that. We are actively villanizing the Chinese in the world community now, and escalating tensions via weapons transfers to Taiwan.

Technology transfers to China in the recent past have ensured that they will have the capability to do massive damage to the United States in the event they choose to strike. We are being played off against each other like a pair of fighting roosters, getting the dander up and the smell of blood in the air.

So what does this mean? Pretty simple really. Either the communist nations will elect to eventually come under the umbrella of the European One World Government, Or they will attempt to neutralize the United States and overrun Europe. Through our provacations we are trying to force them to show their hand and commit to one course of action or the other while NATO retains sufficient integrity (Pre Y2K) to deliver a coordinated strike against them. I would think the days leading up to the gps rollover and the remainder of 1999 will be interesting indeed. In the most Chinese sense of the word.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, February 09, 1999 Answers

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

That last post represented my thinking in early February of this year, which predated the Kosovo bambing campaign. This line of thought has continued to evolve so I resubmit another recent post of mine which brings the line of reasoning up to date.

I've been giving this Kosovo situation, NATO, the U.N., and the NWO movement a lot of thought lately, and the theory I'm arriving at is not pretty at all. There is no rational reason why NATO would commit itself to a civil war in a soverign nation, including so-called ethnic cleansing. There are no clear cut good and bad guys in this war, both sides are guilty of atrocities, the Serbs only being greater because of their superior firepower to the KLA.

In effect the removal of the civilian population from Kosovo is not ethnic cleansing, but pure military tactics by the Serbs. The Kla is fighting a guerilla war, much akin to the VC in vietnam. The only effective way to fight guerillas is to remove their support base and the civilian population in which they hide. Moreover there have been and continue to be much more extreme cases of all out genocide and ethnic persecution in the world community, some of them among NATO members.

I have long held that Bill Clinton, and the NWO elite have forsaken any hope of introducing their one world government as long as the United States reamains a soverign superpower, and the strongest military force on the planet. On numerous threads I have pointed out the insane policy decisons and nuclear response protocals which guarntee the U.S. will be devastated in a nuclear war if it occurs.

The only impediment to a Russian first strike against the United States is the preconcieved NATO response against an agressor nation, specifically the former Soviet Union, now known as Russia. Clinton's policies over the last eight years have in sum total actually invited an all out attack on this country, and I believe this attack on the former Yugoslavia is the final step in that process.

Consider if you will that the ultimate goal of this attack was not to help the Kosovos, but to fragment NATO while simuletaneously provoking a conflict with the Russians. Greece and Turkey are almost at the point of exchanging blows, and upwards of 90% of the population of Greece is adamantly opposed to the NATO campaign. Germany and Italy already are balking at just the bombing campaign with the Germans actively seeking peace accords through Russia and trying to mend sino relations. The Italians are backpedaling rapidly as talk of ground troops and Naval blockades escalates, and will certainly go into headlong retreat at the first sign of a confrontation with the Russians. A confrontation which is almost certain to occur over the oil embargo, or the introduction of ground forces.

The greatest two warmongers in this operation are Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Both are NWO lackeys and Blair openly represents the major political and financial power base of the NWO. If Russia does challenge NATO over this situation the result is as predictable as the sunrise. NATO will fragment, leaving the United States and England to face the Russians alone. The English parliment will "panic" and throw Blair out of office, replacing him with a more moderate prime minister. A short shooting war between the U.S. and Russia will ensue, followed by an all out nuclear strike against the U.S. by the Russians as they are not able to scramble their mothballed Naval forces in a timely manner. Bill Clinton and the NWO will have suceeded in destroying the United States.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 26, 1999.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

I caught most of the Jeffry Nyquist interview on Rense's Sightings program last night and he brought out a few new data points I thought were interesting. I didn't want to start a new thread so I thought I would just tack them on here.

1. That meeting the Russians had about tactical nukes had me confused, because they have had tactical nukes for decades. I didn't understand why they were saying they wanted them. Turns out it was just sloppy reporting or deliberate mis-information. Nyquist says that when the Soviet Union collapsed they put their Tactical weapons into storage and removed the trigger mechanisms. The purpose of that meeting was to get the ball rolling on reinstalling the triggers and redistributing the weapons to their combat units.

2. Through military call ups and volunteers the Russians have added nearly a half a million troops to their standing forces since the bombing campaign began.

3. The Russians have been quietly putting their nuclear missile submarines back to sea. Almost all of them are now deployed. The British have responded by putting both of their Tridents to sea.

4. The Russians are outfitting 180 some odd of their Mig-29 fighters with modifiers fuel tanks which give them a range of 15000 kilometers. This gives them the range to fly escort to bombers attacking the United States.

5. The N. Koreans mobilized their entire million man army in Dec. and remain poised to invade the South, and have declared that war is imminent.

6. The Chinese are continuing their buildup of forces and hardware near Taiwan and invasion seems likely in the near future.

7. We still don't have a carrier group on station in the Pacific. this has not ever happened since WW-II.

8. U.S. government estimates indicate that the Russians have approximately 300 million tons of grain and foodstuffs stored in their underground shelters at this moment.

9. Current deployment levels and threat alerts show that we are closer to nuclear war now then during the cuban missile crisis.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

Are we talking neutron and not thermonuclear or hydrogen?

-- Gavin Venlan (, April 30, 1999.

Well like us the Russians posess all three, so whatever they want to use they've got.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

If any of you are wondering why I think Clinton has intentionally set this nation up to be destroyed in a nuclear war this pretty well sums it up. We no longer have nuclear armed long range bombers on alert. All of our bombers are configured to carry conventional bombs and it takes a minimum of 24 hrs. to change the bomb racks to accept nuclear weapons. In a first strike they will be either destroyed on the ground or all their nuclear weapons and bases destroyed rendering them Useless. In addition Clinton's numerous attacks on various bananna republics have exhausted out supply of air launched cruise missiles, and now they are removing the nuclear warheads from those that remain and converting them to conventional high explosives.

Our ICBM,s are detargeted, off alert, and operating under a policy of no counterlaunch until Actual enemy detonations of incoming warheads are confirmed and then may only be launched with Presidential Authorization. This policy GUARANTEES that our entire ICBM force will be destroyed in it's silos. Thank you Bill Clinton.

Our entire Nuclear missile submarine fleet consist of 18 Trident submarines. At any given time all but four of them are in port. Bill Clinton has removed the launch codes from all of the Tridents, and these must be transmitted to them along with Presidential authoirization before they can launch. the ELF antenna arrays, of which we have TWO, are the means by which these coommunications would be passed. Both of these arrays would also be destroyed in a first strike. In addition the Radio systems are not Y2K compliant, and cannot be made so according to the Pentagon. They will have to be replaced, and that cannot possibly be done in the time remaining before Y2K takes them out.

There is no three leg triad of nuclear defense. It is gone. Period. Under our current operating policies Instituted by Bill Clinton a first strike from the Russian would totally devastate the military and industrial infrastructure of this country. In 30 minutes we would cease to exist as a nation, and re-enter the stone age. We have not even gone into the technology transfers to the Chinese or the fact that Clinton last week walked out of the NATO summit in Washington leaving behind the nuclear launch codes during the worst crisis in the history of this nation, less than 12 hours after the Russians announced they were putting their nuclear forces on red alert, hair trigger setting. On top of all these factors the gps system rolls over Aug. 22 of this year. The Pentagon says 12,000 of it's weapons systems are dependent to one extent or another on this system, and nowhere near all of them will be ready by rollover. Bottom line is this, from Aug. 22 until Dec.31 midnight Moscow time the Russians have for all practical purposes got a free shot at us. I'm sure we could muster some minimal defense and might even get a warhead or two off the ground and through their 10 or 12 thousand nuclear tipped ABM's, though it would be doubtful. The only thing stopping them from nuking us are the NATO countries which have nuclear weapons and are by treaty obligated to protect us. Bill Clinton to the rescue. Our current conflict in Serbia is tearing NATO to pieces, if it goes to a ground war, or the oil embargo escaltes into fighting between Russia and the U.S., NATO will dissolve. Then there will be no deterrent at all..

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

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

Jesus Nik. After that last post, I'm as depressed as you are.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 30, 1999.

I hear you PJ. I can't believe the media isn't all over this like a dog on a bone. They are going to die with the rest of us if this comes to pass. I don't see any other way to interpret the sequence of events and policies which makes any sense at all. This is the only one I have come up with which fits all the angles. So being as how I don't care for putting square pegs in round holes there it is. Now everyone should understand why INVAR is so excited.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

I hate to get you guys any more *excited* but I heard on the news today that Iran test fired a missile off of a freighter in the Caspian Sea recently. Can you imagine if they get a freighter close enough to our east coast?

-- not gonna say (, April 30, 1999.

Not--We were discussing something like this on another thread recently. Turns out the new Topol Mobile ICBM the Russians have deployed has the range to hit the U.S. fired not only over the North Pole, but Over the South pole as well. With this capability it could be loaded onto ships of any type or national registry and fired from any point on the globe. Who you gonna shoot back at? By the time you figure out who is shooting at you Washington, the Pentagon, and Cheyenne mountain are smoking holes. Then the real attack starts.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

For the sake of retiring an incredibly long thread, I am going to start a new thread with my responses. See "Nikoli and Invar-response to your postings"

Let's put this baby to bed. G'nite!

-- (, April 30, 1999.

mass, I will continue discussion on your new thread, but I'm going to keep posting relevant information and tidbits to this old one for those who are interested. I hate to start a new thread everytime some new information becomes available and get the off topic screaming going. So here's one for openers.

see FOR RELEASE: May 1, 1999

Lawsuit filed Friday, April 30, 1999 Paul, bipartisan team, sue Clinton over Kosovo Members say President has violated Constitution, War Powers Resolution

WASHINGTON, DC -- A bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), filed a lawsuit on Friday, April 30, 1999, in federal court against President Bill Clinton for violating both the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to Yugoslavia.

Rep. Paul has led Congress in the opposing the unconstitutional military action, introducing the first legislation to stop the measure early in this Congress, and speaking against it last year.

'This president has violated the law and he must be taken to task,' said Rep. Paul. 'It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the president from this destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent upon us to resort to the courts to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.'

The lawsuit specifically states that the president violated Section 1, Article 8, Clause 11, of the US Constitution by engaging in war without the declaration of such from Congress. The suit also notes that the president violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution for failing to officially report to Congress on his aggressive actions against Yugoslavia within the mandated forty-eight hours.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment from the court, stating that the president has violated both the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. The plaintiffs ask the court to order the president to end hostilities by May 25, 1999, and withdrawn troops no later than June 24, 1999.

'For more than 50 years, presidents have engaged in foreign adventurism at the cost of American lives without regard for the Constitution. But for the first time we have a president who not only refuses to acknowledge the Constitution, but also the War Powers Resolution which -- in my opinion -- improperly transferred constitutionally non-delegable powers from the legislative to executive branch,' said Rep. Paul. 'Apparently this president thinks he is king, for in our representative democracy no man is given the power to unilaterally commit troops to battle without the express authorization of the people's representatives in Congress.'

Joining Rep. Paul in the lawsuit are: Tom Campbell (R, CA), Dennis Kucinich (D, OH), Marcy Kaptur (D, OH), Roscoe Bartlett (R, MD), Bob Barr (R, GA), Dan Burton (R, IN), Philip Crane (R, IL), John Cooksey (R, LA), Walter Jones (R, NC), Donald Manzullo (R, IL), Charlie Norwood (R, GA), Thomas Petri (R, WI), Marshall Sanford (R, SC), Joe Scarborough (R, FL), Bob Schaffer (R, CO), and Thomas Tancredo (R, CO). The Members have legal standing in the suit because the president's actions usurped Congress' constitutional and legal rights to declare war and provide oversight.

'This president is putting American soldiers, and indeed all Americans, in danger by engaging in this reckless action,' said Rep. Paul. 'We must not allow this or any president to declare themselves above the law.'

Congress voted this week 427 to 2 against a declaration of war with Yugoslavia, voted to prohibit funding for ground elements, and finally, denied support for the ongoing air campaign.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

WOW! Go Ron Paul Go

-- texan (, April 30, 1999.

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

Ron Paul for President! Just Say No to Bush...

Texas Terri

-- Texas Terri (, April 30, 1999.

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

Well now that I've got you feeling all warm and fuzzy inside here's the flip side of the story. The definition of is. Rememberr the innocent little executive order clinton issued while congress was in the midst of impeaching him back in December? Remember it was hidden in the media shitstorm going on at the time, and timed to go into effect while congress was recessed for Christmas? The one they failed to overturn? The one that made treaty law superior to constitutional law? Here is wisdom for those who hath understanding. Bill Clinton is absolutely the most devious bastard I have ever seen. This executive order if upheld by the courts will place NATO treaty obligations and actions above the U.S. constitution and render the President a virtual King as he is the executor of Treaties. I'm your ice cream man, stop me when I'm passin by, I'm your ice cream man, stop me when I'm passin by, see all my flavors are guaranteed to satisfy.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

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

Rarely do I agree with Dennis the Menace (Rep Kucinich), but Marci (Kaptur) usually has a head on her shoulders, and uses it. Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 30, 1999.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

While the legal actions of Ron Paul et al will probably not accomplish much to change events they will at least, on hopes, raise the awareness of some of the piblic.

This is going to be pretty interesting to see how this court case is spun. This could be pretty funny.

I think the correct term is gallows humor.

-- Greybear (, April 30, 1999.

Greybear you are a man after my own heart. I nearly busted a gut when it dawned on me Ron paul had walked right into a trap Clinton had set for him, and will use him as the tool to destroy that which he loves most. Of course you know that this means war.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

Update me - I don't see the "trap" set by Clinton here.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (, May 01, 1999.

Robert, the trap is executive order 13107. When this suit by Ron Paul hits the courts Clinton is going to be waving that order like a battle flag. Since the supreme court has never given a substantive ruling on whether treaty law overrides constitutional soverign law they will be forced to render that decison at long last. The reason they have not ruled on it in the past is that The constitution left a large loophole there, or a grey area if you prefer. Given the recent performance of the court Clinton is virtually assured of victory in this suit and his powers will be expanded tenfold, he will become virtually a king, and the constitution will become worthless. All he will need to do to override any amendment is go through the United Nations and add a treaty clause covering the relevant section. Goodbye second amendment. Then the rest.

And a tack on from another thread

Invar- As a rule I enjoy your postings. My goal is to get it right, as much as I can. I will expect failure on occasion, because that is what happens when the subject matter is shrouded with secrecy and the materials on said subject matter are not prolific. I do not want to nit-pick the details. I simply want to present as broad a base of information as possible and let others decide what really 'is'. I personally do not believe full nuclear devastation will be allowed, in this country or others. I know you are drawing your conclusions from facts, however, I think the plan will be more to scare the masses into submission. After all, the people of the U.S. are a very strong asset. We not only consume, we produce. We just need to be herded into the right direction [into socialism which is a cotton candy term for communism]. We will be made to ask for change, and if it requires the nuclear angle, then it will be used. That, of course, is my opinion.

The following is not opinion, it is based on research.

The Dawes Plan and the Young Plan (named after 2 American Bankers who headed the committees that originated them) were international measures created to solve Germany's disastrous monetary problems (massive inflation) due to the debt created by the Versailles Treaty.

3 German Cartels were beneficiaries of credit under the Dawes Plan. These 3 became the industrial backbone of the Nazi war machine, and the financial backbone of Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Germany. "Of the 3 cartels, the chemical enterprise I.G. Farben (received) a flotation of $30 million from the Rockefeller's (bank). The U.S. War Department noted: 'without I.G.'s immense productive facilities, its intense research, and vast international affiliations, Germany's prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible' I.G. Farben also supplied 45% of the election funds used to bring the Nazis to power in 1933." [The Shadows of Power; James Perloff]

Certain U.S. firms did big business with I.G. Farben including Rockefeller's Standard Oil. American I.G. Farben, a subsidiary had several Council on Foreign Relations members as directors including Paul Warburg, Charles E. Mitchell and Herman A. Metz.

*I would say this constitutes aiding Natzi Germany, albeit secretively.*

As for Russia, I would suggest the reading of 'Major Jordan's Diaries' by Air Force Major George Racey Jordan for starters, he was a supply expeditor and liason officer from May 1942 to June 1944.

Some of the items sent to Soviet Russia during the above period:

121 merchant ships $123M 1285 locomotives $103M

trucks and buses $508M

tractors $24M

telephones $33M

generators $222M

*all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer*

Then to dig a little deeper into the power behing the Bolsheviks, read "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" by Antony Sutton, Stanford University Hoover Institute fellow.

And on to China-

Chang-Kai-Shek had been fighting with the communists led by Mao-Tse- Tung since 1941. "Threatening to withdraw U.S. support, General Marshall negotiated truces (dispatched by Truman) with the communists against Chiang's will. Chiang was then forced to accept communists into his government. Finally, after Mao had time to regroup and began to seize more territory, Marshall slapped a weapons embargo on.. . Chiang... In 1948, Congress voted $125 million in military aid to Chiang, but the Truman administration managed to bog it down in red tape until Chiang's defeat... On January 25, 1949, Congressman John F. Kennedy made an impassioned speech on the floor of the House. He said the responsibility for the China debacle rested; 'squarey with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government." [On the Horns of The Beast; Bill Still]

Nikolai, I will address your postings in a subsequent post.

-- (, April 30, 1999

Answers Nikolai, after reading your posting (started on the following thread: ) My friend, we are of like mind and values. We do see much of the same insofar as an American future can play out. However, as I have posted above, I do not see communist China, North Korea, Russia, the Baltic states, or Cuba as a threat to the New World Order. In one way or another, they have been aided and nurtured by our own CFR. Natzi Germany and Bolshevik Russia were shown how to set up a debt-free monetary system to run their countries and further their communist agendas by the same authorities who created our debt-based monetary system (keep in mind that, although Germany and Russia floundered, it was not because the debt-free monetary system can't work, it was who was at the controls and how adept they were).

The real unknowns are the rebel nations of Islam, and I'm NOT talking about Saddam Hussein.

I personally believe China, Russia, and most other communist countries will elect to 'come under the NWO umbrella' so to speak.

Onto the manipulation of the gold markets. Perhaps some posters are aware of the class action lawsuit on gold price manipulation? Read all about it from Bill Murphy at:

I don't truly know what the Kosovo/Serb war is about and what our involvement is. I do believe NATO is a 'front', of which, by itself has no powers. I suggest that the Kosovo/Serb war is far more complicated than we can conceive. Observe these facts when making your conclusions:

The company of Brown-Root, who won a U.S. contract to build a multi- BILLION dollar military facility in Albania in SEPTEMBER 1998, is now being rushed into construction and completion.

The Caspian sea is purported to hold an incredibly vast amount of wealth in the form of mineral and oil deposits.

All other assertions made by Nikolai, I pretty much agree with, based on my own research and conclusions.

-- (, April 30, 1999.

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

I guess we're just gonna have to wait and see it play out. Whichever way it goes is not good.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

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

Well Hell, I can't let it go that easy. First off you have to realize that the Great depression and the subsequent New Deal from FDR were not simply a manuever to get us off the gold standard. That event was a small scale test of whether the American people could be coerced through their own free will to accept socialism. The ongoing support of the Russians was intended to give credence and guidance to the american Unions through the labor movement, period. Personally I think the NWO thought that Hitler would destroy this little nescesary evil they had created and never foresaw that Stalin would be able to hold out, even at horrendous cost.

There is also the matter of that little meeting Gore attended In Rio De Janero about ten years ago, the one where they outlined the goal of cutting the worlds population by half or more by the year 2001.

And finaly the intentional lowering of our nuclear defenses by Clinton.

They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The Great depression disproved that theory pretty soundly. If you get that horse so thirsty he can't think straight he'll hit that water so hard and fast that he'll founder. You've got to remember too that the NWO possess no military foces or weaponry or even territory outright. Their primary weapon has always been money but the final implementation of their plan will require that the world willingly submit to their rule, indeed beg for their rule. That is going to be accomplished by making the horse very very thirsty. Yes I think those Soviet nukes will be used because 1. they need to have massive population cuts 2. They need the world to be so utterly devastated and devoid of hope that it will willingly come to them for salvation.3. they need those damned communist out of the picture once and for all. 4. they must get a handle on the Islamic threat and the easiest way to do that is through nuclear genocide.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 30, 1999.

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

And what do 'little people' do?

-- Helen (, April 30, 1999.

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

It's been a while since I did any posting on this BB, because of so many of the negative responses I received when I brought up similar subjects earlier this year. It's reassuring to see that finally, more of you have apparently done some research, and discovered that I wasn't as crazy as some of you thought at the time. I've read and followed this thread from 'No More Mr Nice Guy' to here, and I just can't keep still any longer.

I agree 200%+ with everything Niokli & INVAR have stated, it's truly a sad state the US is in today........we've let the NWO ELITE lead us down this path, and now, we are just going to have to pay the fiddler.

It's a VERY UGLY PICTURE, but this is where we are today. However, they will just have to count me among the part of the population decrease, because I will never get thirsty enough to drink from their waters.

-- Sandy Stambaugh (, May 01, 1999.

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

Helen. I don't know what to tell you. Believe me I'm about as little as people come. I don't have the rescources to run from this thing, and more than likely I can't survive it in my present location. I would suggest prayer. The only way this is going to be stopped is if one of these nations regains control of itself and blows Switzerland off the face of the Earth. Even that won't wipe out this nest of vipers, but it will certainly get some of the main players and put a hell of a dent in their financial rescources. So in short it just aint happening.

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

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

Robert, in case you missed it I posted the answer to your trap question at the top of the last post, I know this is getting confusing but I want all of this assembled in one thread so it can be asily printed out. the excellent questions and comments i'm reieving are helping tremendously in clearing up some of the muddy waters. when this line is done I'm going to distribute it to all my friends and get their feedback.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

Saw it - thank you much.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (, May 01, 1999.

And once you sort em out, my e-mail works.



-- chuck, a Night Driver (, May 01, 1999.

'Cause I just got CONFUSED!!

soto voce in background "yeah since 84"


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, May 01, 1999.

Well Nikoli, doesn't there have to (we hope) come a point when somebody says, "Wait a minute. It's one thing to have an executive order here and there -- based on existing structure. It's another thing to just say, "Hey, you do anything you want, you sign your own permission slip, and we'll just override every other existing law and person in the country." " Too much focus on one executive order and not enough focus on ALL of them, and the tone of them the last few years, could be dangerously blind. If the President is allowed to simply write his own prescription for anything in the world that he feels like -- including writing up a prescription to change the government in any way -- then it isn't Clinton burying us, it's whomever allowed that fantastically dangerous "allowance" for executive orders in the first place. I think the question of EO's vs. Constitution *ought* to go to court. I would hope, in a perfect world, the fair answer would hold out. Then again, I am always optimistic after midnight.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, May 01, 1999.

PJ. I would hope that you are right and the Supreme court would throw Clinton out of there on his ass. But. The Supreme court is between a rock and a hard spot. the writers of the constitution never forsaw that the damned congress would willingly give the power of executive orders to the President and so left him very heavy in Treaty power. Then we also have this second amendment thing, which is amazingly coming to a full boil at the same time. What a coincidence. the Supreme court has no out on the second amendment, it is too well documented and too many judicial precedents exist too allow them any latitude in it's interpretation. So Billy is gambling that the court will allow Treaty law to stand by Executive Order so that the liberal justices will have an out on the second amendment. the United Nations is already pressing for worldwide gun control, as in absolute gun control, which would give the president and the court all the authority it needed to abolish the second amendment here. The more I think about this the more it seems that this case will be the whole crux of the thing. If Bill wins the NWO may be convinced they can take The U.S. peacefully. If they lose we get nuked.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

>If Bill wins the NWO may be convinced they can take The U.S. peacefully. If they lose we get nuked.

Now THERE'S a world class definition of "Between a rock and a hard place"

Maybe that's why I have the feeling that I'm about to have my insides mashed out.

-- Greybear (, May 01, 1999.

Greybear, that was a very poor choice of words on my part, from staying up too late no doubt. Substitute legally for peacefully. This scenario would explain the militarization of our police forces and all the urban warfare exercises of late. also the demonization of the christian right and the militias'. If they get the backing of the supreme court they will probably go ahead and outlaw guns, gambling that they have socialized enough of the population to generate a wide support base for such a move. Have you been watching this media blitz on the Columbine killings the last week? I haven't seen anything like this since the assasination of Kennedy. Yes it would be extremely bloody but not nearly as devastating as a nuclear attack from russia.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

I'm done folks. I see no purpose in raising further hysteria on this forum. Most people don't want to know that a ......... Well what the hell you know what I mean. Yall take care, I love you all. Nikoli.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, May 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ