* * * * *
READER’S NOTE: Sections III and IV of The Political Problem have been excerpted and placed below–preceded by the Table of Contents.
If you like what you read, and desire to read more, the entire 216 pages or so may be downloaded and saved as a PDF file, (click the "save" icon in the top left corner of your reader. And it can even be printed out to read when and wherever you please. (The T.V. or computer screen shall never replace the printed page--at least not in my book.)
(Simply click the link to “the PDF page” in the web-site “Contents” frame on your left. And then clck on, download, save, and read whatever files, books and booklets you like.)
* * * * *
* * *
* * * * *
Twin Problems and Solutions, both Political and Economic/Monetary.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Part I: The Present Political Problem, and a Suggested (if not Sheriffic) Solution....................................................................................... 1
I.) The Political Problem of Official, “Legal,” “Authoritative” or “Sacred” Tyranny...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.) Tyrants Reward their Police Dogs with Citizen-Plunder... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.) The Usurpatious Nature and History of Government: Or the Necessity of Keeping Officialdom to a Minimum.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.) On “Our” Peremptory, Usurpatious, Coercive and Predatory “Political Representatives”................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) On Distinguishing Political Servants from Masters........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) On Coercive or Peremptory Political “Representation”.. Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) …and Lovers from Rapists............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) Divine verses Constitutional or Human Rights Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.) On Breaking those (Political) Ties which (Eternally?) Bind Us Body and Soul under Our Official Tyrants and Our “Representative” Enemies... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) Coerced Oaths Can Bind Neither Body nor Mind........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.) “Representative” Tyranny: Uncle Satan’s Acts of “Patriotism” (a.k.a. “Patriot Act(s)”................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) The Supreme Court Strikes (the U.S. Constitution down yet) again!...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) On Combating or Abolishing “Official Immunity”............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) Against the Official Freedom Robbers.............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
E.) Of “Patriotism” both False and True................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) A Tale of Two Fathers (Paters, Paternities, Fraternities & Patriotisms)... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) An Attempted Explanation of Uncle Satan’s Official Son.... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) Conclusion......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
F.) …And of “Unions” False and True....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
II.) On Living in the Real World............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.) The County-Kingdom or City-State..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.) All Else Follows from the LandLord of the Earth: Carving out a Home and/or a City-State thereupon: The Property Question, Issue, Problem....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) God as Landlord?.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) Or Mankind as God and Landlord?.................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) Divine Properties, “Rights” or Liberties Trump Merely Human Ones, So Claim the Former and Decline, Eschew or Spit out the Latter..... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) Recognizing and Escaping the Terrible and Tyrannical Enemy of all Mankind: the “Messianic,” Satanic, “Humanistic” or “Communistic” anti-Christ or “jew”............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.) On Weaponry and Disarmament, Tyranny and Imperialism, Power Balances, Imbalances and Voids........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) Is War and Peace Really Up to You, Me, We?.. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) Against (SuperNational or SuperNazi) Imperialism........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) Beware Tyrannical or Imperial, Intra-National or Super-National Disarmaments (of Intended Victims)............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
b.) The Arms’ Race: Or Checking Tyranny and Imperialism by “Balancing” those Terrifying “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “Mass Murder”................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
c.) Summation...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) Against Intra-National (Official or State) Tyranny........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) On the Eternal Necessity of Self-Defense, and hence of Weaponry..... Error! Bookmark not defined.
b.) On Removing the “Loving,” “Protective,” “Good Shepherd” Mask of the Deceitful, Tyrannical Predator...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
c.) On Spiritually-Disarming the Totalitarian- Communistic- or “Police-State”........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.) A Maximum Argument for a Truly Personal, Inalienable or Divine Right to Own and Carry Arms or Weaponry.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
III.) The Political Problem (Reprise): (our Tyrants’ Officious) “Authority” verses (our little ol’) “Rights”.................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.) “Badges? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges!”.. Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.) It Matters what We Think: So Think “Divine” or “Inalienable” “Rights”..... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.) A Sheriffic Suggestion (at least in my book)....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
IV.) And a Practical Political Solution (via a Sheriffic Suggestion)............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.) Our Official Means to our Common and Self-Serving End(s)... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.) The Official “Discretion” of “Sheriff Nullification” (of Existing Laws)?......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.) The Sheriff’s Purpose, Duty and (Official) Violence.......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
D.) The Sheriff and his Deputies, or a Violent Man and his Dogs Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) And of Foreign or Extra-County Dogs of War, Officious Violence or “Law-Enforcement”.................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) The Citizens’ Open Public “War Against” the State’s Secret “Terrorism” and Official or Governmental Tyranny................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) Our County Sheriffs Verses “Uncle” Satan’s SuperState, Imperial, “Federal” or “U.S. Marshals”............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.) The County Sheriff’s “Posse Comitatus”.......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.) Recapitulation.................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
E.) On Combating and Surviving Bad Sheriffs......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) Sheriff “Referendum and Recall”...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) Disarmament of the Citizenry? (I think not. Or let’s not, and say we did.)........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) The Sheriff’s Official Limitations....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) The Free and Voluntary Association(s) of County Citizens... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.) The Citizens’ Militias......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.) County Conscription?........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
V.) Possible Political Pitfalls of my “Sheriffic” (?) Proposal.. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.) Possible Sheriff Usurpation and Tyranny?......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B.) The False god of Democracy: the Mob or Majority............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
C.) Political Prostitution and Officious Perversion via the Sale or Auction of Elective Public Office(s):...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.) Democracy and the “Representative” Dictatorship of Political Prostitutes........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.) The “Fourth Estate” Possesses (and hence Dominates)All Others.......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.) The “Representative Dictatorship”................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.) The Elective or Democratic Problem of Bought Political Prostitutes (and hence Public Enemies) within Public Office (summation)............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.) And the Elective Solution?................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
a.) Firing Uncle Satan’s F.C.C. and Seizing God’s Airwaves for Ourselves Error! Bookmark not defined.
b.) And the Elective Conclusion.......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.) The Mass-Media Suppression and/or Official Condemnation of My “Democratic” and yet, alas, “Unconstitutional” Sheriff.. Error! Bookmark not defined.
* * * * *
Neither you, nor me, can be both stupid and free. So we all must choose which we’d rather be. For me, I choose truth or “philosophy.” For by wisdom and courage I might just get free. But without these good things a slave I must be. And what’s true for me methinks also for thee. So which, dear reader, would you rather be? A slave in stupidity, or a smart man and free?
the devil, and he will flee from you.”
you’re gonna need some firepower
—at least as much as the Devil’s demon’s got —for to singe their wicked
asses with your righteous buck-shot.
so, “Don’t let ’em take your gun.”
Rampant and violent officiousness or tyranny: That’s the political problem. And its poisonous root and medicinal cure is (believe it or not) spiritual, mental, intellectual, psychological. For what we believe can either save us or damn us. Our political creed can either enslave us or liberate us. It therefore matters a great deal to us and our children (as to our “authorities” and enemies) what we think, believe, assume. And that is precisely why our public enemies in public office very much desire, crave and command us (and our children) to believe in that which damns us mere earthworms under their “holier-than-thou,” “divine,” “royal,” “sacred” or officious feet. And that self-damning belief, or the black heart of that damn creed, is in the allegedly “sacred” “authority” of “our” public or gov’t officials over us (lowly citizen-earthworms).
their coercive gov’t indoctrination called “public education”
—that these state
officials might determine and control us (our minds, our thoughts, and hence
our actions) as the Roman church officials had formerly done. Hence we have
delivered ourselves from “God’s” possession only to become possessed by “
political or state “official” clearly claims to have something which we, dear
reader, do not possess, and would not dream of claiming
—something which he thinks
(or at least pretends) makes him far superior to us —something before which
(he hopes, encourages and demands) we will, should and must bow in humility,
reverence and awe before him and his officious “majesty.” (Should we earthworms
not all stand, bow, kneel or genuflect toward “his honor” whenever “his
[black-robed] majesty” condescends to enter his royal court-room, to judge and
condemn our wicked asses?)
But just what is this mysterious substance, this invisible or something which you or I, dear reader (being just “regular folk”) do not possess and do not claim, and would never (in our innate, natural and characteristic humility) think of claiming? (But this is plainly not so of our pompous “public” officials, though.)
Is this mysterious and superior thing which our political usurpers claim or presume not Godless “divinity” or humanistic “sanctity”? For officiousness (whether divine or human, heavenly or earthly) is essentially “holier-than-thou-ism.”
But Godly souls are neither haughty nor officious. But Satanic souls are nothing if not haughty and officious. For their officiousness is none other than their pompous and sanctimonious claim, presumption and pretension of “sacred” superiority, authority and power over us supposed non-entities. The Godlike are ever-humble, but the Satan-like ever-haughty. For children naturally take after their natural progenitors. (John & :42-45)
But can such angelic meekness, most divine, ever “inherit the earth” from such haughty swine? (Matt. 5:5, 21:33-46 & ) And there’s the eternal rub of that God-damned landlord (and Its demonic spawn) ever demanding their periodic “due” from the disinherited likes of me and you! (Matt. 4:8-11 & 21:33-46)
officious soul or “authoritarian personality” proclaims and assumes a “sacred”
superiority or “authority” over us regular folk
—such that we are by him
accused, “prosecuted,” “tried” and condemned for the “crime” of not perceiving
his self-alleged superiority, of neither crediting nor believing in his pompous
claim of superiority or “authority” over us mere earthworms, and of not obeying
“his lordship’s” every command. Our political “crime” is not worshipping “his
holiness,” or not obeying “his lordship’s” “sacred” decrees, orders or
commandments as they condescend from his authoritarian highness all the way
down to us lowly citizens, his lordship’s would-be political subjects or
And just where, dear reader, did this pompous politician, this state, governmental or political official, acquire this almighty “authority,” this “inviolable” “sanctity” or “divinity” (though he no longer uses that synonym) over me, dear reader, and over thee?
just what is this stuff or substance called “authority”? Where does it come
from? Where does it originate and how does it grow? And how can I get myself
some of this stuff?
—but not to become another officious pompous
ass, nor to join the fascistic, authoritarian or “legislative” herd in
incessantly bellowing out their “inviolable” commands, decrees or “laws,” but
merely to be able to avoid or sidestep their officious droppings condescending
like Satanic manna from their “sacred” (if not “divine”) mount —their “legislative” or
dictatorial “capitol hill”).
where did “our” ruling or political “authorities” get their “authority” over us
in the first place? They say it came from us, but is their total(itarian) “authority” over us not largely their officious
presumption, encroachment and usurpation? And can we non-authorities,
un-officials or mere citizens ever take “our” overlords’ “authority” back to
ourselves, its alleged source, or otherwise acquire some “authority” of our
—again not to lord over
our totalitarian officials, communist dictators or fascistic overlords, but
merely to check, stifle or stop these fascistic or communist dictators, and to
escape their spiritual/political lordship and dominion over us —so that we citizens are
no longer their mental or psychological (and hence political) subjects or
But so long as there are mental children or retards, there shall indeed have parents or authorities. As long as there are willing servants, they shall labor under political masters. As long as there are laymen or citizens, they shall suffer under priests or politicians. And as long as there are unofficials, there shall be officials lording over them. And the latter shall continue to do their very best (or rather worst) to politically exalt themselves over all others, and to reduce or subject them to politically inferior status. For such is “politics,” and such are “politicians.”
But how in hell do we go out of this damn political maze, labyrinth or trap? That is the present political question. What is the political answer?
“For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased;
and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
But need we really grant ourselves “authority”? Or should we instead merely take this “sacred” but insubstantial, ethereal and invisible substance away from our political oppressors? Should we grant ourselves badges of authority? Or should we (via our doubt, disbelief, incredulity and discreditation) merely take these authoritative badges away from “our” usurpatious and oppressive officials who imagine or fancy themselves politically superior to us, and who proclaim their officious or legalistic violence against us to be “sacred” and/or a “crime” to evade or oppose?
For surely no one is better nor worse with or without any badge of authority. For really there is no real magic power residing within the badge (crown, throne, office) itself. But it is only the faith of fools (and the much-holier-than-thou pretensions of badge-bearers ) which makes it seem that badges are magical, divine, sacred or powerful, and that their wearers are superior to all those without them.
Remember the “wizard of Oz,” who pointed out to the “brainless” scarecrow and the “cowardly” lion that they were every bit as wise or brave, good or virtuous as those with certificates, medals, badges or signs publicly proclaiming those very virtues they imagined they lacked (but did not) because they lacked those badges, signs or certificates of virtue? Because they believed in the signs of virtue they could not believe in themselves (without them). Their foolish faith in these outward signs or badges (which the wizard then wisely provided them with) made for (or rather was) their lack of faith in themselves. They had confused the badges or signs of virtue with virtue itself.
And there’s the mystery of the badge, and the political crime of its wearer or bearer. For surely those who most crave, covet and wear signs or badges of virtue, superiority, holier-than-thouness or authority are precisely those who least deserve them. And in this way (unless powerfully opposed, checked or stopped), the very last or least are politically first or foremost within (or rather above) the state or kingdom! (Matt. 19:30; 23:2, :5-7 & Luke 14:8-11) And thus doth Satan’s swine seize the very throne of the one, true King!
methinks true virtue don’t need no stinkin’
badges, copper! And methinks nothing covets nor wears “virtuous” badges more
than Vice Itself! And methinks one must every moment be whatsoever one is
—regardless of what
clothes, accouterments, signs or badges one wears…or scorns to wear. For signs
or “proofs” of virtuous superiority are in fact signs or proofs of superior
vice. Can you see that, dear reader? Virtue is virtue and vice is vice without
wearing signs to that effect. But the former would never wear them, and the
latter would wear no other signs but those pertaining or properly belonging to
I believe I could trust and believe in Zorro before I could the Lone Ranger of
—although both were masked
hombres (usually a bad sign). For the former lacked the
officious badge which the latter proudly wore upon his chest. Yet Zorro
was an outlaw, and the Lone Ranger an inlaw. But
Zorro was also a good man.
just goes to show how the Law is no better nor worse than its dictators,
makers, “legislators”; (it being no more and no less than the deification or
sanctification of their pompous commands); and also how “outlaws” or
“criminals” can indeed be good
—yes even the very best of men.)
O Silver, away!” Does that mean the Lone Ranger’s silver badge loomed high over
little ol’ me and you?) (Yeah, I know Silver was
(also?) the name of the Ranger’s horse, and the superior (because officious?)
metal of his bullets, as well as his battle cry to action as Clayton Moore
reared his fleetfooted Silver high up on his hind
legs, just before those two silver-screened heroes dashed off (with Tonto close behind) to protect the innocent, the
threatened, the defenseless and the oppressed denizens and/or varmints of those
dry and dusty old Hollywood hills
—and all to the rousing accompaniment of the
“William Tell Overture.” Who could ask for more?)
really got nothing against either south-western “defender of the oppressed.”
I’m just making a point, just shooting a metaphoric arrow against the
pretentious mask of officialdom, and against its five-pointed star
—whether silver, gold or
very own star, however, was plastic, and from the local five-and-dime. But I
wore it with pride and authority just the same. Yet try as I might (and with
all my might I tried indeed) I never could find much magic in it. For folks
generally ignored my officious commands. And though I was more than willing to
point to my star, and to issue my orders
generously, and often without (dis-) charge —I usually found to my
chagrin that the general public was less than willing to obey them. And though
perhaps less than humble in my officious self-exaltation, and though perhaps
more willing to fire my six-guns at recalcitrant citizens than to peaceably
discharge my official duties (as I perceived and proclaimed them, mind you), I
could on occasion be understanding, forgiving, and even merciful —yes, even in the dizzying
heights and the brightest of lights of my glorious hour in full, officious
flower. “High O Silver, away!” I’d say, as I’d dash off to officiate yet
another day. (And I ain’t dead yet!)
But how, dear reader, can some badge or other somehow make you better than you are? It plainly, clearly, obviously cannot! The “improvement” is purely imaginary, illusory, fictional, false, deceitful. Can the highest of badges add even an inch to your or my real and true stature? Of course not!
(“Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” ;“and which of you by fretting can add to his height one foot?” (By.); Matt. & Luke )
So what magic, if any, is in this mysterious badge-thing, then? Surely no magic at all, but merely the supreme deceitfulness and pretension of badge-bearers, wearers, flashers (i.e. political officials or “authorities”) on the one hand, and the self-subjection or self-damnation of their political dupes, fools and cowards on the other.
Therefore beware all men (and women) wearing badges of political superiority or official sanctity. For they believe, or at least desire, or rather demand, that you and yours believe that they are thereby far better than you, dear citizen, far superior to you, and far more virtuous than you and yours.
But is this worship of badges, etc. not idolatry, and hence self-damnation (under false gods)? For only God is God, and therefore all other gods or idols (such as badges, thrones, crowns, scepters, offices, etc.) are Godless impostors. What was it Moses commanded against graven images, idols, and the like? And is it not by the dubious “virtue” of his badge of office that the pompous human idol deifies himself? And if to this idol we bend the knee, then what does that make us (or we)?
And foremost among earth’s gods or idols are church and state, and their “divine” hierarchs or “sacred” officials. If we have Historically refused to worship the “pope,” (and we indeed have), why then should we presently agree to worship the “president,” (“parliament,” “supreme court,” etc.)? If “God’s” representatives are not worthy of our worship, reverence or obedience, then how must less are “Man’s” (Mankind’s, Humanity’s, the Majority’s or “the People’s”)? Look not for earthly salvation from men with badges. For they will only officially or “legally” damn you under their cloven hoofs or officious heels. So why willingly, willfully, faithfully, dutifully damn yourself under them as your human gods? They’re not worth it, and you don’t deserve it. Do you? Then don’t!
dear reader, do political badges somehow magically make the wearer or bearer
better than he really and truly is? Or is this merely the political propaganda,
presumption and “superior” pretensions of statesmen?
—who, as you know, are the
historical successors of churchmen, and the imitators of their “religious”
propaganda, presumption and pretensions of superiority or divinity over all
“laymen” or non-clergy. But as “God” fell along with “His” church officials, so
must “Man” fall with “His” state officials, thus leaving us dear readers free
at last to rule ourselves.) (“Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty
we’re free at last!”) For, if you care to (or are “religiously” or
politically-permitted to) read or hear the truth, then “you shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free” (from the “religious” and/or political
lies, deceits and pretensions of your “religious” and/or political oppressors).
Furthermore statesmen, like their churchly predecessors, demand that you and yours act as if their superior pretensions and deceits were actually true. They violently demand that you bend your knee and/or bow your head in worshipful obedience to them as the sacred agents of the god, Man (or Majority). And their “sacred” (“legislative,” “executive” or “judicial”) will is deified or “sanctified” as “Law.”) And woe to all those “criminal” “infidels” who lack sufficient faith in the self-alleged sanctity, superiority or authority of these almighty statesmen! For state officials well know that (aside from their superior firepower, might or coercion) their imaginary superiority or authority is no more nor less than the faith, creed or belief of their political dupes and fools (in them), and hence their power to deceive the public. And hence official or state-censorship, “licensing,” control of all communication, etc., and hence official or state-“prosecution” of thought-, speech-, broadcast-, internet- or publishing- “criminals” (against state-dictated “truth”). And nothing is more “true” than the state itself, and also the righteousness, the superiority, the authority, superiority and sanctity of statesmen! Is this not true?
Just witness the mighty pride and majesty of the almighty “state-trooper” upon his state-highway! Who is there among the citizenry who would not willingly, fearfully, worshipfully bow the head or bend the knee toward his sanctimonious majesty? Let us pray!
Thus badges of (political) authority or superiority add not an inch of stature to their proud or pompous bearers. And yet such badges are proudly, even haughtily, worn, and are jealously guarded by their bearers, and are avidly sought, prized and coveted. But by whom? and why? Is it not still true today, as always, that stilts are most coveted by midgets, false height or artificial stature by the shortest or pettiest of souls, and self-exaltation or “authority” and all other types of public honors by the very least deserving, most inferior and petty minds?
who evince a far greater craving or need to lord over all other earthly souls
than the Devil and Its kindred? Or what soul has greater desire or need to
exalt himself above all others than the demonic,
tyrannical or “authoritarian” personality?
—for which the spiritual
or psychological weapon of “divinity” or “sanctity” (and hence his
sanctimonious (if not blasphemous) deceit and pretension) has always been his
most coveted, prized and sought-after means to his end, his political
self-exaltation over all others, his subjects.
are very much concerned and involved in their subjects’ “education” or
indoctrination in the “sanctity” (if not “divinity”) of their tyranny
—as verbally mislabeled
and disguised by whatever euphemism. (Hence “civics.”)
For tyrants well know there is no violent need by the bloody sword to force to
their knees foolish or credulous souls whose idolatrous, foolish and ruinous
faith in “sacred” swords (crowns, offices, badges, etc.) causes them to voluntarily kneel in spiritual,
psychological and political humility and subjection before the
self-“sanctified” possessors, wielders, bearers of those very “sacred” objects.
So to idolize or worship a throne (crown, office or badge) is to cast yourself beneath it, to subject yourself to it, and to worship and obey as if a god whatsoever sits upon it, be It the Devil Itself. It this not so? And so is this not where the worship or idolatry of political office or badges must perforce lead us? But do we want to go there, dear readers? And/or must we? Let’s hope not. For that way lies tyranny.
Again, it is the very least worthy among us who most desire to be placed above us. And so our will to be free of would-be tyrants must be even greater than their “will to power,” their all-consuming craving to lord over us. And that’s extremely fierce indeed. And yet our opposition must be even fiercer to survive them, and their spiritual brothers and allies, and their well-paid mercenaries, lackeys and underlings. But who shall make these “first” “last,” and hence ourselves free, if not, dear reader, you and me? (Matt. 19:30)
himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth
himself shall be exalted.”
So political (or “religious”) badges are signs of (alleged) superiority, divinity, sanctity, authority. And surely “authority” is no earthly thing. For (like dwarves or dragons, unicorns or leprechauns) I myself have yet to find upon this earth this elusive thing called “authority.” (Perhaps it yet still lurks or lingers atop mount Sinai, or in some temple/church/mosque or other…and perhaps not. I haven’t been there lately. Have you?)
if this “authority” or sanctity” is merely some airy or ethereal thing, merely
some mental or psychological thing, some creature or creation of our thought,
belief or faith, (as are our (or anyone else’s) “rights,” e.g.), then where
—(other than their might to compel us, of
course). And again that’s why state, official or political “authorities” are so
much involved in “public education,” i.e. their indoctrination or subjection of
minds, souls and hence bodies (under the “sacred” “authority” of these very
“authorities”). Thus do we mental-midgets, by our very ruinous faith or belief
in the authority, sanctity or superiority of our officious tyrants (or
tyrannical officials), thus do we condemn ourselves mentally, spiritually or
psychologically (and hence politically) to be political earthworms under the
“sacred” hooves of “our” political “authorities.”
But can we foolish granters of “authority” never take back the authority which we foolishly, mindlessly, stupidly bestowed upon our political superiors and oppressors? How? How else but by ceasing to believe in this imaginary and “sacred” thing, and hence by ceasing to breath our spiritual or mental life into this monstrous “golem”? For without our doubt or disbelief in the “authority” of tyranny, we cannot even begin to defend ourselves from our political “superiors,” our “authorized” enemies, and our public enemies enthroned in “public office.”
For as the cart must follow the horse, the body can only follow where the mind leads. Therefore if we permit our tyrannical “authorities” to do our thinking for us (via “public education,” state media-monopoly, official censorship, criminalization of speech, etc.) then surely both our minds and bodies are self-damned. (“Self-damned” I say! For we ourselves must take charge and responsibility for all we think, as well as say and do.) And if our minds are self-deceived, -entrapped, -enslaved, so therefore are our bodies. And so wherever we mentally, spiritually, psychologically are, there we stand.
But must we forever remain within this political hell wherein our (spiritual, political, bodily and racial) enemies have cast us? Or have we power enough to think ourselves out of our political constriction and self-damnation? Let’s hope so. And let’s have liberating discourse among ourselves, encouraging and instructing each other in the way of true freedom, self-development and prosperity. For what we earthly spirits believe or disbelieve can and will free or enslave us, save or condemn us, here and now upon this earth, and therefore also our earthly, fleshy or bodily houses, shells or remainders.
What you yourself think is immeasurably more important and influential to your life and well being than what I myself think, dear reader. (For surely no one has more impact on you than you yourself: the thinker of your every thought.) And what you think, assume, believe or value can save or damn you, liberate or enslave you. So whether you know it or not, dear reader, it very much matters to you what you think. So think smart, self-provident, self-beneficial.
I think both you and I need rights far beyond the reach of any “public” or
political official, far beyond any humanist, communist, would-be tyrant, or any
man whatsoever. And so I suggest you and I claim divine rights. For divine
trumps human any old day, as surely as God trumps Man or Humanity. And so God’s
(and hence your own) divine rights supersede Man’s human rights. And so any man
(yes even Man himself
—whoever he is) who denies or disrespects
your divine rights becomes an evil opponent or demon in your eyes, and hence
someone you are psychologically capable of fighting or defending yourself
And when you’ve got divine rights, you’ve got something priceless, and something truly “inalienable,” and yet something immaterial, ethereal, spiritual, unearthly, a thing of faith…if only you will believe, and thus grant yourself such superior rights, and thus spiritually and politically bless and free yourself. Then you can say to the humanist or communist politician or spider who lures and traps human flies with his (political) promises, and who (kindly, disinterestedly?) offers to politically bless and empower you with his “human rights,” “No thanks. You keep your rights. I’ve got my own, and far better rights.”
Beware humans bearing or bestowing political or “human” rights. For they are barbed with hidden costs, mind you, and are be perpetually paid for by your endless political “duties” to your political “benefactors.” For the flip-side of “rights” are “duties” to whatever god, man or idol who bestows them (upon his subjects). Or who else do you accept (political) rights from but from some higher or greater power than yourself, some (political) lord or authority?
(“Moma may have. Papa may have.” [accepted
crooked rights and other barbed crumbs from crooked, crafty, wily politicians
—Ed.] “But God bless the
child who can stand up and say, ‘I’ve got my own.’”)
Remember it was our forefathers’ foolish faith in the “prerogatives” or superior rights of political officials or tyrants which made them their political subjects or slaves. And there’s the rub, and the yoke, and the political lesson for you and yours, dear reader, to make damn sure that any political office you might ever create (however “divine,” “sacred” or “human”) might never exalt itself over you, its creator, and hence subject or enslave you or your descendants. To remain free you must forever retain and never concede or surrender the creative political power (to create and destroy all political or “public” office). And so all political office must serve to liberate or further you and your loved ones, or else be politically damned, dethroned and destroyed by you, its official creator, master, owner, and eventual destroyer. And that goes double, dear reader, for my proposed county sheriff’s office.
American rebels had the right idea in claiming “inalienable” (because God-given
and hence divine) rights. They wisely and craftily opposed the “divine right[s]
of kings” with divine rights of their very own, and only thus could they
possibly psychologically (and hence politically or materially) oppose or fight
the “divinely”-enthroned or -appointed king of
—(i.e. in this
case, officialdom, gov’t, tyranny, personal and political powerlessness).
And so we see when folks forget what things are for, or which are ends and which are means, or which is political servant and which is master, then they are in deep spiritual or psychological trouble. And physical or political trouble can’t be far behind. Hence such spiritually/politically lost folks need to return to basic and self-provident truths, like divine or inalienable rights. They need to become political fundamentalists. Hence this book.
It matters what we think. It matters what we believe. For all else follows therefrom, as surely an inevitably as conclusions must follow from their premises. (E.G., if all races are equal, indistinguishable, interchangeable, then…? If it’s all the same (to you) if your state’s token-monopoly-money be debt- or debt-free (token-money), then…? etc.) Our thinking can bless us or damn us. It can set us free or condemn us (under delusions, false “principles,” false gods, sanctities or officials). Was it not our wrong or misguided thinking which led us down into this present political mess? For the body must inevitably follow the mind as the cart does the horse.
liberate your mind and your body will follow. Without internal or spiritual
freedom (born of (spiritual) courage and truth
—what else?) no soul nor body can ever be free. Freedom of mind or spirit
is a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for freedom of body, a.k.a.
political freedom. One may be mentally free while bodily imprisoned. But a
mentally bound man is always imprisoned (within and under his delusions,
falsehoods, lies). “And you shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) Free from what? What else but from
falsehoods, delusions, lies and their liars, their perpetrators and benefactors —i.e. free from your
mental and physical (or your spiritual and political) deceivers, myth-makers
(see “Hollywood”), enemies, oppressors, persecutors and/or enslavers.
(See e.g. the “jewish” slave-state of “humanism” or “communism” wherein “jews” are “humans” or “gods,” and Gentiles are “animals,” “goyim” or “cattle.” And see George Orwell’s Animal Farm, lorded over by officious, communistic pigs or swine, and hence by you-know-who.)
freedom of speech is forever necessary to speak, write, hear or read truth.
Otherwise truth is forever officially outlawed, censored, silenced, persecuted,
murdered, crucified. And so this freedom, “right” or
power to speak and to hear is truly a priceless freedom, “right” or power. And
so it must never, ever be surrendered
—even for a moment. For the moment truth is
most needed is the very moment it is most hated, combated, oppressed, censored,
silenced, murdered, crucified…by (who or what else?) the murderous powers or
children of Darkness, deceit, falsehood and lies? (John 8:44)
who else would demand truth’s surrender? or outlaw the
only road which leads to truth?
—i.e. freedom of speech,
debate, publication? Who else (for fear of truth) would censer other
minds or silence other mouths? For lies to be maintained, undisproved,
undispelled, they must be carefully protected from
the truth, as Darkness from Light must always be. And Truth, like Light,
exposes not only lies, but also their liars, creators, fathers, perpetrators,
maintainers, beneficiaries. (John 8:44) And how can lies (which serve, further
and prop up liars) stand perpetually in “authority” if truth is to be forever
left free to release souls entrapped mentally, thus corroding all pedestals of
And freedom is always a matter of degree (of our escape from whatever we disagree or must flee.)
there is no God but God, and that all other gods are therefore false, and all
other worshippers or devotees therefore idolatrous. The gods, therefore, of
Church and State, of Majority and Humanity, of Law and Constitution (though
great and mighty gods
—due to the foolish faith placed in these
lifeless idols) are false gods which cannot save man, but can (and have)
damn-well damned man.
who would be free of man and his kind must simply place his rights beyond every
man’s grasping reach
—and that especially means all officials —the most pompous of men,
and also the electorate or “majority” of voters. We need rights no enemy, no
attorney, no politician, no humanist, no communist, no snake and no would-be
tyrant can take away from us —hence truly “inalienable” rights.
As God trumps man, so divine rights trump human rights.
therefore suggest we claim divine rights. (Let he who can say better, please
say better.) I suggest we claim, profess, internalize and religiously/politically
believe in (and hence covetously and fanatically defend) these our divine
—which no mere man nor
“official” can rightly take away from us, and of which only a demonic man (or
“official”) would even try to deprive us.
for a moment the priceless value of divine rights: rights which no god nor man,
official, electorate nor majority can ever (rightly
—in your eyes) take away
from you —not even for a moment,
not even in times of greatest state, political or social “emergency.” For
precisely then you need your divine and (hence truly inalienable) rights most of all.
would you be willing, dear reader to pay for such priceless rights or powers?
And yet you essentially give yourself these invaluable things of God
—(or at least accept them
from Him) —via your thinking, your
belief, your faith (in Him, and them, and yourself, and these
your divine rights).
(And there have been no recent credible reports of the mighty hand of God breaking through the clouds to demand His divine rights back from any earthly souls who falsely presumed or claimed, or (like fire) stole God’s divine rights from Him.
And if the English king or the pompous pope can safely claim God’s divine rights to do so and so, without being struck down by a divine bolt of Lightning from the heavens, how much easier can you or I proclaim counter-rights to live free?
For that is precisely what the American rebels did. And thus they thereby showed all other political rebels the way to self-liberation from “divine” tyranny. They simply countered, opposed and conquered the “divine right(s) of kings” with their own divine rights, or the divine rights of citizens. This was the spiritual battle of powerful words, ideas and claims which accompanied and invigorated the historic battle of swords, rifles and cannon.)
so the king fell with his “divine right” (to rule his subjects). But in his
place rose the Godless, atheist politician or
—who now, if you notice, sits upon his
presidential throne with more power than the king ever had. (And so “Out of the
frying pan, and into the fire.” Or out of the mire,
and into the quagmire.)
And so men escaped “God’s” “divines” only to fall prey to “Man’s” “humanes.” (Bummer!) Out of one tyranny came another, one “divine” and the other “human.”
For like the “divine” king, but on the other or “human,” hand, the communist or humanist wants you, dear citizen, to accept your rights as gifts from him to you, so he can then take them away from you and back to himself, their alleged or imaginary source. The humanist, like the king, wants you to believe that your (“human”) rights and properties are all gifts from him to you, and from none other than him, such as God. For this claim professes the atheist, humanist or communist to be the proprietor of all, as was the king in his day. And again the communist makes this “divine” claim of world proprietorship so he can at any time take “his gifts” to you away from you, and back to himself, as his very own rights, powers or properties. (For “the lord gives, and the lord takes” his property back to himself. Bummer!) And this is precisely the “Indian-giving” method of “jewish” communism or humanism.
communist or humanist wants to take the place of God, and thus to become your
god, and thus to annul your divine rights (which are your God’s gifts to you,
and which you faithfully take, accept and defend
—Who says religion is not
selfish?) and to replace them with his human rights” (which are this Godless
and pompous humanist’s “gifts” to you).
beware humanists or communists bearing gifts. For the flip-side of “rights” as
“gifts” from pompous humans (such as kings) are “duties” as perpetual payments
or rents for those alleged “gifts.” For communist- or humanistic-granted
“rights” or “mays” are conditionally attached to
(communist or humanistic) duties, commands or “musts.” A foreign or alien
“right” or “permit” is a “may,” but a “duty” is a “must”
—by which you pay for the
former “rights” (of life, liberty, property, etc.). And as with the old king,
you, “comrade-citizen,” are allowed to use the “communist’s” property only so
long as you serve him to his satisfaction, or only so long as he permits you to
use his property. For within his
humanistic or “jewish” mythology, the communist alone is proprietor. And thus
the communist or “jew” wants to own or enslave his Gentile subjects or
“comrades” like some king of old, or some demonic god.
the Godless, atheist, humanist, “jewish” communist is extremely covetous and
jealous of his “sacred” (if not “messianic”) proprietorship, lordship or godness. And thus he tolerates no other god (and especially
not the real McCoy) to stand before
him (within his self-deifying mythology, temples and institutes: i.e. his
parliaments, soviets, courtrooms, schools, books, media, etc.). And much less
will the “jew” tolerate the real and true God to stand above him (within your or your children’s hearts and minds, e.g.).
It is not enough for the Godless “jew” that there is nothing above him (within
his Satanic mythology or religion). But the
anti-Christ demands to be your “God” as well! For like the god of Moses, the Satanic “jew” tolerates no god to stand before him and his
—(much less above him). (Exodus 20:3) (But no “Hebrew” nor “jew” was ever truly a match for Moses the
Egyptian. Can you dig it/him? I knew that you couldn’t.)
(Hence the communists, humanists or “jews” outlaw and “prosecute” your wife’s home-schooling of your Gentile youngsters, e.g., in favor of their coercive, Godless, governmental, “jewish” indoctrination of your children (a.k.a. “public schooling”). Like Linda Blair, this official or gov’t indoctrination is intended to possess and to turn your children’s heads (minds, hearts and spirits) against you and your God, dear parents, and toward these self-deified communists, and toward their “sacred” (if not “divine”) throne, authority, gov’t and state, and finally toward their “sacred” commands to you and yours (to perpetually and thanklessly sacrifice, live, work and die for them and their “messianic” or Satanic, imperialist, supernational or SuperNazi cause). (See e.g. “public education” within the Satanic or “jewish” “Soviet” or “Amerikan” “Unions.”)
so these Godless human(istic) demons of Satan would
have you and yours believe that all the world, and all the land, and all the
air and water, and all the creatures (and especially the humans or Gentiles)
are theirs and theirs alone, but that they will “graciously” share these good
things of the earth (which they have robbed from the one, true God Whom they
have always denied, indeed crucified) with you and yours in exchange for your
lifelong worship, loyalty and service to them
—precisely as Moses (or
Moses’ god —if you insist) likewise
“covenanted” with his followers.
though the atheist, humanist, communist or Satanist “jew is no Moses, yet he,
(like his father the Devil
—John 8:44) desires no less than to be God
Himself, and to perpetually own and control God’s world-kingdom, and to forever
occupy His throne. (Can you see how this demonic spawn is exactly like his
father, Satan?) And to make his intended “messianic” or Satanic world-kingdom
come true, the Satanic “jew,” the demonic spawn of his demonic progenitor, will
gladly again and again and again murder the one, true Proprietor,
(what-His-name?), whom the anti-Christ “jew,” now as always, craves to
dethrone, dispossess and usurp as “God” on earth. (Matt. 21:33-46) And has this
not always be so? (Matt. 23:27-39) For truly the
Devil’s spirit and seed yet lives and lurks within the Devil’s spawn. (John
beware, Gentiles, and defend yourselves. Look at what these anti-Christs did to
the Slavs within and during their “
does not “bite the hand that feeds” him. One is not psychologically quick to
defend his rights from the source and giver (or rather lender) of one’s
(received or foreign) rights, properties, etc.
—whether that source be
God, one’s king, one’s parents, or the humanists or communists. But one is psychologically capable and willing
to defend his “divine rights” against any man or group of men who try to
deprive him of them —and who therefore become demons in his eyes
for attacking his divine rights, and hence his God.
only those who truly and faithfully believe in God (and hence their divine
rights) will fight their Godless enemies like the Devil fights them. And only
thus can they survive the assaults of the Devil and Its children: Satanic
“jews,” communists and humanists
—wolves in sheep’s and shepherd’s clothing.
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)
but you’re gonna need some firepower
—and at least as much firepower as the
Devil’s “humanistic” demons possess, wield, brandish and fire against you and
yours. (So “Don’t let ’em take your gun.” —Frank Zappa)
earthly power of the Devil and Its human demons is real indeed, but is Satan’s
“sanctity” or “sacred authority” real and true, or false and fictional? Evil’s
“sacred authority” is real and true, but only to those who worship the Devil,
only to Its self-damned devotees. For “sanctity” or
“authority” (like “rights”
—whether divine, human or constitutional) are
imaginary things which exist only in the mind of believers. And therefore I
say, your faith, beliefs or creed can either save or
damn you, liberate or enslave you. So watch what you think, believe, assume.
And what of Evil’s “divine,” “sacred,” “constitutional” or “human” “rights”? Are they real? Or are they merely fictions within deceived and/or demonic minds? And how about the “rights” of Mankind, or of the Church, the State or the Government? And yet all these earthly idols say precisely the same about you and your God-given rights, dear reader, which these false gods imperiously disparage and deny as imaginary fictions within your head. (For no two gods can occupy the very same space. Therefore choose one, or yourself.)
if God is not God, then how much less then is Man or Mankind? (Infinitely less, methinks.) If God has no “authority” worthy of our
submission, deference or obedience, how much less has even the highest human
official? (Infinitely less, no?) If God’s authority is
nothing, if God has no sanctity nor superiority worthy
of His command or our obedience, how much infinitely less has Man, Mankind,
Humanity or even the almighty Majority?
—those far lesser gods
from which our alleged “authorities” claim to derive their “sacred authority”
over us, and our “sacred duty” to obey them —as if God, or our
“humanistic” gods. (But let’s not, and say we did.)
Again, beware of politicians bearing “gifts.” And beware of humanists granting “rights.” Beware of wolves disguised as shepherds, and takers as givers. For the flip-side of political “rights” are political “duties.” The former are “mays,” but the latter are “musts.” And the latter are endless payments for the former. The politician comes down from his parliamentary or presidential mount not so much to graciously “grant” us “our” “rights,” as to secretly, craftily, cunningly burden us with “our” “duties” (to him, the politician). For again the former are to be paid for by the latter.
But if you already possess and enjoy your very own and
“inalienable” rights, dear reader, then you need not buy, earn or rent “rights”
from any man, god, beast or demon. And thus you are in a spiritual, mental or psychological
position to say to every self-alleged bearer, granter, seller or leaser of
“rights” (whether “human,” “constitutional” and/or “legal”) :
“No thanks, you pompous, sanctimonious ass! Keep your God-damned ‘human
rights’! I’ve got my own rights, and divine rights, and far better rights than
you and your crafty, deceitful and predatory kind could ever dream of! So go
‘bless’ yourself with your ‘rights’ instead of me and
mine. And besides, pompous ass, who gave you the right to presume to grant me
not I. But if you will instead accept your “human rights” as gifts from
me to you, then I hereby graciously grant them you. Now take your ‘human
rights’ and depart from me and mine. For I see through your ensnaring
methodology. And I reject your humanistic mythology. So go fish elsewhere for
even bigger fools than I.”
Thus the atheist, humanist or communist official or politician is a deceitful wolf in shepherd’s clothing who comes not to give but to take, and not to serve but to be served, and to dominate and prey upon the unwise and unwary, or upon his political dupes or fools. For the politician is often a professional liar, like a lawyer or a B.A.R. (“British Accredited Registry”) “attorney.” And more often than not, the former is also the latter. (So go figure.)
“office” (like “authority” or “rights”) not a creature of the mind, of faith,
of belief? And must we then forever believe in these illusions, fictions, lies
and political idols of ours? Can’t we help ourselves? Can’t we ever stop
ourselves from exalting and enthroning tyrants in offices far above our
miserable selves? nor from masochistically
Is “office,” like “law,” not a mere creature of the mind of man? Is “Office” not our “sacred” creature which we have madly exalted into an idol far above ourselves? (I’d much prefer a golden calf, myself, but maybe that’s just me.) But can we never stop or overcome our ruinous idolatry? And must we forever forget which is means and which is end, which is master and which is servant, and for whose benefit such “sacred” idols were originally imagined, created or fabricated in the first place? But the officious creatures of office have long ago run away with their dumfounded creators tucked tightly under their officious arms. What is the remedy? What is to be done? How can we possibly liberate ourselves from this runaway tyranny of office, or all this officious tyranny?
But (since we are perhaps not mature enough to dispense with the false sanctity of office altogether, and since we desperately need protection from the enthroned, reigning and raging gods or idols of office: “president,” “parliament,” “supreme court,” etc.), why not create and employ an office of our very own against all other offices, a badge of our own against all other badges, an authority against all other authorities, a sanctity against all other sanctities, an idol against all other idols, a monster against all other monsters? Is this suggestion, dear reader, too great an irony to swallow? Then let he who can say better please do so, and quickly. For the almighty, tyrannical and violent gods of office are even now battling down our besieged doors.
For, as long as office (our creature which has since turned
violently, viceously oppressively and tyrannically
against us) shall be suffered by its creators to exist, we shall desperately
need something or someone (besides our unofficial and hence self-profaned
selves) to protect and defend us all from this “sacred” violence of office, of
authority, of government.
So why not create an office to protect us from office?
—our very own
Frankensteinian creature to defend us against all the official Frankensteinian
For, make no mistake, all “government” is coercion and violence: organized, legalized, official, “sanctioned” and “sacred” or “sanctified” violence, perhaps, but violence nonetheless. This has always be so, and always shall, as long as fish shall swim and birds shall fly or men shall attempt to coerce or “govern” other men. And so why, dear reader, is it OK for a gov’t official to rob your property, to abduct and imprison you, or even to kill you, but not for me to do such violence to you, or you to me? Because we lack this magical badge of sanctity or superiority which the official possesses and wields over us both? Because we have no earthly power to help ourselves to this invisible, ethereal, otherworldly and heavenly substance called “authority” or “sanctity”? If so, then we must suffer the political consequences, or pay the price of this spiritual or intellectual impoverishment.
And so the official’s violence against you (or me) is a “sacred” violence, and therefore an evil or “crime” for us to oppose or evade…and not only for ourselves but for all other political fools who foolishly and ruinously believe in the state official’s “sanctity” or Godness, and who thus spiritually, masochistically, ruinously damn themselves under his officious heel, and who thereby render themselves his mental and physical subjects, even slaves. For such is the earthly or political self-damnation of all self-damning bodies and souls who harbor foolish faith in the “sacred,” “divine,” “royal” or “Godly” office, badge, and superiority of state officials.
the king’s child sets himself above other children [or the state official over other
—Ed.], even this is his act, which secures to him the [political —Ed.] precedence; and that the other children approve and recognize this act
is their act, which makes them worthy to be —subjects. [Max, p.
He who, to hold his own, must count on the absence of will in others is a thing made by these others, as the master is a thing made by the servant. If submissiveness ceased, it would be all over with lordship. [Max, p. 196]
Then let us let our submissiveness cease. And let’s stop making or exalting tyrannical overlords to oppress us with their “sacred” violence.
And this political or official violence of our Godless masters, being “sacred,” is therefore not called what it really is, (as is your violence against me or mine against you), but is given sacred, names (by state officials, as repeated by us, their foolish victims) intended to cloak, conceal, perfume and excuse what it really and truly is: naked violence and coercion. Thus the “sacred” robbery of the political official (i.e. the state’s or the gov’t) is not called robbery but “taxation,” “seizure,” “confiscation,” “forfeiture,” etc. And all “sacred” or official abduction is similarly as “arrest,” “detention” or “custody”; official imprisonment as “sentencing,” “detention,” “correction,” “penitence” or “service”; and official murder as “execution.” (Ouch!)
And not surprisingly, almost no one has greater faith in the superiority of the state official, and in the sacredness of his violence (against us poor down trodden earthworms), and in the sanctity of his office, than the state or gov’t official himself. For his political faith serves, furthers, flatters, empowers, authorizes and even sanctifies him. And this is not unusual, for many others tend to believe that which best suits, flatters, serves, furthers, promotes and profits them. (See e.g. “royalty” or “God’s chosen people.” And once again we see wherein religiousness and selfishness conspire together as one and the same pious pretension.)
After all, the clergy or churchmen had earlier possessed the same kind of faith (in themselves), and thereby wielded the same kind of “sacred” violence (against laymen). But statesmen grew to lack faith in the churchmen’s self-alleged divinity, sanctity, authority and superiority, and hence also in their sacred violence. And so after (and via) his spiritual, mental or psychological self-liberation, the statesman then had (spiritual, mental or psychological) power (of mind or will) to resist and to overthrow the violence of the churchmen with (what else?) his very own.
And so the statesman usurped the churchman’s place, his sanctity, his authority, his superiority, his pretension, his office or throne and his sacred violence. (He dropped the silly hat.)
But if “God” (and His violence) is not sacred, how much less are the lesser gods (and greater violences of) Man, the Majority, or Humanity?
Why do we tolerate violence from the statesman which we would oppose in the churchman? Because we believe in the Godless god (and hence the sanctity) of the former, but not of the latter? Or because we believe the latter is a demonic impostor (of God and His divine authority)?
Again and as always, liberation begins in the mind; the body will naturally and inevitably follow.
To cite only one thing, the
government has been disparaged on account of its resorting to forcible means
against thoughts, interfering against the press by means of the police power of
the censorship, and making a personal fight out of a literary one. As if it were solely a matter of thoughts, and as if one’s attitude toward thoughts must be
unselfish, self-denying, and self-sacrificing! Do not those thoughts attack the
governing parties themselves, and so call out egoism? And do the thinkers not
set before the attacking ones the religious
—to wit, that they are
possessed by their ideas.
Against thoughts no egoistic power
is to appear, no police power and the like. So the believers in thinking
believe. But thinking and its thoughts an not sacred
to me, and I defend my skin
…Here too the result is this, that the fight of the thinkers against the
government is indeed in the right, namely, in might
—so far as it is carried
on against the government’s thoughts (the government is dumb,
and does not succeed in making any literary rejoinder to speak of), but is, on
the other hand, in the wrong, to wit, in impotence, so far as it does not
succeed in bringing into the field anything but thoughts against a personal
power (the egoistic power stops the mouths of the thinkers). The theoretical
fight cannot complete the victory, and the sacred power of thought succumbs to
the might of egoism. Only the egoistic fight, the fight of egoists on both
sides, clears up everything.
[Max, p. 148-49]
But when we freemen (and women) shall at last and inevitably think, desecrate and dispose of the statesman’s sanctity or authority as the statesman did the churchman’s, then we too shall be self-freed from both gods or idols of church and state, and from the “sacred” violence of both types or sets of “sacred” officials, both the “divine” and the “human.”
But let us not then usurp the statesman’s sanctity or authority. And let us politically tolerate no one (short of God Himself) who would do so, i.e. who would dominate us and our properties as some “sacred” lord or other, or would impose his “sacred duties” upon us.
let us permit no one to assume divinity or sanctity over us. Or more precisely,
let us laugh, scorn and, if necessary, defend ourselves against any
But let us freemen rather deal with one another as who and whatsoever we are. And let us no longer perfume or excuse our coertions or violence among ourselves with sanctimonious claims of sanctity or divinity. For whatever we shall desire or demand (however angelic, demonic, mediocre or human) we ourselves shall desire or demand. We will have what we will have. Let’s leave it at that, and leave all sanctimonious pretensions well behind us. Let us move on from the “sacred” State, Society or Humanity to our profane “union” and selfish or egoistic “free-association.”
union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and
especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to State and
society life) admit of being considered as “a new liberty”; but nevertheless it
will still contain enough of unfreedom and
involuntariness. For its object is not this liberty (which on
the contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only ownness
—Ed.]. Referred to this, the difference
between State and union is great enough. The former is an enemy and murdered of
ownness, the latter a son and co-worker of
it; the former a spirit that would be adored in spirit and in truth, the latter
my work, my product; —in short, the State is sacred...;but the union is my own creation, my creature, not
sacred, not a spiritual power above my spirit, as little as any association of
whatever sort. As I am not willing to be a slave of my maxims, but lay them
bare to my criticism without any warrant,
and admit no bail at all for their persistence, so still less do I obligate
myself to the union for my future and pledge my soul to it, as is said to be
done with the devil, and is really the case with the State and all spiritual
authority; but I am and remain more
…a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully
and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further.... a union is only your instrument... the union exists for you and through you,
the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without
you; in short, the society is sacred,
the union your own;
The complete Title of this Chapter is: A Practical Political Solution (via a Sheriffic Suggestion): Checking Rampant and Tyrannical Officiousness with an Elective, Local, Subordinate and Short-Leashed “Public” Official (or Monster) of Our Very Own
is no political solution to our troubled evolution.”
(Yet perhaps the county sheriff or citizenry might politically disagree. We’ll see.)
Only counter-power can check or stop power. Only unofficial or citizen power can possibly check official or tyrannical power. Only “profane” power can possibly check “sacred” power. Only our “profane” power can possibly check or stop the “sacred” power of our over-armed officials, masters, “protectors” or tyrants.
trade away our freedom(s) for security? or, more
precisely, for the mere promise of
safety or security? (And would a would-be tyrant ever promise his would-be
subjects anything less?
—much less ever promise, confess or reveal
what political evils he truly intends to inflict upon them).
And if we ever did trade in our liberties (to political, state or gov’t officials) for greater safety or security, how then should we ever get our liberties back? Liberties, once lost, are most difficult and costly to regain. Far better then to retain or maintain them, then ever lose and have to regain them.) He who trades in his liberty for safety loses both eventually, or ends up with neither. Bummer!
And besides, why should we freemen or citizens hire gunmen, mercenaries, killers, trained killers or “standing armies” to protect and defend us? Are we crippled in body or mind? Are we children, retards or invalids? And if we ever did so, would we not thereby degrade ourselves into second-class citizens under far higher and “holier-than-thou” officials? Where would that leave us, dear readers? Or what would be our political prospects then and there?
But if and when you insist on always defending yourself, you thereby escape this constant, lurking possibility, indeed eventuality, of “official” betrayal, treachery, usurpation, tyranny. Do you see?
again, did tyranny ever promise to bring tyranny? If so,
then where and when? Or did tyranny not rather always promise security
—whether at its genesis or beginning, middle
or end? And yet, unless it were stopped or dethroned in time, tyranny never
yet failed to deliver itself. And yet tyranny never once promised to deliver
what it in fact delivered, but the contrary. (So go figure!) But should we
be that the Devil
and Its kindred always promise political salvation upon this “their” earth
or worldly-kingdom (Matt. 4:8-11), and yet never fail to deliver the exact
opposite? (See e.g. the “jews’” “communism,” their “
And how did and must tyrannies always end but by violence? For it is by violence (and lies) that tyranny arises, and reigns, and hence must eventually fall. Tyranny can only be overcome by the very violence which maintains or sustains it. Is this not so? And has this not always been so?
When we consecrate the violence of another, we thereby desecrate our own, and thereby make subject ourselves to that very “sacred” or “official” violence (force, coercion, compulsion, etc.). In order to even think of overthrowing the “divine” violence of that “tyrannical” British king George, e.g., his American subjects first had to “desecrate” his “divine right of kings” (to own and oppress them), and to consecrate their very own “divine right” (to own and to govern themselves: to self-ownership, self-liberation, life, liberty, property, weaponry, freedom of association, etc.). They opposed their “royal” oppressor’s “divine” rights with their very own, and hence they armed themselves spiritually to physically revolt or overthrow the British. The “right” spiritual premise was altogether necessary (but insufficient) for the political conclusion.
thus these dead, old American rebels have shown us moderns the way to mental
and physical (spiritual and political, psychological and actual)
self-liberation. We must, like the old rebels, simply oppose, nullify and
replace the “right(s)” of our political oppressors with our very own. We must
retract or deny the “sacred” (i.e. “divine,” “human” or “constitutional”)
“right” of our political oppressors to oppress us. And we must grant ourselves
the (“divine,” inalienable or inviolable) “right” not to be oppressed (by them, or any others). We must first
desecrate the “sacred” violence of our “official” oppressors or tyrants
—(who, if you notice, no
longer even claim or pretend to be of or from God, but are merely the “sacred”
agents of the false gods or idols of Majority Will, Humanity, Law,
Constitution, Parliament, President, Nation, Empire, or what-have-you?) Thus we
must oppose and hence obliterate the mere “human” rights of our tyrants with
our very own “divine” rights. Thus as surely as God trumps Man, our spiritual
(mental, psychological) battle is won even before it’s begun, and what is left
is merely the earthly or political war or battle.
(But to refuse to worship the false and ancient gods of imperial Rome was as “criminal” and as dangerous to the truly faithful, Godly soul as is refusing to worship the false, secular, Godless gods of e.g. the modern, SuperNazi, “jewish”-Amerikan empire.)
As long as we must continue to think, speak and believe in “rights” and other secular “sanctities,” we must make damn sure they are our own spiritual properties, and henceforth never again allow or suffer them to fall into the hands of our enemies, oppressors or tyrants. Is this not clearly, plainly, evidently and obviously so?
behave egoistically when you respect each other neither as possessors nor as
ragamuffins or workers, but as a part of
your competence [or power
as “useful bodies.” Then you will neither give anything to
the possessor (“proprietor”) for his possessions, nor to him who works, but
only to him whom you require.
The North Americans ask themselves, “Do we require a king?” and answer, “Not a farthing are he and his work worth to us.” [Max, p. 266]
(OK, but how about a sheriff?)
the Amerikan president is surely a tyrant, and a “royal pain in the ass,” and
the “jewish”-Amerikan parliament and “supreme” court are precisely as bad,
tyrannical or evil. For these two lesser “branches” of Amerikan tyranny are at
least as certain today and tomorrow, as they were yesterday, to ratify, second,
sign, “authorize” or “legalize” whatever new tyrannies or wars of aggression
the imperial “jewish”-Amerikan presidents propose
—just like every other
“rubber-stamp” “democracy,” autocracy or dictatorship, past or present.
…where the Spirit of the Lord (is), there
Cor. 3:17) [“…where the Lord’s
Spirit is, freedom is.” —By.]
And therefore wherever Tyranny reigns, the Spirit of the Lord is not. In other words, all Tyranny is of the Devil and Its (officious, legalistic, authoritarian, anti-Christ, “human”) demons.
know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people
hence not with “officials”
(“royalty,” priests, “representatives,” etc.)
—Ed.]; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control
with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to
inform their discretion by education. —(Thomas Jefferson,
(And hence this “enlightened” (and humble) little book is intended to “inform the people’s discretion by education.”)
And so, dear readers, since we find ourselves the victims of “sacred” or “officious” violence, and since we mere laymen or unofficials are not yet mentally, spiritually or psychologically ready to defend ourselves directly, for idolatrous fear of the god of Office or the idol of Sanctity, then why not create and animate a Gentile golem or Frankenstinian creature sufficiently officious and monstrous enough to release or defend us oppressed citizens from all the other and “higher” idols of office, while yet ever-distrusting and ever-regarding our newly-created office and official as neither divine nor sacred, neither Godly nor human, but merely as our dangerous deputy dog close and tightly held by us citizens upon our common official leash?
as the pressing political problem is the unanswerability
or irresponsibility of official violence or tyranny, and of its severity
(indeed non-survivability or intolerability), and of the current multiplicity
of violent office(s), I therefore propose as a political remedy or solution to
make this political violence singular and answerable or subordinate to the
county citizenry or electorate. I mean to create one office, and only one
office (and hence official) to be responsible
Again the political problem is an excess of “official” or governmental violence against unarmed or disarmed and hence defenseless citizens. It is a tyrannical overabundance of “official” powers or governmental “authority,” and hence a resultant paucity or scarcity of non-official, citizen, or subject “rights” (powers or liberties). For whenever and wherever the official or the gov’t grows, the citizen or the individual must always and everywhere shrink, shrink, shrink into insignificance…and tyranny.
of a “see-saw”: The higher the tyranny, the lower the citizenry
—and vice-versa. And thus
my (if not our) political the goal, intention, “solution” :
to shift the political weight of the see-saw away from official tyranny toward
unofficial liberty, from governmental “authority” toward you and me, the
For who can stand up against the almighty commie-gods of “Parliament,” “President,” and “Supreme Court”? Who can stand firm against the mighty blows and winds of this Satanic triumvirate? And where is Odysseus now when we need him most to deliver us from such monstrous and officious cyclops? Or where by Jove is Jupiter or Zeus to defend and save us from these mighty-officious Titans (of “the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches of gov’t”?)
Or who can protect us from these Titanic cyclops or gigantic monsters but one of our very own? Yes, what better way to fight the Frankensteinian monsters of the modern world but with one of your very own? and hopefully a local, loyal, freedom-loving, and trustworthy lad?
I’m hereby and herein proposing a separate and independent office, neither
inferior nor subordinate to these aforementioned three offices or “branches” of
almighty government. This new office shall be an effective check upon the
encroachment, aggression, and tyranny of all other offices
—inside or outside of the
county. And so it must of necessity be an office of power, of
For though these three official “branches” of government are alleged to be mutual “checks and balances” against each other…and tyranny, in reality they constitute tyranny times three. So what I propose is a political check upon these three tyrannies.
And I hereby propose ending all
subordination of the county sheriff to these branches three of imperious
national tyranny, thereby making the sheriff superior to any political official
—(whether inside or
outside the independent city-state or county) —and thus answerable to or
replaceable by no other power but the unofficial citizenry of the county who
elected him into office, with discretionary power to enforce only those laws or
legal dictates which he (and his electorate overseer) are pleased to enforce,
BUT NEVER TO INVENTING OR DECREEING ANY LAWS OR DICTATES OF HIS OWN! For that
way lies tyranny —which his office is born and the sheriff is
sworn to fight to the death —with his official feet ever held by the
public to the electoral fire to see that he ever does so, or him they’ll fire. For the citizenry are the sheriff’s master and commander, and the
friendly enemy behind, above, and around their official hound against all other
(and his own) official tyranny.
tyranny is always tyranny of office. I mean, is there any other kind but
officious or “sacred” tyranny? Or was there ever a tyrant who claimed no
“sanctity,” “authority” or “sacred right” whatsoever for his tyranny?
—no authority whatsoever
for whatever he forced upon his unwilling subjects, but simply, openly,
honestly and publicly confessed that all his coercion and violence were no more
than his own personal will, wish, whim and desire —unsanctified, unofficial
and unauthorized by no god, group nor man but himself?
(Perhaps a Roman emperor or two who claimed to be a god or two? And there’s his supposedly-sufficient authority, sanctity or divinity.) But otherwise, no way: the greater the tyrant, the greater his officiousness, his sanctimoniousness, self-authorization, self-sanctification and self-justification. This, dear reader, is a psychological and political surety, if not a “law.”)
And so I propose we create an office to fight officiousness. Is that too ironic, redundant, superfluous? Ironic yes, but neither redundant not superfluous because of its un- or anti-official purpose, and so long as the sheriff’s office is kept tightly bound by the public’s official leash.
(“But why not simply annul those political offices you don’t want around or above you any more, without creating or further empowering another?”)
“Because they’re now far too powerful for the non-official citizenry to politically abolish. Because these “public offices” have long ago escaped their citizen-creators and masters to become the masters of their citizen-creators. Because they are (like) rabid and officious dogs who’ve escaped from off their public leashes, and are now running free and attacking the citizenry with total impunity. Because they are (like) Frankenstinian monsters who’ve refuse all calls to come home to their manacles, cages or stalls.”
(“But as you say, ‘office’ (like “authority’ or ‘right’) is nothing but air, thought, belief, faith.”)
“Yes, but just try to tell that to office or ‘its’ official. Office has a vested interest (and power) in believing in itself and its almightiness or supremacy: its ‘right,’ its ‘authority,’ its ‘sanctity’ or ‘divinity.’ Not to mention those poor self-damned citizens whose faith and cowardice fed (and yet still feeds) those official monsters into their present Titanic proportions.”
Which is means and which is end? Or which is master and which is servant? Does man exist for the Law (“constitution”), or Law for man? Does mankind exist for the State, or the State for mankind? Does the individual exist to serve the Government, or the Government to serve the individual? Does the citizen exist to obey and serve “his” Official, or the Official to obey and serve the citizen? Think over that question well, dear reader. For upon your answer depends your all.
which is master and which is servant, which is employer and which the employee,
which is boss and which the bossed? These mighty masters, gods or idols of
Law, State, Gov’t, etc. insist they are our humble servants, and that we therefore
are their masters. Then let us here at least take them at their word, and
fire them, and politically worship elsewhere…or (better yet) nowhere at all
—as there is no God but God. And therefore any
office or throne (and/or its occupant) is, was and must ever be a false god demanding you bend your knee toward its political
But if the “public official” were truly the citizen’s servant, then the latter could at any time fire the former. But if you, dear reader, cannot fire your “servant,” then surely he is your master in disguise, and perhaps your predator as well, all the while merely pretending to be your “public” servant.
But if your hound dog ever turns against you, what then, dear reader, should you do? (You should fire his rabid ass on the spot, that’s what. And therefore you must be ever armed, lest your “public” doggie ever forget his place.)
But supercilious, officious and rabid dogs currently now run free, to and fro, delighting in biting both you and me, mine and thine, and all the local citizenry, via the “legalized” impunity of their law-enforcement agency, and/or their police “authority.”
And hence these dogs of office or law roam without public- or citizen-check against their official canine rampage and wolfish predation, hitherto “sacred” and unstoppable…at least until now.
our public or citizen check. Call him, if you will, our “county agent,” or
“county enforcer,” or simply our “sheriff.” Our sheriff, not
his own sheriff. For he is and must be an elective
vassal of the county citizenry. They are his king and he their
“shire-reeve.” And he is their supreme official, the official of officials,
whose prime function or supreme purpose is to protect the citizens of the
county from all other officials or “authorities”
—near or far, and within
or without the county-kingdom.
the of the new
sheriff’s office shall not be to protect and defend the public from the violence
of the public. (For the citizenry shall have arms, weapons and hence power
to defend themselves, both as their divine right and as their self-duty to
themselves and their loved ones. For they well know that without weaponry
they cannot possibly be free.)
word “sheriff,” by the way, comes from the English “shire” (or county) and the
“reeve” (or officer). The “shire-reeve” was the English king’s county-officer
or local-agent. There were many such local” “royal offices, and hence various
“shire-reeves” in every English county.
the American “sheriff” was the sole law-enforcement office (and hence official
or “reeve”) within the “shire” or county. And he was (is) popularly-elected.
And so the political lord and master of the American sheriff was not the
British king but the local county citizenry, the electorate, the people. And
all official, “legal,” political or governmental violence within the county
(all “law-enforcement,” all seizing, foreclosing, arresting, jailing, hanging,
etc.) was the sheriff’s violence
My proposed sheriff’s office, if you will, shall be no more than a profane and disposable means to a “sacred” end: ourselves, our divine rights, our properties, and our free and independent county. The sheriff’s office shall merely be our selfish (political) means to our selfish ends. And as soon as the office ceases to serve, or is no longer needed, or a better political means has been found to our political ends, our sheriff’s office should then be destroyed, abrogated, annulled.
creature is created and exists to serve its creator, and if ever any office
(law, authority, etc.) ceases to serve, or a better version is invented or
created, or it be generally decided that no office at all is best of all, then
that office should be immediately unmade, abrogated, annulled (by its
the servant serves only at the pleasure and profit of his master, and is
otherwise by him fired or discharged. As a hound dog is merely our power or
agent against game, and is blasted away if ever it turns against us, so the
sheriff and his office is no more than our mere doggie, subject to our mastery
and weaponry. And therefore if the ever-leashed sheriff’s office (or its
temporary occupant) should ever turn against us, his ever-armed masters
—(but how could a lifeless
or inanimate thing such as an office, badge, or throne, ever “turn,” change or
transform itself (i this case into something
sinister?), then we’ll abolish the office, and/or we’ll outlaw the (ex-)occupant
and hunt him down more relentlessly (at least within our outraged county) than
ever was Jesse James or Ned Kelly. And we’ll capture and try him and possibly
hang him, or else if he runs or shoots we’ll fire back and shoot him dead like
a criminally “wanted” man, a rabid official or a mad dog. For the sheriff and
his office is merely our common doggie, our common
servant, and our means to our common end. And so whenever the sheriff’s (or any
other office) ceases to serve, or even turns against his master, is precisely
when it and he should and must then cease to be. And that’s merely justice to
(“But you, dear writer, are advocating the creation of a political monster?”)
perhaps, but our political monster,
and our local Frankenstein
—created, elected and
unleashed to do battle with all those other monsters of “public” office —both near or here within
the county and far away (over there). The county sheriff is our official monster upon our elective leash, ever subject to our official re-election, referendum
and recall, and even our abrogation
or abolition of the office altogether. For we creators
of office must ever retain our creative/destructive power over office, or like
Dr. Frankenstein, again become the official victims of our very own official
creature.) And, most important of all, the sheriff’s office shall ever be under
our ever-vigilant eyes and (most of all) under our unofficial and “unlicensed”
guns. And the “sheriff’s” office is in fact our office, subject to our
creation, our amendment and our inevitable abolition. For we official creators must never lose our official
creative/destructive power. For that way lies (official) tyranny.
(“Yes, but as you the individual are not ‘we the people,’ so ‘our’ sheriff’s office is neither your nor my own office, but theirs, i.e. the electorate’s, the majority’s, the people’s, the citizenry’s. And there’s the rub! And an endless, official, democratic, political rub at that! And a constant danger and opportunity for ‘our’ foolish or ruinous amendment of ‘our’ ‘public’ office. For the womanish majority may again thoughtlessly trade away their (i.e. my and your) liberties for the promised protection of ‘their’ (i.e. neither my nor your own) public office or political officials.”)
! And so true! All the more reason therefore to limit the vote to the “politically correct.” But how? How to avoid the (inevitable?) democratic slide into “universal suffrage” and hence the tyrannical political dictatorship of that mad, crazy, foolish mob of voracious, insatiable, predatory human-locusts…as led by their officious demagogues? This too is the political question! Is there an answer anywhere to be found? (See the last three “books” of Socrates’ Republic.)
yet hopefully we are no longer such titanic political fools as once we were.
And we hopefully harbor no more idolatrous illusions about the “sanctity” (if
not “divinity”) of political office
—neither from the office-holder’s
perspective, nor from our own —i.e. the creators’ (and eventual destroyers)
of that particular office or throne. As nearly all “divine” thrones have
historically fallen, so therefore must all other “sacred” political offices
fall into oblivion. (And that is perhaps just as good,
if not even better, political riddance!)
besides, any official hound or sheriff who ever turns
against us we’ll just have to blast off to kingdom come. And there’s an end of
our “sheriffic” public office!
—of our (naively?) hopeful political remedy
for a “polis” gone wrong or a state turned sour, predatory, tyrannical —or at least an end of
that particular official!
But yes, by George, fire and gov’t (i.e. “sacred” office) are indeed “fearsome servants” (whenever in hand or under control), and “terrible masters” (whenever not).
But to reply to the “monstrous” objection above a bit more thoroughly: Surely all public or gov’t offices are potential political monsters, and therefore potentially rampant Frankensteinian creatures. Just look, dear readers, at your own particular ‘parliaments, presidents and/or supreme courts’: Have the occupants of these political offices not similarly presumed or usurped far more power than originally granted them in and by ‘your’ particular state’s constitution? (And are there any kingdoms or states nowadays without constitutions to thus officially violate, usurp or ignore?)
For the very concept of office (and hence officer or official) is “holier-than-thou” or far above its/his citizen-creator, empowerer or authorizer. And yet “public” or political officials invariably, contradictorily and paradoxically pose as “public servants”! So which is it? Or which are they: public servants or masters? Or which is the real “public official” and which is the fake, phony, fraud? And what can the citizen-creator (Dr. Frankenstein) do whenever his official creature (inevitably?) grows too big and powerful for him to control, and (officially or officiously) turns against him? For this is precisely what has happened to us dear citizens. This is the pressing political problem to which we now for our own sakes must find a political solution. And let he who can say better, please say better, now and forever.
poor citizens or unofficials have a common political problem with “our”
officialdom run rampant, wild and rabid. Hence we need a common solution before
this rampant, predatory, ravenous officialdom completely devours us all
—as it did all Gentiles
within the Soviet ‘
And so in response to this now raging firestorm of violent officialdom, or political tyranny, I advocate the creation (or greater empowerment) of yet another potentially monstrous (political or “public”) office. For logically its either that, or we unofficials must abolish “public” office altogether, and (unofficially) attempt to solve this pressing problem of rabid officialdom or tyrannical gov’t ourselves. I.E. either our sheriff solves our pressing political problem, or we (regular folks) have got to do so, or suffer the harshest “soviet” or “jewish” consequences for our political inaction, passivity, failure.
if we find “our” proposed new sheriff’s office also fails us (politically),
then again we unofficials must solve this raging political problem of officious
violence ourselves, or again suffer a violent, mass-murderous reign of
I’m merely suggesting we give “our” new sheriff’s office a try first. And if this office fails, than to hell with it (our mere means, tool, creature) along with all the rest of the monstrously encroaching political offices which our new sheriff’s office was at least intended to protect us (officially-menaced unofficials) from.
But what is the specific non-tyrannical concept and purpose of “our” proposed sheriff’s office? Or why should we expect it not to become just another monstrous, usurpatious or tyrannical office like all the other formerly-created official Frankensteins: i.e. parliaments, presidents, “supreme” judges or courts, etc.?
First of all, we cannot possibly remind ourselves too much of the fact that the office of sheriff is our profane or disposable political means to our sacred yet selfish political end(s). And we should do so again and again at most every public occasion, and especially during each successive electoral campaign for (the three-year term?) of the office of county sheriff, and at all candidate debates, and especially at every inauguration. On these official occasions we should again publicly remind ourselves (and especially our children) that the sheriff’s office itself (much less any temporary human occupant) is merely a profane and disposable means to our sacred (no, divine) end: the defense (to the death, if necessary) of our divine or God-given rights: life, liberty, property, weaponry, free-association, etc.; and also the defense (to the death, if necessary) of the independence or sovereignty of our county (city-state, kingdom) against all the political officials of all the world, whether inside or outside the county. And the public oath (or affirmation) for the office on inauguration day should make this sheriffic purpose perfectly clear as daylight to all with ears to hear. (Perhaps the incoming sheriff should even be required to publicly pronounce a curse against himself, his life, his property and his family should he ever for a moment betray the sacred purpose and oath of his office.) And every sheriff’s feet should be held to the fiery purpose of our public office, by e.g. making every occupant subject to “public referendum and recall” even before the end of his (3 yr.?) term.
so, as the very purpose of county sheriff
office is for him to defend to death our divine
rights our sovereign and self-determined city-state
or county, the very worst thing any sheriff of ours could ever possibly
do would be to declare “marshal
l law” or any “emergency
decree” whatsoever “suspending” our divine rights (i.e. declaring them to
be “null and void”) even for a moment, much for less a day, a week, month
or a year, o f for an unforeseen
and indefinite period, such as forever. For this would be no less than the
greatest possible political sin, outrage or crime any “public” official could
ever possibly commit against the public. It would be the greatest possible
betrayal of the citizenry, rebellion against the county, and desecration of
its/our highest political values or i.e. our divine or inalienable rights,
and our sovereign, autonomous, self-determined county or city-state. (For
within our county, unlike within “jewish”-Amerika, from which tyrannical,
imperial, multi-racial, Babylonian, mass-murderous, blood-thirsty and anti-Christian
whore of Satan we must therefore depart or secede, “inalienable” means just
that. Apo./Rev. 17:6 & 18:4-5)
It would be as if a Roman priest has desecrated his wafer-god, or had smashed to bits the lifelike, life-size crucifix -idol exalted above the altar of his parish church. It would be as if a devout Protestant had torn up his Bible, or the humanist his “constitution.” It would be as if our trusted county sheriff had conspired with other counties or hostile states against the independence and sovereignty of our county-kingdom. It would be as if the outlaw Jesse James had somehow become our county sheriff, mint-man, tax-man, and/or treasurer, and had replaced our honest county money with debt-tokens. It would be as if the Red Death had somehow penetrated Prince Prospero’s strong castle and “crashed” his masked ball.
our sheriff to officially annul our divine rights (by “declaring marshal
l law,” or whatever) is for our
highest and most trusted county official to declare war or tyranny against all
the county citizenry. It would be as if our shepherd-sheriff had suddenly
somehow become possessed by the Devil, and began wolfishly, demonically,
tyrannically ripping his political masters, the county citizens, to shreds. It
would be as if our official deputy-dog had suddenly become rabidly mad and
turned against us. (But how would such a sociopathic character have so deceived
the county electorate at to have become sheriff in the first place?)
we freemen would then have to hunt such a demonic sheriff down just like a mad
dog, or a serial murderer, or an invasive general of a foreign army roaming
ravenously free or “at large” within our county. For in light of the values of
sanctities of the county citizenry, and of the well-know divine purpose and
solemn oath (or affirmation) of the sheriff’s office, it would then clearly
become the almost sacred duty of every able-bodied citizen (whether on his own
or together with a posse of well-armed freemen) to hound and hunt that
ex-sheriff down more pressingly or mercilessly than Jesse James ever was. (See
“posse comitatus.”) (“He was hunted, and [some say] he was human.”)
l law” sheriff, or
traitor to the county’s political independence, autonomy or sovereignty.
Know, dear reader, that our present political and social (and even economic) problem is essentially mental, spiritual or psychological, and is therefore our own fault (or default) and our own doing (or omission).
we ourselves (and/or our parents and grandparents) are
the creators or parents of all offices (political creatures, thrones,
constitutions, etc.). Offices are merely our (political) creatures. And we
humans are their creators. But over time we forget we have the power to uncreate them. And so they (or rather their occupants)
overrun us, or run off with us bound under their officious arms, or trample us
under their official hooves
—which should be our official hooves!
(“Tradition, tradition, where would we be without our traditions!”) Out from under the officious or tyrannical hooves of “sacred” political office, perhaps?
We freemen are the principals, and all “public” offices (and thus officials) are our political agents. We citizens are the masters, officials are our servants. But we forget that when our creature, the “public” office (of this, that or the other, or department A, B or C) becomes a “thing in itself,” and seems to take on a life of its own. It is precisely at this point that the officious monster is born, or the office becomes monstrous. But this is merely our own mental fault and political foolishness in forgetting which is means and which is ends, which is servant and which master. We citizens and office-creators simply have to reassert our mastery over our monstrous official creations. And that process begins in the head, mind, intellect, spirit, psyche, and then travels down to the arms.
The concept and purpose of political union is similar to that of marriage. Why do people marry? And why do they divorce? Both partners have the same answer; they marry and divorce for themselves. They marry because they think they are better off with this person, And they divorce because they think they are better off without this person. And it is the same with us and our political “unions” and disunions, secessions or divorces.
what we need right now is a damn good “divorce lawyer”! I mean some “Daniel
Webster” or other who can take on that wily and murderous Devil, who can get
us out of our God-damned and hellish union, marriage or constitutional
contract with “our” rapacious ol’ “Uncle” Satan
—which will willingly grant
us neither divorce nor secession. (See e.g. the tyrannical or “federal” Amerikan
“civil” war against the once states of
our own sakes, we must never forget we forever retain the creative power to
politically depart, to divorce or secede from one another,
and to mutually-associate or unite with whomsoever we mutually choose. We must
never imagine (nor be persuaded by the Devil or Its “jewish” lawyers, “scribes”
or “attorneys”) that our “social contract” is sacred or eternal, and hence
cannot be ended by us whenever we unilaterally
—i.e. whenever we think
we’d be better off without it…or each other. (Am I the queen of the
We must never forget that any and all offices we humans create we can uncreate at any time or any place. For such petty things as “royal” thrones or “public” offices are merely our political creations, tools, servants or hounds. And if they ever cease to serve us, or if we find something better, or if they (or we) ever cease to hunt, or if we find better hounds, then we are always free to release them, to fire them, to uncreate, end, annul or destroy any and all political offices, as well as any and all political marriages or “unions.”
For otherwise we shall find to our horror that we have married the Devil, and have thus politically condemned or “constitutionally” contracted ourselves and our descendants to eternal hell on earth. For all eternal contracts or deals are proposed, drawn up and made only by and with the Devil, Who well knows Its political or marital victims will eternally regret their (or their “founding fathers’”) momentary political foolishness, and will forever seek to escape their damned “eternal” bonds of “union” with Satan, and hence their political oppression under Its official demons. Do you imagine God would ever forbid any visitor or guest to leave His kingdom or home? But Satan is the exact opposite of the real McCoy.
post-colonial America, e.g., all the “independent” or “sovereign” “federated”
or “united” states understood (as they were led (if not deliberately misled?)
to understand, that) they could at any time unfederate,
disunite, divorce or secede from the American “union,” the “federal or U.S.
constitution” etc. (For that’s merely what “union” means, the freedom of association,
of uniting and disuniting.) And several supposedly “sovereign” states once
tried indeed to do just that, to detach, disunite or secede from the “union.”
But again, the creeping, encroaching, usurpatious of office (as
personified by president Abe Lincoln) would not allow
it. For like every tyrant, he valued his official or political power over
the “God-given” liberties of his subjects, and “his” dictatorial, federal
As aforementioned, “shire-reeves” were the king’s agents within his royal counties or “shires.” But after the falling (or rather dethronement) of the king, the people had supposedly become the sovereign or king, and they created an elective office of county “sheriff” to be their law-enforcement agent within their county. Or was it not rather the county of its “legislators,” “law-givers” or “law-makers” whose “sacred” commands (called “laws”) the county sheriff was solemnly sworn to uphold, enforce and defend against all disobedient criminals among the people? For surely the highest or most “royal” office (and officer) is that which (or he/they who) “makes,” “gives,” commands or dictates the “laws” (within its/his/their political domain, kingdom or “[es]state”). But the elective office of sheriff was never this “legislative” office or power, but merely the enforcement or coercive agent of this office.
today in some counties the office of sheriff has been reduced to that of a mere
jailer. And though in most counties the sheriff’s remains a law-enforcement
office, it is merely one among many various local, state and super-state or
—all unelected or appointed; and it is not
supreme over them, but often subordinate.
But the elective office of county sheriff was always and everywhere subordinate or subject to the “legislative” branch (i.e. parliament) to dutifully enforce their legal dictates, and also to the “judiciary” branch (and/or “prosecutor’s” office) to “serve” or execute their legal orders or “warrants” to “arrest that man,” “search that place,” “evict this tenant or homeowner,” “auction this foreclosed or seized property,” etc.
“shire-reeves” or sheriffs were of course appointed by the king of
—good, bad or mediocre.)
(See e.g. Basil Rathbone as evil king John’s evil
But if, after the dethronement of the king, the purpose of the “people’s” sheriff was merely to execute to the letter the “legal” orders or “warrants” of legislators and judges, like some involuntary and thoughtless machine, why then popularly elect him, unless in hopes his official “discretion” could somehow soften or temper his execution of harsh orders from these his official superiors? or else in hopes he would not be even harsher or go beyond them?
Now my official suggestion and innovation is to let the office of sheriff be subjected and dutiful to no other power or office within or without the county but the (county) citizenry, the electorate, the public.
Hence any attempt by any official anywhere to force the sheriff’s hand (in law-enforcement) shall be treason (if an inner-county official), or (if an extra-county official) a declaration of aggression or war against the county, its citizenry, their independence and their sovereignty.
propose to make the sheriff’s office supreme within the county, and thus to
replace the currently reigning supreme office (within the county)
—which is not even within
the county, but is outside, beyond and above the county, being the state or the
national (or even supernational) capitol. (See e.g. the “United Nations’ Org.”
and its extra-county designs to replace your county gov’t, along with all those
of “your” particular state, province or nation.)
Today, as yesterday, the sheriff’s office (like the policeman’s) involves discretionary law-enforcement, but not law-making, -giving, -enactment or -dictation. And this I do not propose to change one bit. For that way, as always, lies “legal(istic)” tyranny.
whether invested, tolerated or suffered in a king, a god, or a Parliament, such
law-“making” power is far too much “authority” to invest in any one office, and
hence any one official
—a virtual dictatorship, in fact.
(But pray do not imagine, dear reader, that the “legislative” dictatorship of the Parliament or Congress, e.g., is any less dictatorial merely because it is not that of an individual (“monarchic” or “autocratic”) man, but rather that of a dictatorial (i.e. “legislative”) group, committee or “soviet.” At least the single political lord (unlike any “house” or “congress” of lords, whose individual members hide inside the crowd, and who shield themselves with official “immunity”) does not and cannot possibly shirk responsibility or blame for his official actions (“legislative” “acts”), “laws,” decrees or dictations.)
But my proposed office of sheriff shall have no power to enact or decree any laws whatsoever, but it shall have the power to choose (and the duty to publicize, prior to his election) which existing laws, decrees or orders from all other county offices (whether executive (mayoral), legislative (county parliament or council) or judicial) which he shall not enforce, if elected, thus nullifying them, in effect.
But whether or not the sheriff shall be restricted to annulling or amending (the enforcement of) only those laws which he had so stipulated or promised during his election campaign, or whether he shall have power to counter any new laws or dictates advanced or perpetrated during his (3 yr.?) term of office, are questions for the electorate to answer for themselves (and hence for their sheriff). Methinks it is best to limit the “law-nullifying” powers of the sheriff to his pre-election promises, thus cutting off any official “” at the electoral or inaugural pass. (And see below on “referendum” or “electorate nullification” of any particular law.)
And any and all “sheriff nullifications” or law-annulments (as far as their enforcement by his office is concerned) should be publicized and dated as to their first date of effect or non-enforcement. But most, I suppose, shall begin on or near the first day in office of the new (or reelected) sheriff.
As the jury of freemen decide not only
the guilt or innocence of the accused, but also the merit of the applicable
—i.e. the law’s justice or injustice, “innocence
or guilt”; and as this practice is popularly called “jury-nullification,”
so now I propose the practice of “sheriff nullification”
whereby the sheriff shall decide and publicly proclaim which laws he will
not enforce, and when or under what conditions, if any. And this law-enforcement
practice, as you well know, is a legal reality today, as yesterday, but
to a far lesser extent. It is and has been called “discretion,” the official discretion of the policeman or sheriff in the performance
of his official duties.
is “sheriff nullification” (of the law). This is the sheriff’s version of “jury
nullification” of the law
—wherein in one particular case (the one they
are judging) the jury have the power to “judge” the law —i.e. to decide whether or
not to enforce it —but not for the sake, love or hatred of the
accused, but for the sake of the justice or injustice of the particular law
itself. But the jury or jurists do not make, dictate or enforce any new law of
their own. They merely decide whether the (old, established, applicable) law is
just —and so whether or not it
should be applied or enforced in their particular court-case, the one they are
“jury nullification” is thought by many (citizens) to be the citizen’s’ check
against official, dictatorial or “legislative” tyranny. But judges generally
hate and oppose “jury nullification.” For it takes (political or official)
power away from them, transferring it to the citizen-jurors. And (if they find
out about it) judges often fire or “discharge” jurors merely for the effrontery
of mentioning it to the others
—not to mention judges’ “instructions” to
juries just before they go off on their own to decide the “merits” of the case,
when they are specifically and “judicially instructed” not to judge the merits of the applicable law(s). (And see
“referendum” or “electorate nullification” of any particular law below.)
(like the jury) the sheriff (with the citizens’ input or advice beforehand, and
with their votes criticism and publicity afterward) shall judge the laws
—deciding which he shall
not enforce or effectively annul. But he (like the jury) shall make and enforce
no laws of his own.
after any “sheriff nullification” (of existing laws), any and all arrest or
punishment orders or “warrants” for violating that particular law (whether
judicial or otherwise
—and from within or without the county) shall
become null and void.
(Perhaps the citizenry shall best decide as to whether the county sheriff, as the county jailer, should or shall have official power to release from imprisonment those citizens previously charged, convicted and currently jailed (or those awaiting or undergoing trial) for that law and crime presently nullified by the sheriff. And though a great official power, yet such a policy can similarly serve to check past and present official tyranny.)
let the sheriff become the supreme “executive” within the county, above all
other public officials, and charged with discriminatory law-judgment,
nullification and enforcement, but then dutifully submitting his arrestees to
the judiciary for the traditional “due process of law”: trial and acquittal or
sentencing and punishment. But let all official violence within the county be
the sheriff’s violence, and the sheriff’s province or domain, for which he
alone shall be held officially responsible by his political master, the
electorate. And so all judge- or jury-ordered punishment, jailing or killing
(“executing”) within the county shall be the sheriff’s violence
—if he so choose to
enforce or inflict these orders from other county officials pursuant to and in accordance with his
with this strict condition or stipulation, that the very same measure shall be
impartially applied toward (for or against) all county citizens, and that no
official favoritism nor malevolence be shown to any
—much like a impartial
referee officiating over an athletic contest. But here all the citizenry are
combatants within the officiously and legally violent game called “civics” or
“politics,” none being mere spectators. And here there may be as many or even
more sides or teams as citizens.
I realize of course that the more discretionary power vested within any office, and hence official, the more he shall be the object of secret offers, payments, favors or bribes proffered in exchange for his deciding in favor of the (attempted) briber, purchaser, buyer. (A prime example is of prostitutes offering free “tricks” to sheriffs, deputies and policemen in exchange for temporary immunity from arrest.)
And so (it being more powerful) this shall be even more true of my proposed county sheriff’s office than any county judgeship, e.g., or any and every other county office or official.
the sheriff shall be the most powerful official in the county. For his prime
purpose and function shall be to protect all the citizenry from the violence of
his own and every other and lesser office. (For new sheriffs shall
replace old ones. Or more welcomed sheriffs shall replace less welcomed,
rejected or even spurned ones.) And so only extraordinary individuals
are adequate, capable and suitable to this great challenge and sacred task.
Of course the sheriff shall have to be well paid, with all expenses besides, so as to be properly and justly rewarded for his “public” or county service, and so as never to be able to plead “poverty” if even caught taking bribes from citizens to abuse his official “discretion” in their favor.
And of course bribe money (a.k.a. “campaign contributions”) must be divorced as far as possible from the electoral process, thus to keep any and all citizens with “special interests” from essentially buying the office by buying the man (via paying for his mass-media-advertising campaign). (But how?) For such a purchased or auctioned-off “electoral process” guarantees only that mostly political prostitutes (and hence public enemies) shall ever run or be elected for “public” office. (See e.g. the “jewish”-Amerikan parliament and presidency.)
As the jury of freemen decide not
only the guilt or innocence of the accused, but also the merit of the
—i.e. the law’s justice or injustice,
“innocence or guilt”; and as this practice is popularly called
“jury-nullification,” so now I propose the practice of “sheriff nullification”
whereby the sheriff shall decide and publicly proclaim which laws he will not
enforce, and when or under what conditions, if any. And this law-enforcement
practice, as you well know, is a legal reality today, as yesterday, but
admittedly to a far lesser extent. It is and has been called “discretion,” the official discretion of the policeman
or sheriff in the performance of his official duties.
It has been justly and rightfully noted that Negro jurors are often (if not usually or generally) incapable of or unwilling to convict or condemn an obviously guilty Negro if or when his victim(s) are “white.” (The notorious O.J. Simpson case comes to mind.) But this is plainly a perversion of the principle of “jury nullification” (of the applicable law). And this occurs simply because Negroes (in dark spiritual league with their political masters, controllers and funders, the Satanic “jews”) are in extreme mental or spiritual hatred, opposition and warfare against Europeans. And so as clearly as such perverse and hateful creatures should and must be kept off all juries (and hopefully out of all counties), so should no candidate for sheriff ever be elected who would ever be perverse, traitorous, mercenary or blackmailable enough to abuse his official discretion by officially protecting, preferring or furthering his friends or his political purchasers, bribers or blackmailers.
wherever elections for public office are not publicly-funded, but are instead
auctioned off to the highest bidders (of money) to purchase the expensive
television and radio time for their candidate’s political “advertising,” (and I
do mean their candidate), nearly all
elected (and therefore appointed) public officials, as today, will be political
prostitutes secretly purchased and obligated to their secret whore-masters, and
hence public enemies in public office, who neither serve nor further the
public, but rather these their secret buyers, “contributors,” bribers,
puppeteers, whore-masters or pimps. For as you well know, he who has (or rather
he whose purchasers or pimps have) greatly outspent his political rivals on
television and radio usually wins the election, and hence the public office
(for his purchasers or pimps). And hence I say public office is essentially or
sold auctioned off within (the whore of)
And during the (citizen-financed?) campaign for the county office of sheriff, each and every candidate should proclaim his official intentions as to which laws, if any, he will not enforce, if elected, or, in other words, how (aside from impartially) he intends to use his official discretion.
all elected sheriffs should be strictly and popularly held to their election
promises and publicly stated intentions, or else be subjected to the
aforementioned popular referendum, reelection, and recall (of public
officials). For otherwise such public liars and manipulators will, as today,
not only make a joke and a mockery of the truth, and of the electoral process,
and of the public offices they hold, but they will also, as today, make fools
and dupes of the electorate
—for which political offense the citizenry
ought to righteously indignant, if not outraged —as it is their divine
rights, freedoms and independence which are at stake here in their election,
trust, tolerance or sufferance of public or political officials.
every citizen or unofficial living under ever political official (and it is
very difficult or impossible to live above or without them
—as for their sakes and
powers they imperiously make it thus impossible) must perforce live in constant
political peril and fear of his inevitable political betrayal. For as every
fiat or token money has eventually, inevitably and ultimately been degraded,
perverted, manipulated and inflated into worthlessness, so too has every public
office been similarly perverted, usurped or inflated into a public enemy or
tyranny. Vigilance is all. All the more reason, therefore, for every citizen or
unofficial to be ever-armed to his “freedom” teeth (and claws) against all
political officials, and hence against all political or monetary betrayal by
all “public” (or rather anti-public) officials.
so the perpetration or infliction of all official violence, and the enforcement
(or non-enforcement) of all law (or “sacred” commands from inside or outside
the county) within the county is to be the sheriff’s domain, and his alone
—subject only to his
well-armed overlord and master, the electorate. And so the sheriff must answer
to his electorate-master for his enforcement of unpopular laws, and for his
abandonment, neglect or non-enforcement of popular ones.
(“But your sheriff must then pander to the mad mob, and so become the mere tool of the hatefully-base instincts and/or the foolishly-loving and childish emotions of the short-sighted majority!”)
(True, as must all elected officials. But that’s the political danger or madness of democracy, mobocracy or democrazy. And all the more reason, therefore, to limit or restrict the electorate via more-than-base qualifications for county citizenry or the vote: restrictions e.g. of age, of literacy, of years of county residency, of property, of gender (?), or what-have-you?
But what remedy for mobocrazy? For to deny the electorate mastery over all “their” officials is to return to the tyranny of office and officials. And where’s that at? That’s right back where we started, and where we are, and where we’re now attempting to politically get away or escape from.
The word “sheriff,” again, comes from the English “shire” (or county) and the “reeve” (or officer). The “shire-reeve” was the English king’s county-officer or local-agent. There were many such local “royal” offices, and hence various “shire-reeves” within every English county.
But the American “sheriff” was the sole law-enforcement office (and hence official or “reeve”) within the “shire” or county. And he was (is) popularly-elected. And so the political lord and master of the American sheriff was not the British king but the local county citizenry, the electorate, the people. And all official, “legal,” political or governmental violence within the county (all “law-enforcement,” all seizing, foreclosing, arresting, jailing, hanging, etc.) was the sheriff’s violence.
And though the sheriff’s office had power to delegate or “deputize” his “authority,” he was, of course responsible for any official misbehavior of these “sheriff’s deputies” of his very own choosing, hiring and firing. For they were the sheriff’s deputy-dogs. And if his officious dogs attacked an innocent citizen, or officially bit the wrong person, the sheriff (and his dog) was guilty and to blame. And this official responsibility is only proper, right and correct, as surely as if my dog had attacked you, dear reader, or yours mine. For if my dog bites you, dear reader, then I bit you. And you should respond accordingly. And vice-versa. And if the sheriff’s deputy bites you, then the sheriff himself has bitten you. For he is officially responsible for his dogs, and you dear citizen, must ever hold him so in check, as he must ever hold his deputy-dogs in check. And this again is only right and proper. For the master is and must be master of his dog(s), and must be held responsible, answerable or liable for their misbehavior, as surely a “principal” for is and must be held responsible for the official, commanded, obedient or dutiful actions of his “agent(s)”; an likewise an employer for his employees or a master for his servants.
And so the “principal” for the American office or “agency” of sheriff was (is) the electorate. And they (you and I, etc.) are responsible for the official actions of this officious dog, agent or servant of ours, the county sheriff. And if our public agent, servant or official even turns upon his political masters and bites us, or if he even begins to bark like a would-be tyrant, then we should, shall and must blast him out of our public office with our votes, if not also our shotguns.
(And this traditional democratic principle I do not propose to change one bit. For a little liberty or “democracy” is better than none. ’Tis tyranny of office which must be undone.)
Now, my suggested sheriff’s office (badge, authority) is a variation on this historical or traditional American theme.
But my sheriff shall have legal power not merely to enforce the laws, but to “nullify” any laws, orders or commands from any other political offices of any other “public servants” inside or outside the county. And he nullifies these “sacred” commands or laws simply by not enforcing them, simply by publicly refusing or declining to enforce them. And my sheriff’s office, authority or badge (and least of all, the sheriff) is merely a profane and disposable means to our “sacred” end: the sovereignty or independence of our county (politically, monetarily, economically and every-which-way), and the divine rights of county citizens. The former we can all clearly understand. But what exactly are the latter?
Well you tell me, dear reader, what specific divine rights your God gave you. For how on earth should I know? either you or your God, or what divine gifts you receive(d), or what inspirations, suggestions or commands you hear(d) from Him?
But for myself, I simply claim as my divine rights or gifts those of life, liberty and property.
(But perhaps the divine gift of Life is so obvious it’s superfluous to even mention it.)
the Biblical quote above “…where the
Spirit of the Lord (is), there (is) liberty.”
—(2. Cor. 3:17) Thus liberty is Biblically a divine
gift. And I don’t doubt it, but rather accept liberty therefrom —(i.e. from “the Spirit of
the Lord,” not from that literary idol called “Bible”).
But without property one simply cannot be free, but instead becomes a hand-to-mouth day laborer or a slave. For one cannot live on air alone, but must needs also have water, bread and shelter, and therefore land.
And freedom of association is a natural necessary for both life and liberty. (Just ask the lamb in the belly of the wolf, or the “citizen”-slave within the coercive, predatory, political beast or empire.) How can one possibly be called “free” who is not free to (mutually) choose his associates? (Just ask the woman raped.) I say “mutually,” for if one “unilaterally” chooses his (involuntary) “associates,” then by definition and by his coercive act he must be a predator, a human wolf, a robber or a rapist. (For all but predators or rapists take “No” for an answer (to their social, , political, monetary or sexual propositions.)
of course self-defense or weaponry are most necessary to maintain your life,
liberty and property (from
—what else? all your enemies —whether human or animal,
unofficious or officious, “sacred” or profane, or inside or outside your home
that all “officials” by definition claim to be far above or much “holier” than
me or thee
—such that if to them we
bend not the knee, then ’tis “criminals” or “outlaws” we must definitively be.
But just because some pompous ass presents and professes himself to be infinitely “holier-than-thou” is no good reason to believe him so, nor to fall in fear and trembling to your knees in his presence. For recall that “God’s” priests and kings formerly made such divine or sacred claims, and we no longer tremble nor bow before them. Why then should we fall tremble or bow before these latest or newest “holier-than-thous”? If God and “His” “representatives” are no longer sacred nor worthy of our reverence, deference, belief or obedience, how then should any and all representatives of far lesser gods be? Why then should we fall down in fear or reverence before the high-priests, “politicians” or “representatives” of the far lesser gods or idols of e.g. Man, Humanity, Majority or Electorate, Parliament, President or Supreme Court?
Because they are so powerfully, awesomely, terribly armed? And yet, apparently unsatisfied with their great and terrible power and arsenal, they yet seek to deprive us of our mere rifles, pistols, and even knives? And why but so that they may forever and a day remain our demonic, Satanic or “human” gods or idols?)
only political official which I would not regard as an official enemy of the
common or unofficial people (and hence myself) is the sheriff, but only so long
as he (and his deputy dogs) abides within the prescribed limits of his office
and power as defined herein
—i.e. only so long as he willingly or gladly
remains a disposable means to the sacred public end: the maintenance and
protection of the independent, sovereign county (in every sense and in every
way), and of the divine rights of its citizenry.
But official encroachment and usurpation is the normal course for public or political officials. And this is why over time government gradually overgrows its garden like weeds or moss.
The period of the bourgeoisie
—Ed.] is ruled by the
British spirit of legality. An assembly
of provincial estates is ever recalling that its authorization goes only so and
so far, and that it is called at all only through favor and can be thrown out
again through disfavor. It is always reminding itself of its —vocation. It is certainly not to be denied that my father begot me;
but, now that I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting do not
concern me a bit and, whatever he may have called —Ed.] have
once followed the call?” Not the caller, not the constituents, not the charter
according to which their meeting was called out, nothing will be to him a
sacred, inviolable power. He [e.g. the sheriff —Ed.] is authorized —Ed.] a completely egoistic —that is, hypocritical —“egoism” parades in them.
members of the estates are to remain within the limits
—Ed.], by the king’s will, and the like. If they will not or can not do
that, then they are to “step out” [or “recuse”
themselves (from public office) —Ed.]. What dutiful man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, and his will
as the first —Ed.] could be so immoral
as to want to assert himself, even if the body corporate
and everything should go to ruin over it? People
keep carefully within the limits of their authorization; —Ed.] am a —law-abiding citizen! [Max, p. 111-12]
my (or our?) experimental sheriff is to be an elected official subject to no
other political power in the world but the county electorate
—who shall periodically
elect (or reelect) their sheriff —every three years, perhaps? Issues of term
limits are to be decided by the electorate, like all else: e.g. the sheriff
office’s annual budget, its maximum number of deputies, the rules of “posse
comitatus,” the definition of county “citizenship” (i.e. voter status), and so
on. The sheriff is subject to no other office within the county —and of course (and by
definition) subject to no office outside the county —as his job, function and
purpose is to protect and defend the county from all such foreign or
extra-county officials. And if either the sheriff or his office proves
incapable of its sacred exalted purpose, then let either the man or his office
be taken out and shot like a mad dog or a bad idea.
Again our new sheriff’s office is to be neither subjected, secondary, subordinate nor inferior to no other county office. Nor is the county sheriff to be servant, deputy nor subject to any other public official. Thus no official or unofficial individual or council (within or without the county) can legitimately say to the sheriff, “I command you (in the name of the Law) to arrest that man.”
(Let all gov’t accusers, “attorney generals,” “district attorneys” and/or county “prosecutors” take note.) No court summons, “bench-warrant” or arrest-order is enforceable by any other but the sheriffic lord of all official county violence. And thus all such arrest “warrants” must receive the county sheriff’s signature on top of the official stamp of approval before he or his deputies (or any extra-county sheriffs or deputies or bounty hunters) can lawfully execute them within the county. Otherwise the “wanted man” or warrantee is as free to resist his pursuers, trackers or bounty hunters as he would (and should) any other would-be abductors or kidnappers.
how shall the pursued or “wanted” man know his pursuers are sheriff-warranted
or authorized? Perhaps by a few days prior public notice by the sheriff’s
office (within whatever newspaper prints the official county-business) of all
warrants presently to be issued, for what cause, originating in what office or
agency, whether within or without the county, and the first date of their
—along with the recurrent
list of all county warrants yet outstanding.
the wanted man may simply flee the county, or even defend himself from his
man-hunters. For ‘forewarned is forearmed.”)
true, but methinks
a lesser of evils.
For this policy of arrest-warrant publicity keeps the county citizenry informed
of what their highest public official is up to, with
But secret warrants and secret arrests stink of a police-state or totalitarian-state. And I for one simply don’t want to live in one.
—regardless of his
extra-county status, office, legal papers or warrants. For
all legal or official violence within the county shall be none other that the
county sheriff’s violence. And he alone shall answer for it, being
officially responsible and answerable to the county citizenry for all actions
(or inactions) of his violent office.
here is anything forcibly, coercively, involuntarily done to another
—something which you would
not want done to yourself —or which another wouldn’t want done to himself (or herself).
And violence need not be entirely apolitical or unofficial. Thus, aside from rape, robbery, theft, murder or enslavement by other non-officials, “violence” would also have to include all robberies, taxations (esp. at present levels) or fines by political “officials”; all official seizures, forfeitures or confiscations of citizen properties, and all official evictions from homes and lands; also all official or political thefts (e.g. via debt-moneys, “inflations” or treasury thefts); and all personal abductions, arrests, imprisonments, conscriptions, enslavements or murders (“executions”) of citizen-prisoners by political officials or “public servants.”
And violence is both physical and mental. Abducting or “arresting,” imprisoning or jailing, killing or “executing,” punishing bodily or even torturing are clearly and plainly all forms of violence. But so is merely threatening to do any of these violent things.
Yes threatening violence is also violence: mental, spiritual or psychological violence. After all, when someone robs or rapes another without actually shooting, beating or otherwise physically harming or forcing them to comply or submit, surely violence has yet occurred.
coercion without physical violence is also violence. (See e.g. taxation or
Which, dear reader, would you rather suffer: a quiet year of solitary confinement in a comfortable jail cell, or a day or an hour in extreme or unbearable pain? And yet the former violence (though perhaps mentally harmful) is not particularly “physical,” or not physically or bodily painful.
point here is that violence can be political or apolitical, physical or
non-physical: spiritual, mental, psychological; subtle, almost unnoticeable or
invisible; deceitful (see e.g.
is your violence against me, dear reader, or my violence against you any less
violent because I wear a badge or bear a “warrant” or “authorization” which (I
think, imagine or claim) somehow renders my violence against you “sacred,” and yours against me “criminal”? I mean your
“criminal” resistance of my “sacred” or “official” violence, or else your mere
—as in “tax-evasion” or
“criminal flight to avoid prosecution.”
But officials surely like to place their violence against us mere citizens on a higher plane than our violence against them…or against ourselves. Indeed they sanctify their violence as something sacred or holy, and thereby demonize our own. As the official is (by definition, concept and/or faith) far “holier-than-thou,” mere citizen, it therefore follows that his violence against you is also far “holier-than-thou,” and that yours against him is evil, demonic or “criminal.”
violence is or verbally sanitized as something
quite otherwise than it is, and most often by the violent perpetrators themselves.
Murder of pre-born children e.g. is as “abortion”
—the abortion of a inhuman mistake or “fetus” before it grows into an actual
human person —and sometimes even after he or she has —as in “partial birth abortion” —which is too atrociously
violent for me to even describe. How many tens of millions of children have
Americans thus “aborted” since the 1960’s when their “supreme court” gave
their Satanic blessing to this mass-murderous infanticide? (Can you say “Holocaust”
real and true and Amerikan, and not merely slanderous, cinematic and “jewish”?)
officials dub their holier-than-thou violences against
us with holier-than-thou names
—thus their abductions
e.g. as “arrests,” their murders or killings as “executions” or “abortions,”
their robberies as “taxation,” “deflation,” “forfeitures” or “fines,” their
theft as “inflation,” their temporary enslavement of young men as “conscription,”
their mass-murders of civilians in wartime as “carpet bombing,” “reduction
of enemy morale,” “collateral damage,” and so on. (But methinks it’s good
(if not best) to occasionally name or call things what they really and truly
are, so as to better see them as they really and truly are, and hence to better
decide what to do with or about them. Don’t you think?)
by their very holier-than-thou nature, or else by their black art of pretension
or dark priestcraft of deceit, political or “public” officials somehow
magically transform their violence against us mere unofficials into “sacred” or
—which is therefore evil or “criminal” for us
earthworms to ever block, resist, evade or flee. Hence we profane things need
an official sanctity of our very own to combat those of our political predators —our public enemies in
public office. Hence enter the sheriff, our sheriff, our official agent against
all our official enemies. And should our sheriff ever betray us and join our
official enemies against us, then let him be hunted down by every county
freeman more fanatically than ever was the outlaw Jesse James.
all official, legal or “sacred” violence within the county is to be the
—so that a single elective official may at
last be “democratically” held accountable (for all official violence). All
officially-violent dogs within the county are thus the sheriff’s dogs, his
deputy-dogs, and are to be tightly tied by the sheriff upon his law-enforcement
leash, like sled-pulling huskies or sniffing blood-hounds. For one cannot
justly hold a man responsible for dogs not on his leash —nor for strange dogs of
other masters (sheriffs, police chiefs, etc.) —no more than I should be
punished for the ravages of your dogs, nor you for
there shall be no other official dogs of violence within the county but the
sheriff’s deputy-dogs. Therefore no one but the sheriff should hire and fire
all permanent, full-time sheriff’s “deputies” within the county
—(thus excluding all the
temporary and extraordinary sheriff’s deputies within his “posse comitatus”) —for which firing there should
be no legal appeal. Nor should there be a labor union for sheriff’s deputies
to collectively combat the sheriff’s decisions or policies. (But let the county
electorate either approve or disapprove of the official decisions of their
sheriff at every election.) But sheriff’s deputies either serve or else do
not at the pleasure of their sheriff, their hire or and fire or.
They don’t have apply to work for him, and he doesn’t
have to hire or keep them. For only in this “autocratic” or “dictatorial”
way can the sheriff be justly held responsible for all the actions of his deputies.
For they are merely officious deputy-dogs upon his leash whom (if they ever
prove unsatisfactory, unreliable or untrustworthy) he can fire at any time
for any reason whatsoever, or none at all.
The relation sheriffs and their deputies should be one of free and mutual association. Men should not be forced by the sheriff to serve as his deputies. And sheriffs should not to forced to keep or hire men who desire to serve as his deputies. (For how can anyone serve you who is incapable or refuses to obey you?) And it is obligatory or incumbent upon every newly elected sheriff to search, fathom, test or prove all the deputies of the old, departed sheriff, and to fire all those deputies whom he finds, judges or thinks incompetent or unreliable, or feels he cannot trust, and to hire only those men whom he feels he can trust, and to fire any of them later if he finds he was mistaken. (For the sheriff is not some god who can fathom and search the souls of men. But he, like you or I, shall indeed make mistakes in character , and hence must, like you or I, have power to correct them.)
For the sheriff is and must be held as responsible for his deputies as you or I are for our dogs. For his prime purpose is to protect us unofficials from all official (whether originating inside or outside the county). And therefore he must have absolute and ultimate power in the hiring and firing of all his deputies.
Again, because a man cannot justly be held responsible for the actions of men whom he has neither chosen nor approved, (as surely as no man can be justly condemned for dogs not on his leash, nor under his power, command or gun), the sheriff is to be personally responsible for the hiring and firing (without appeal) of all (his) sheriff’s deputies. (Strange new things oft-times need repeating. So bear, if you will, with my catechismal repetitions.)
Thus all county “law-enforcement officers” or “officials” are thus to be none other than the sheriff’s deputies, all under his command, supervision and gun. And therefore a new sheriff (if he so please) may immediately and peremptorily fire some or all of those deputies whom he has “inherited” from the prior sheriff. Or else he can sift, test, try and judge them as either satisfactory and acceptable to him, or else not, and hence are to be fired by their new master as incompetent, unreliable, untrustworthy, unneeded or simply unwanted. And this is only fair and just. For no man can be justly blamed for the actions of another man’s dogs, however well trained (to obey his former master). But all “sheriff’s deputies” must truly be none other than the current sheriff’s deputy-dogs, whether he be old or new to the office.
For the main point of our new sheriff’s office is to have one and only one democratically-elected official responsible to his creator and master, the electorate, for all official violence inflicted within the county during every moment he is in office: night or day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year. For the extreme violence and predations of rabid and officious dogs, currently irresponsible, unanswerable and uncontrollable by the entire county citizenry (and thus presently running rabid and free with official impunity over the entire county citizenry) was, is and remains the pressing political problem to be herein and hereby solved by the creation of this new county sheriff’s office. (Can you dig it? I knew that you could.)
And therefore all “police” forces (town, city, county, state, super-state, “royal,” imperial or “federal”) shall be abolished and disbanded within the , autonomous, independent county. For otherwise how could any county (subject to any extra-county military or police forces) possibly be , autonomous or independent? And how could any such unelected army commanders or police chiefs possibly be “democratic” and not tyrannic, totalitarian or “fascistic”?
“police chiefs” and “police forces” (unlike sheriffs and their “posses”) are
unelected by the citizenry they claim to “serve and protect,” and hence (as
surely as “governments…derive their just powers from the consent of the
—T. Jeff’s Dec. of Inde.) such police forces have no real “right” nor
“authority” whatsoever to perpetrate their official violence against us
unofficials, but are merely irresponsible and unanswerable houses of officious,
self-righteous, predatory and violent dogs.
Which is the more evil or demonic police chief or tyrant: the one who openly admits what he is and what he does as he forces himself upon you and your fellow-citizens, or the one who does the very same yet all the while claims sanctimoniously to “serve and protect” the public?
let those discharged and disbanded policemen apply to the county sheriff’s
office if they so desire to continue their “careers” in “law enforcement.” Let
them at last become answerable and responsible dogs of war or violence because
officially tied to the sheriff’s leash
—the only legal “law-enforcement” authority
and leash to be tolerated by the armed citizens within their sovereign county.
And so all official agents of violence within the county shall be none other than the sheriff’s agents, his deputies, his hirelings, for whose official violence he is shall be held responsible. Thus there shall be no other official dogs but the sheriff’s dogs. Let all other officious dogs then beware of the sheriff, his deputies, and all the armed citizenry of their sovereign county.
sheriff is authorized by the citizenry (via his electorally-limited or
-maximized yearly budget) to deputize at most only so many men upon the public
—to be paid, of course and
as always, by taxing the citizenry. (And total taxation within the county,
hopefully, suggestedly and by way of Mosaic law, shall never exceed ten per cent of a citizen’s annual
profits or “increase” —i.e. his yearly “income” minus his yearly
sheriff and his hand-picked deputies (for whose hiring and firing (without
appeal) he alone is responsible
—as a man cannot justly be held responsible
for dogs not on his leash, nor under his gun) shall therefore be the only
or monopoly source of any and all official coercion, force or violence within
the county —i.e. the only office, authority,
agent or perpetrator of all official county violence —(generally elsewhere as “law
enforcement”). And all violence of any extra-county officials, unauthorized
or unwarranted” by the county sheriff, shall be as the violence of any other
criminals, from which the armed citizenry is officially encouraged to protect
and defend themselves and their properties.
if the sheriff allows any foreign agents of official violence, or any extra-county
“law-enforcement” into the county, (and it is fully within his power of office
(Yet foreign laws are not county laws, and foreign law-enforcement is not the county sheriff’s job, function or purpose.)
And yet the principle of public accountability for all official violence within the county should at all times and in all instances be tightly held by the county electorate, by virtue (or vice) of their elective sheriff at the end of their elective leash. For the sheriff is their elective dog upon their elective leash. And all other official dogs are his dogs upon his official leash, for which he is to be held responsible.
And thus the sheriff is to be held just as responsible for the violence of those foreign officials whom he (via his official order, “warrant,” signature or stamp) has permitted to operate within “his” county, as he is for those deputy-dogs whom he himself has personally hired, directed and set to work among the (county) citizenry.
hence all foreign or extra-county violence is to be sheriff-warranted,
prescribed and limited beforehand.
I.E. the sheriff’s office must be the very first stop for all outside or
extra-county man-hunters. For without the sheriff’s prior permission, order or
warrant, their violence within the county becomes unlawful, unofficial,
—(as criminal as your
violence, dear reader, against me or mine against you) —and for which it is
lawful (and prudent) for each of us to defend himself.
so any coercive or violent act(s) of foreign or extra-county officials requires
the prior permission, authorization or “warrant” of the county sheriff. For he is lord of all official violence within “his” sovereign
Thus again their sheriff-unwarranted violence against you or yours is as the violence of a non-official against a citizen, an “unsacred,” “profane” or “criminal” violence, as e.g. my violence against you, dear reader, for which you are (hopefully) more than well-armed and capable of defending yourself, like every free man should always be. (For an unarmed man (or citizenry) is never free for long.)
In other words, an extra-county official unarmed with the county sheriff’s prior and specific authorization or “warrant” is no official whatsoever, and his violence is as profane or criminal as yours and mine, and for which he is and shall be answerable (to you and me), arrestable (by the sheriff’s office), and triable and punishable (by the county judge’s courtroom and the sheriff’s jail…or gallows).
And all (county) sheriff arrest orders or “warrants” initiated by foreign officials should likewise be publicized days (7 perhaps?) before their date of efficacy, as are those inner-county “warrants” which the sheriff himself authorizes or initiates. For dark, evil or shameful things are done in the dark or in secret. But let your city-state or county-kingdom be one of righteousness and light.
The tyrannical antithesis of elective, limited and serviceable county sheriff is the imperially-appointed “federal marshal,” over whom the local county or state citizens have no control whatsoever, as he takes his orders only from the “jewish”-Amerikan imperial headquarters in Wash. D.C. And so our county sheriff is our locally-elected public official and democratic agent against this fascistic agent of this imperial, “federal” or superstate dictatorship. And our sheriff shall have legal power to exclude any and all foreign agents or officials (“federal” or not) from our sovereign, autonomous, self-determined city-state or county. And our sheriff shall be responsible and answerable to the citizenry for any and all evils “federally” visited or perpetrated on any county citizens by any “federal” officials, agents or “marshals” whom our sheriff had officially admitted and permitted or warranted to officially operate within our sovereign county.
“Marshal” is from the Old High German words for “marah” (“horse”) and “scalc” (“servant”), and hence meaning “horse servant.” Originally a horse-groom, then a royal horse-groom, then a royal military cavalry officer, as in a “field marshal.”
ll” was and is
(according to three dictionaries)…
…an officer of various kinds in the U.S.; specif. a) a Federal officer appointed to a judicial district to carry out court orders and perform functions like those of a sheriff b) minor officer of the law in some cities c) the head, or a high-ranking officer, of a police of fire department in some cities
—Ed.] of the courts and
perform various ministerial duties similar to those of a sheriff. b in some cities,
a law officer entrusted with certain duties, such as serving the process of
justices’ courts, etc. c In some
cities, the head of the police of fire department.
…any of various former or present
law, police or other officials, esp. an administrative officer of a U.S. [i.e.
“federal” or superstate or imperial
—Ed.] district who performs duties similar to
those of a sheriff.
But a “United States” “federal marshal” is not like a sheriff in that he is not elected by, subordinate to nor answerable to the sovereign (?) citizens of the county, but only to his super-county, super-state, “federal” or imperial masters in Wash. D.C. and branches.
And “federal” is from the Roman word “foedus,” meaning “league,” “treaty” “compact” or “covenant.” “Foedus” is related to the Roman verb “fidere” (“to trust”) and the noun “fides” (“belief,” “faith” or “trust”), from which our “faith” and “fidelity” were derived.
adj. ….U.S. Hist.
such imperial agents or officers of the superstate gov’t of “jewish”-Amerika (headquarted in
And so a “federation” is a treaty, compact or covenant based on faith or trust. But is it to have no end whatsoever? Are those who enter into federations to never have any means to escape therefrom? Even marriages may be ended, but not political “federations”? You well know the person you marry, and may later divorce. But you don’t know the Devil (or “Uncle” Satan) your “forefathers” fornicated with and thus forever hoped to politically bind and “constitutionally” damn you to as Its chattel, slave or “goy.”
A covenant with God is acceptable. For only He is true and faithful and trustworthy. But a covenant with the Devil (or Its “chosen people”) is unacceptable on principle. And those “federalists” or “jews” or both (Alexander Hamilton. e.g.) who hoped to thus forever bind us to their Devil can go to hell with It instead. And very good riddance! Let the Devil’s “chosen people” continue their marriage or covenant with the Devil. But get ye a divorce. And if the Devil won’t allow it, then call in Daniel Webster, attorney-at-law, to represent your wicked ass in Satan’s courtroom.
enforcing , via that national
law of “Posse Comitatus,”D.C.
* * * * *
county sshis and his deputies’ wages
Again, recall the pressing political problem prompting this present and sheriffic political suggestion: Rabid and officious dogs have been unleashed by a ferocious and imperious “federal” tyranny, and are running rampant and free and with official impunity over the entire country and citizenry. Irresponsible and unanswerable, violent and vicious, murderous and “law enforcement” officials and other officious wolves are presently biting and tearing, dispossessing and devouring, intimidating and terrorizing their defenseless citizen-victims without any public check whatsoever. And local “law enforcement” (both police chiefs and sheriffs) either do nothing or even assist the federal invasions and county rampages. And a bewildering variety of federal and even state badges are flashed here and there to further intimidate, cow and threaten the local citizenry into police-state or prison-state submission.
pressing political need is to put all these irresponsible, vicious and violent
officials on the leash of one singular official
and subordinate to the electorate —(for some “democracy” is probably better
than none) —such that all official
violence becomes his violence, and all official dogs of violence become his
deputy-dogs, all tightly tied to his official leash, and to his official leash
For again a man cannot justly be held responsible for dogs not on his leash, nor for another man’s dogs. Hence all the official dogs of violence within the county must be none other the sheriff’s deputy-dogs, all tightly bound on and by his leash, and for whose good or bad deeds the sheriff alone (and any particularly bad deputy-doggie, of course) is to be held accountable, responsible and answerable to his master, the electorate.
(For all else is (officious or political) tyranny; the very kind we all suffer under today, and to which we naturally, presently seek a political solution.)
all official violence within the county shall be sheriff’s violence; for all
law-enforcement dogs shall be his dogs. And therefore whomsoever they
officially bite or tear to pieces, the sheriff himself officially bit and tore
—for which officious
violence the county lord of all official violence must answer to the electorate
in general, and to that individual citizen in particular.
As a man is responsible for every one of his dogs, so shall our county sheriff be. And so if any official dog whatsoever bit you (while in your county), then the sheriff himself bit you, for which he must personally answer to you. For he is, officially-speaking, both your servant and your doggie. And so if he bit you then you must call him to heel, like any other dog, or he may likely do so again. And the sheriff’s violence should no more be “sacred” to you than that of your dog. And if your dog ever dared turn against you, then doubtless you’d know what to do.
So all official county violence shall be none other than the sheriff’s violence. And so if his officious dogs bit you, then he bit you. (Therefore take the violent and offensive matter up with him.)
But all other county violence is merely unofficial, as mine against thine, or thine against mine, for which either may complain to the sheriff’s office, and thus crawl under his protective and official apron.
again, any and all official violence occurring within the county is by
definition the sheriff’s violence
—(whether by his own deputies or by any
foreign or extra-county officials whom the sheriff (wisely or foolishly)
permits, authorizes or “warrants” to enter and operate within the county) —and for whose official
violence the sheriff is responsible and answerable to his master, the county
electorate. Thus prior approval and written authorization from the sheriff is
necessary for any extra-county man- or bounty-hunter (or foreign
“law-enforcement” official) to legally operate within the county. And so if and
whenever so sheriff-authorized or “warranted,” the foreign man-hunter or
property-robber (“repossessor”) becomes as if he were
the sheriff’s own deputy-dog or
all extra-county officials, “law-enforcers” or bounty-hunters (hunting men or
women “wanted” outside of the county but presently residing therein), but who
have no authorization from the sheriff to be officially present and active
within the county, and hence to inflict their coercion, violence, robbery or “
repossesion” upon any
county citizen, resident or visitor, are acting as unofficials and criminals,
and shall be regarded and treated as such by the sheriff’s office, if not by
the hunted, robbed or dispossessed county citizens themselves.
For this is merely the prime purpose of the sheriff’s office, badge and authority: The protection and maintenance of the divine independence of the county and the divine rights of its citizens.
any other violence but the sheriff’s violence (whether by county or non-county
officials or non-officials) has no sacred nor legal standing in the county
whatsoever, but is as the unofficial violence of one county citizen, resident
or visitor against another
—and for which the perpetrator must
officially answer, if an official complaint is lodged with the sheriff’s
office, and he decides to investigate.
But otherwise all other violence within the county (such as me against you, or you against me) is sheriff-unauthorized or unofficial, and hence subject to the sheriff’s review and judgment as to whether or not the violence was lawful, or whether or not to arrest one or both of us.
all citizen violence is subject to the sheriff’s review
—as is the violence of his
deputies —and for which the sheriff
is officially and personally responsible. And the violence of an off-duty
deputy (or even the sheriff) is as the violence of us regular folks,
unofficial, unauthorized, “unsacred,” and hence subject to the sheriff’s
review. Let the sheriff arrest himself then, if he (or his deputy) so insists.
But I’ll believe only when I see it.
who shall review or judge the violence of the county sheriff?
—whether ‘on-duty’ or off —whether his official or
his unofficial violence? And what district attorney, county prosecutor, judge
or lesser county official shall dare issue an arrest warrant or complaint
against such a sheriff as you propose? And how shall such a warrant ever be
‘served’? Or who or what county official shall dare arrest, jail or try a
sitting sheriff when all such legalistic or official ‘violence’ is solely to be
the ‘wanted man’s’ province and monopoly?”)
The citizens themselves, by “citizen’s’ arrest” and/or popular “referendum and recall” (of “public” or political officials).
The Romans had a saying, “Who guards the guards?” And they well knew the answer.
The very top of the official or political pyramid naturally and by definition has no top. (“The king has no king [but Jesus].”
(in some misguided, hateful, biased, communist rage against the individual) to
make this political top-stone, apex, pinnacle or zenith a group, council,
cabinet or “soviet”
—(such as the “central committee” of the
communist party, the Parliament, or the “supreme court”) is really to
essentially change nothing at all. For then who shall officially judge and
condemn these highest official groups (of officials)? (Again,
by definition, no one at all. For they are the very
top-stone of the political pyramid. They are the communist pharaoh.)
besides, do these supreme political officials not grant themselves political,
official and legal immunity for whatever evils they may officially commit,
perpetrate or inflict upon the public while in “public” office? (For me, call
it “non-papal infallibility” and/or “communist immunity.”) But need we honor
every political decree of every political official?
—least of all such
irresponsible decrees as these? At least the individual “pharaoh,” king
or president was (is) willing to be held responsible for his official decisions
or actions. For who else could he possibly blame? Or
in what officious crowd could any political “autocrat” possibly hide his
responsibility for his official actions (while in office)?
But at least via the county electorate’s “divinely-free” speech, media, ballot-box and weaponry, the virtues and vices of the current sheriff may always be vigorously exposed and publicly debated, and his term may always be ended, even prematurely, by the votes of the electorate. And if any sheriff in any way proves himself a tyrant, or refuses to peaceably surrender his lost elective office, or even if his loyal deputies were to support his unruly tyranny, he and they could be even more forcefully discharged from public office by the ever-“divinely”-armed (and hence ever-free) citizenry.
For, as every sheriff and deputy well knows, metal bullets always speak louder than paper ballots, and they are far quicker besides. And every fool who trusts in the ballot alone is soon rended a doggie without a bone, or a Palestinian without a stone.
the official actions of every ex-sheriff
then become subject to official review, indictment and punishment
—(as always are those of
me and you). I.E. as soon as our highest county official, our political
pharaoh, leaves public office (via a lost election, a “referendum and recall”
vote, retirement or choice), he and his actions while in office are then
subject to the very same official scrutiny, judgment and possible condemnation
as every other county citizen or lesser official must always undergo or suffer.
(“But surely no new sheriff is ever going to arrest an old sheriff for any crimes committed while in office, for fear the very same might happen to him!”)
Never? Really? But what if the new sheriff had vigorously campaigned against the official policies of the old, and/or had publicly promised to officially correct and avenge them, if elected?
It cannot be overstressed that the sheriff’s office (much less the sheriff) is merely an unimportant and disposable tool or means to an very important or sacred end: the maintenance of the divine rights of every individual citizen of the county (especially against all “public officials”), and the political independence, autonomy or sovereignty of the county (especially from all outside officials and invasions: whether military, immigrational or colonial). And if the day ever comes when “that [sheriffic] dog won’t hunt,” then I say hound that dog out of public office. And if the day ever comes when you find “that sheriffic office don’t (or won’t) hunt,” then by all means get rid of that dog of a public office. And good riddance. For ’tis and ’twas never more than a disposable means to own sacred end. Never forget who is master and who or what (“public” office) is servant.
(But if the “public” is master, then are not we (you and me) (along with all public officials and offices) the “public’s” servants, slaves, means, tools or food? Put that question (and answer) in your political pipe and smoke it.)
But again, the purpose of the sheriff’s office (as a mere means to our greater good) cannot possibly be overstated or overstressed. For the day you ever forget who public office is for, is the day your divine freedoms officially begin to wane.
(Think of a “see-saw”: the higher the political office or official, the lower are you the citizen: and vice-versa. So get you and yours way back up there where they politically belong! And reduce all political officials to the status of your footstools.)
And the day any public office ceases to serve and further you, dear reader, is the day you should cease to serve and further it, but to look for ways to destroy it, for the sake of you and yours. You must forever retain the creative (political) power, or else you become the political slave of that very “public” office you (or your “forefathers”) once made. Remember poor Doctor Frankenstein and his misbegotten creature. The political laboratory is a dangerous place indeed.
let the public sword of Damocles forever hang over every public official’s
head. And let the public be forever armed with the latest weaponry
—to not only withstand but
to overcome all official tyranny.
(For “public” officials will surely be armed with the latest and most awesome, destructive and murderous weapons, to subdue (among others) any and all unwilling subjects.)
And gunpowder-propelled metallic-missiles have a far greater reach than merely metal swords in hand, and far greater speed than arrows on the wing. And thus on and on you must ever run along the path of the “arms race,” or else up the awesome and terrible stairs toward mighty Mars’ or Aires’ place.
So you, dear citizen, must constantly remind yourself, your children and your fellow-citizens of the political purpose and end of your county sheriff’s office, badge and authority. Do it with art, music, poetry and drama. Do it with style and flair. Perhaps you can hold painting, drawing, poetry, song and/or dramatic contests portraying the sacred public purpose of the sheriff’s office, the evils of official usurpation, betrayal or tyranny, and the inevitable bad end of all infamous sheriffs (or deputies) who dare betray this sacred public trust. And this art should be especially solicited, exhibited, recited, sung and performed during the campaign, at the election, and at the inauguration of the new sheriff.
And the menacing or life-threatening spirit of the secret initiation and promotion rituals of the secret societies (Freemasons, etc.) could perhaps be publicly conjured and made to solemnly visit and sternly warn the incoming sheriff at his public installment or official inauguration.
(“Here’s what happens to bad sheriffs, sheriff! So you’d better damn-well be bloody good, and not even so much for Goodness’ sake as for your very own! Take ye heed or ye shall bleed!”)
And so the sheriff at his “inauguration,” (at his public swearing-in or oath-taking ceremony at the very beginning of his (3 year?) term of office), is duly, publicly, ceremoniously and solemnly sworn (“so help him God,” and the abundantly-armed county-citizenry) to uphold, protect and defend to the death, if necessary, the divine rights of every individual county-citizen, and also their collective independence from all other worldly powers.
so any sheriff unwilling to serve and to die for the divine (or sacred)
independence or sovereignty of the county, and for the divine rights of all its
citizenry, should clearly never have vied, tried nor campaigned for the office
in the first place
—(much less ever been elected). For he is clearly the wrong man for the job.
methinks no man is better than the wrong man. (But where in Ithica,
any sheriff who fails to live up to the promise of his office has clearly
disappointed (if not also betrayed) his sacred oath of office, and the public’s
sacred trust in him
—both of which were of course voluntary —as no man is compelled to
run for sheriff, nor to serve the sheriff as deputy. (For any coerced or
involuntary oath of office or “pledge of allegiance” is, as always, entirely
null and void.)
For a sheriff to promise and yet not to deliver, (whether through ignorance, incompetence or (worst of all) dishonesty, mendacity or deceit), is really and truly very bad and undesirable thing indeed. For the welfare of all the citizenry is in jeopardy, play and dependency here. (And yet any and all truly wise and free men are ever-armed to the teeth against tyranny and all other enemies, and are ever-skeptical of all public offices and oaths, however solemn.)
any elected sheriff who conspires with outside powers against the autonomy,
sovereignty or self-determinativeness of the county, or who, even for a moment,
denies or “suspends” the divine rights of its citizenry (such as, e.g., by
l law”) —(both outrages being the
ultimate or greatest possible betrayal, crime, offense or “mortal” sin against
the county and its citizens —as the sheriff’s sworn purpose and duty is
to defend to his death their divine and sovereign rights), that treacherous and
tyrannical county sheriff should be hunted down by the county citizenry far
more fanatically than Jesse James ever was. (For that most “wanted” outlaw
never once sought nor accepted public office, nor vowed by God to uphold to his
last breath the sacred independence of the county, and the divine rights of all
As a hound is our power, means or agent against game, but is shot like a mad dog if ever it turns against us and our loved ones, so must our county sheriff be our mere means to our sacred end, and so must any treasonable or traitorous sheriff be hunted down and captured “dead or alive” like some mad or rabid dog, and like our “public enemy #1.”
such a wicked sheriff
—not one who sincerely tried but miserably
failed his citizenry, his county and his office, but one who deliberately
betrayed all three —must be hunted down like a most wanted
outlaw, arrested, tried, and (if convicted by a jury of his county peers)
jailed or publicly hung for all county officials and citizens to see just what
happens to traitorous sheriffs or other public officials who dare betray the
public trust. For a picture is worth a thousand words. And let that hanged
public official be an object lesson to all others who would act or conspire
against the divine rights and sovereignty of the county citizenry.
note, if you will, of the ancient Keltic policy of
—and especially into war:
We will obey your direction in this battle or war, and if you lead us to
victory, we will reward you with much. But if you fail us, we give you a
choice: either we ourselves will kill you outright, or we will deliver you to
your (and our) victorious enemy.
The European, Gallic or continental Kelt
who lost the last decisive battle and war to
then is the true and genuine responsibly of the political or public official.
For he must either “do or die,” succeed or be damned. And its only right, just
and politically correct that he who chooses to lead yet fails his followers
should himself first supper the consequences of failure. Furthermore, this
public policy for public officials scares away all public enemies, incompetents
and cowards. Hence it is very good public policy. For otherwise and elsewhere
official incompetence, and even treachery, would not only not be punished, but
actually be rewarded
—as it long has been
within “jewish”-Amerika, and especially within its highest offices: the
“jewish”-Amerikan presidency, parliament, and “supreme”-court. Who says
political treason or treachery official never pays? Surely he is no true
And so, dear citizen, you must somehow similarly make the gravity of his political office painfully clear to your county sheriff. Your sheriff’s feet must somehow be similarly held to the “sacred” fire of his public oath and duty by his political masters, the county citizenry. (Who else?) And though mere “referendum and recall” may be sufficient for a merely unsatisfactory sheriff, something much more timely, decisive and dramatic is necessary for a traitorous one.
For any sheriff who conspires with (or surrenders to) foreign officials or forces outside of the county thus facilitating their invasion, conquest or levying of tribute (“taxation”) upon the sovereign county-state or kingdom, is a viceous traitor against his solemn oath, his office, his badge, his county and (much more importantly) the citizenry of that county, and (most of all) God, the Source of all their divine rights and their county sovereignty. And good riddance to such a loathsome, treacherous and perfidious creature. Hang him high, I say. But what say you, dear reader, who would be politically free, clear and rid of such false, faithless and treacherous creatures?
any sheriff candidate, once elected and ceremoniously sworn-in, who fails to
live up to his office, to fill its shoes, to realize, deliver or “make good”
his campaign promises, etc., need not wait for the end of his (3 year?) term to
be officially replaced by his political master, the county electorate. And also
lest any elected sheriff get too cocky and sure of his full term in office, let
him be subject to “impeachment” (literally “foot-fettering” or -binding) even
while in office via popular “referendum and recall.” I.E. immediate reelection, and hence possible defeat (“recall”)
—to be triggered by a
certain percentage of the county citizenry (say 2O or 25% perhaps?) “petitioning” or voting for just such a new election for a
new sheriff. And if the current, incumbent or sitting sheriff wins, he gets to
serve out his term. But if he loses, a new sheriff begins a new (3 year?) term
of office. (But perhaps only one such re-election challenge should be permitted
for each term of the county sheriff’s (or rather the county electorate’s)
But beware that any close race between two or more (doubtlessly sheriffic) candidates is bound to “inspire” petitions for these sort of reelection “referendums.” But the proper and officially-threatening purpose of such a popular “referendum” or “plebiscite” is merely is to “hold [the sheriff’s] feet to the fire” of his election promises and to the sacred duties of his office during the entire course of his (3 year?) term.
practice of “referendum” by the way,
like “jury nullification” (of the
applicable laws in a particular court case) or my proposed “sheriff nullification” (via
non-enforcement of county laws
—and there are no laws but county laws —at least within the
“divinely” free, independent, autonomous, sovereign and self-determined county)
are all three to be “democratic” or popular political checks upon the
“legislative” tyranny of “law-makers,” law-givers or law-dictators.
“referendum” is the electorate’s vote or decision on whether a proposed law
should become one, or whether a standing law should remain a law, or be struck
down, sent back, rescinded, annulled. Thus “referendum” is “electorate
nullification” of a particular law, whereas “jury nullification” merely
nullifies the law(s) within one particular court case
—but otherwise the law
remains applicable. But in “electorate nullification” the law itself becomes
inapplicable in every courtroom and court case (in the county). And the
sheriff’s nullification is applicable only during the period of his time of
“tenure” in office —which could be several terms (via several
(By the way, should there be “term limits,” i.e. a maximum number of terms within (or reelections for) one and the same “public” office, such as the county sheriff? There’s yet another political or official question for the county electorate to officially answer.)
Some folks love the idea of “referendum,” and some folks hate it. But, as always, a “democracy” (or any other group) is no better than its “demos” or members, and only as wise or foolish, good or Godly, evil, Satanic or mediocre (or as hopelessly, communisticly or Babylonially mixed, fragmented, divided and conflicted) as those very “democratic” folks who comprise it. For every group is (no more than) its members.
All the more reason, therefore, to be wary of the “demos,” (“the people”), the electorate, the majority, the mob, but instead to freely or mutually associate (with your associates), and hence to never willingly be the prey of “democrats.” For you do not worship that particular god or idol, the “demos” or the “people.” You don’t want to be a “democratic” chicken between two wolves, nor a “democratic” white man between two black cannibals, nor a Gentile between two predatory of official “jews” do you? (Me neither!)
(And by the way, “democracies” never last simply because the “demos” (led by their “demagogues” or “leaders of the people”) inevitably vote to rob (or “tax”) the rich of all their properties, and to divide and devour this wealth among themselves. (See e.g. the “welfare state” of the “communists” or “socialists.”) And once this substance is devoured, and the cupboard or pantry is bare, there is no “democratic” plan nor will to restock it, but by the enslavement of the “demos” by their former (or current) demagogues. And hence as Socrates said (in the last three “books” of his Republic), democracy always leads downward to tyranny. (See “communism.”)
word itself (“referendum”) is a noun form of the verb “refer” (“to bear back”).
Thus a “referendum” bears the
law back to the subjects of the law for them to judge, accept or reject
—as if they were masters
and not the subjects of “their”. Or perhaps the
subjects bear the
rejected law back to legislative
creators or perpetrators.
hree different dictionary definitions for “referendum”:
a) the submission of a law, proposed or already in effect, to a direct vote of a people b) the right of the people to vote directly on such laws, superseding or overruling the legislature c) the vote itself
The principle or practice of referring measures passed upon or proposed by the legislative body to the electorate for approval or rejection; also, the right so to pass on laws, or the vote by which this is done.
The principle or procedure of referring or submitting measures already passed on by the legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection; an instance of this procedure; a submitting of a matter already passed on by the legislative body for decision by a popular vote; hence a submitting of any matter for decision by a popular of general vote.
(Such as e.g. whether there should immediately be another vote or election for the office of sheriff.) And if the sitting sheriff loses this mandated re-election, then he is thus “recalled” by this “referendum.” Hence “referendum and recall,” i.e. “[popular or electorate] referendum and [official or legislative] recall.”
Synonymous with “referendum,” by the way, is the word and practice of “plebiscite” (“to know [the will of the common people, or] plebs”).
definitions don’t mention this, but a “referendum” (like a “plebiscite”) is not
automatic. As you can easily understand, “legislators,” law-“givers” or
law-dictators do not routinely nor willingly submit their latest legislative
dictates to their would-be subjects for them to judge or decide if they wish to
obey them. But some kind of petition process usually historically proceeds a “referendum”
—such as I suggest for any
mid-term re-election of any sitting sheriff.
the primary purpose of the new sheriff’s office shall not be to protect and
defend the public from the violence of the public. (For the citizenry shall
have arms, weapons and hence power to defend themselves, both as their divine
right and as their self-duty to themselves and their loved ones. For they
well know that without weaponry they cannot possibly be free.)
Let he (or she) who can say better, please do so…and quickly, as the tyrants’ officious noose is gradually tightening around our collective neck even as we speak. Is this not so? Or is that merely a boa constrictor neck-tie I feel closing around my throat?
unarmed or disarmed citizenry (whether yesterday, today or tomorrow) must
simply become the unwilling subjects or slaves of “their” over-armed political
officials. For “nature [and politics
—Ed.] abhors a vacuum.”
And the “demos” or “people” are coercively disarmed by their political or
“public” officials precisely so the latter can tyrannize over or enslave the
former. But the official disarmament of the “demos,” the public, the unofficial
citizenry, is usually promulgated and perpetrated by “public officials” as a
“public safety” measure (to prevent citizens from shooting other citizens, or
even political officials), and often with the agreement or acquiescence of the
majority of the people, who are thus willing to trade or exchange their
freedoms and powers of self-protection for an official promise of official
protection, and who as you well know, must inevitably end up with neither
(liberty nor safety). Again the “democratic” mob or majority is often short-sighted
or blind, unwise, ignorant or foolish, irrational, emotional, mad, crazy and
improvident. It is therefore unwise to follow the “demos,”
or to be inextricable tied or attached to them socially, politically or
constitutionally, as within a “democracy.” How can you or I ever possibly “be
ye separate” if we are to be legally, constitutionally, irreversibly tied to
the “divine” or “sacred” will of the all-mighty, all-knowing, all-powerful
“democratic” Majority? (2 Cor. 6:14-18) (Let us pray for political deliverance
from this very false god!)
“republic” (and perhaps a “constitution”) places some limits upon the almighty
Majority Will, the “Demos,” “the People.” A “republic” posits some sanctities
or “rights” (and even properties) beyond even the reach and cloven feet of the
Mob: some “sacred” things which not even they may touch, seize, appropriate,
“nationalize,” nor trample underhoof
—not even (and especially)
during officially-declared “emergencies.” And chief among these methinks are
the divine rights of all citizens to bear arms and to employ and use honest
money. Such divine or sacred political things as this no electorate nor voter
majority must ever be allowed, permitted, tolerated suffered to touch —and again especially in
times of crises, uncertainty, emotion or general fear, when many people
(sometimes even the “democratic” majority) lose their heads and do foolish
things, or think, speak, act (and vote) like fools. For that “democratic” way lies tyranny. But “republicanism” limits the power and reach
of the “democratic” mob or majority.
a “democracy” or “demagoguery” is mob-tyranny. “Democracy” is the death of the
republic, liberty and individual “rights.” For nothing is sacred to the mob but
itself. And hence like a tidal wave the mad mob (or electorate majority) sweeps
away all “constitutional” restraints or “sacred” restrictions. The first thing
a mob, a democracy, a demagoguery wants is to disarm and dispossess or rob
propertied individuals to thus deprive them of their properties, “rights,” liberties
and powers of self-defense (against the Mob, its demagogue, or “jewish,”
Marxist or “communist” “public” officials). Socrates was right, democracy leads
directly to tyranny; for the demagogue (the “leader of the people”) becomes a
tyrant, after he (via his officials) has disarmed the people
—and all for their own
“good” of course, for “public safety” and/or “state security.”
And this disarmament policy is “politically correct” from the tyrant’s point of view. For an unarmed citizenry cannot possibly check nor stop his mob-violence nor his demagogic-, official- or officious violence and tyranny with vain verbal appeals to “sacred” law, or to their “sacred” “rights,” or to republicanism or constitutionalism or what-have-they? (For the mad mob is like a vampire which no sanctity nor crucifix can possibly cower.) No, the citizenry plainly need weaponry (or “material strength”) to defend their “sacred” “rights,” lives, families, properties and liberties (from demagogues and their mad Majorities).
—Ed.] multitudes appeal to the arbitrament of
Physical Force, they cannot possibly win. Possessing neither
the strength, courage, brains, arms, money, nor leaders: they must be
blown into eternal fragments by their masters’ highly trained artillerists, and
citadel of Power [i.e.
now consolidated and prepared with the most approved armaments [and
permanent, established or “standing” armies (navies and air-forces) —Ed.] to repel any [citizen —Ed.] assault,
no matter how well sustained. The nation is intersected in all directions, with
iron highroads [railroads —Ed.] and
splendid waterways, whereon armies and navies may be moved from city to city,
with facility and dread effect. The [“civil” —Ed.] war of Secession (or rather the war for the annihilation of
Self-Government) demonstrated conclusively that a Centralized Authority,
resting on herd-votes of the vulgar and fanatic, is (in practice) military
Absolutism. There is no other Power in the land that can effectively hold it in
check. The Czar of —Ed.].
Americans are only now
—Ed.] beginning to perceive these things, but they were foreseen (and also
foretold in part) by clear-sighted Individuals before the Constitution itself
was formally enthroned.
all the old sphinx questions are up again for solution. No man of balanced sense can
honestly believe that these problems are to be settled by ballot-box stuffing
or Editorialism. Settled they must be upon “the good
old rule, the simple plan” [of might verses might
—Ed.], and thereafter
settled and re-settled again and again; for, there is no finality in social
adjustments and there should not be. Material strength is the basis of all
human greatness and material strength
must “settle” the tyranny of the greatest number; probably with fire and
steel. All other theories are chimeras —lies —delusions —make believe and of no
account. [p. 41-42]
your enemy has a knife, then, dear reader, you need a knife. If your enemy has
a sword, you need a sword. If your enemy has a gun, you need a gun. (And is
your enemy is a political “official,” then you need two.) If your enemy has a cannon, then you need a cannon. If you enemy has a tank,
rocket, army, nuclear bomb. Then guess what? So do you, or sooner or later
he’ll use it against you, or at least threaten to, if you don’t immediately do
whatsoever he commands, and hence submit to the greater power or higher
“authority” of his superior weaponry. And that’s the violent truth of war and
—based upon the necessary
deterrent of a “balance” of weaponry or power.
This is “balance of power politics.” All it takes is one side to escalate its weaponry, for the other to need to respond in kind, in order to remain free, unconquered and alive.
(And who again were the aggressive, belligerent, malevolent, mass-murderous bastards of their dear old “Uncle” Satan who dared open Pandora’s atomic box, thus cursing us all, and thus starting this nuclear ball rolling which cannot but fail before too long to roll over much of God’s once good earth.)
Emotionally-pleasing falsehoods, delusions or lies (instead of the plain truth) simply have no place here. For actions or policies based on falsehoods or lies must fail.*
Governments are official hypocrites who do not practice the disarmament they preach. Governments demand their citizens disarm before them, and yet governments do not disarm, neither before their citizens nor before other governments.
all gov’ts, if you notice (with the usual exception of “
—the anti-Christ tail
wagging the Super-Nazi “jewish” beast), at least publicly profess a desire for
peace. And yet they all do not (unilaterally) disarm. Why not? “Balance of
power” they all say. They all point to the other gov’ts and say, “My
(unilateral) disarmament would amount to my surrender to the others, and a
positive invitation for them to invade and conquer me and my citizenry. For
they would then with their arms or weaponry (and via some justifying pretext or
other) move into my power void, invade my weakened and weaponless state, and
conquer me and my citizenry. And so my mental, physical and weaponless weakness
(however well-intentioned) would then have become my nation’s downfall, and
would supplement or become my enemies’ greater power over me and mine. And so that
is why I cannot disarm: For my (and my beloved citizens’) self protection
against foreign invasion, conquest, imperialism or tyranny.”
And can this governmental argument against all the other gov’ts be applied by the citizen against “his own” (charming or disarming) gov’t? And if not, why not? (Because every citizen’s gov’t is necessarily as benevolent and trustworthy as God Himself, and is hence forever incapable of deceit, betrayal, malevolence or tyranny?) (I think not. What, dear reader, do you think?)
Any gov’t which desires to disarm its citizenry, but not itself, is clearly a would-be tyranny. It obviously does not desire a balance of power (between itself and its subjects). It plainly does not desire any citizen-check upon its own “legal,” official or governmental power or tyranny. But on the contrary, and though it will never confess so, it clearly desires more power at the expense of its disarmed and weakened citizenry. It clearly wants to move into the power void created by its disarming of its citizenry. It obviously wants their loss to be its gain. It plainly wants to devour its young. It clearly wants to conquer its weakened, weaponless and defenseless citizens. But it will never reveal nor admit its malevolent intentions, and so someone else must. But who, dear reader?
Such a disarming gov’t is precisely like that malevolent neighboring state which demands at gun-, cannon- or rocket-point the unilateral disarmament of its neighboring state(s). And as no nations have as yet been foolish enough to comply with such a belligerent, malevolent, dictatorial and tyrannical neighbor, why then should you, dear citizen, thus comply with your own local governmental tyranny? (Because you’re more of a fool than even the dumbest of governments? I think not, or you would not be reading this particular book or author.)
(“Jewish” Amerika, if you notice, (that “peace-loving” and world-“liberating” inventor and dropper of the nuclear bomb), demands the very same disarmament of other nations, but not only of its neighbors, but even against nations half-way across (its?) globe which this malevolent, mass-murderous, SuperNazi “jewish” beast intends to invade, conquer and rule.)
In short, the tyrant (whether “your” own gov’t, or another) wants your power loss to become his power gain. Can you see that, dear reader. It’s rather important for you that you do.
So citizens should no more and no sooner disarm themselves (before their own gov’t) then gov’ts disarm themselves before other gov’ts. And citizens should no sooner disarm themselves before their own gov’t then their own gov’t disarms itself before them. And that simply ain’t ever gonna happen. Agreed? So “don’t let ’em take your gun!”
who else is going to defend you but yourself, and those who love you: i.e. your
friends, your brothers, your father, your Shepherd? Is someone who does not
even love you really and truly going to defend you? If so,
why? Perhaps in reverence for some sacred principle or other, or maybe
for money some mercenary policeman, sheriff or deputy might defend you, but
when the terrible Wolf comes stalking, growling, attacking, devouring, then
surely the hireling shepherd or guardian will run away to save himself
—if not to join the other
side for even higher pay. For surely the hireling does not
love you and yours more than himself and his, and hence he is not willing to
die for you in defending you and yours. (John 10:12-13)
never will the Satanic Wolf ever
love, cherish and hence defend you and yours
—on the contrary. But
that’s not what It will say, nor how It will present and explain Itself, and your disarmament, dispossession, enslavement,
persecution and devouring (by It and Its). As Evil is the self-alleged “Savior”
of mankind, so is It their “Protector” or “Defender.”
Beware human demons in shepherd’s clothing.
The disarming and demonic tyrant, statesman, policeman or sheriff (i.e. the evil “public” or political official) says to us non-officials:
“You, citizens, must not and cannot
legally arm [and therefore cannot possibly properly defend
—Ed.] yourselves from any
and all violence or assault [whether official or unofficial —and especially not
official violence. For it is (like its dispenser) supposedly
“sacred.” —Ed.]. For we public officials have decreed that for you, the
citizenry, mere possession (much less use) of any weaponry is indeed a crime. (But not for us officials, of course. For how can we
officials possibly protect all you citizens if we ourselves possess no weaponry?)
And so henceforth all weaponry and all self-defense is
forbidden all you citizens as a punishable crime by us public officials.
“For we have legally
decreed instead that you shall enjoy our protection. So just sit back, relax and enjoy
—[said the official to his
citizen, the wolf to his lamb, and the rapist to his victim —Ed.]. Don’t worry, be happy.
For we love you dearly, and will protect you always as good parents do. [Which
means the citizen-child, as long as he lives, can never grow up and become
an adult. As the citizen is to be forever “represented” (and hence
is never permitted to represent himself), so he is to be thus forever “protected.”
(Do you smell the “representative” and “protective” rat yet, dear reader? —Ed.] Only we state-officials
shall protect you from now on, and henceforth never again shall you protect
yourself. For you lack our wisdom, expertise and training in such important
state matters. So only we officials, with our official
weaponry, shall protect and defend you, our citizens, from all possible harm
and all possible violence [meaning unofficial violence (of citizen against
citizen, or unofficial against unofficial), but not from governmental, political
or official violence against citizens or unofficials —Ed.]. There is to be no
weaponry but (our) official weaponry from this day forth unto eternity. All
else is and shall remain officially and legally forbidden, contraband and
a most serious and terrible crime. For we have legally decreed it so. And
as it is written, so it shall be done.
“Possession of weapons (much less
their use) from this day forth makes you a terrorist. And you know how hard and
swift our justice falls upon all [who are officially or legally deemed,
labeled, accused or slandered as
who, dear reader, will protect and defend you from the violence of the public
or political official?
—from the humanistic or
communistic state of tyranny?
(Cue and enter the sheriff, our sheriff, stage right. And cue the “Lone Ranger” upon his “Silver” tapping and galloping out their musical theme, the “William Tell Overture.” “Da da da, da da da, da da da da da/ da da da, da da da da da da da/…” etc.)
But let’s think about that statist or official argument for a moment: “You, citizen, cannot arm (nor defend) yourself from violence, because we state-police officials shall protect you.”
Yet whenever police or gov’t fail to protect you, you, battered citizen, cannot even legally sue the state for damages or negligence.
does this mean but that gov’t and its state-police want you defenseless before
—whether official or non-official violence.
(And this is clearly not official love, but malevolence.) But these political
officials especially want you and yours to be entirely defenseless before
themselves, before the government, the official class, the army, the police, the sheriff’s office. This is so they can
safely and with impunity inflict whatever evils they shall be pleased to
perpetrate against you and yours, as they did within and during their “
Learn to see through the masks and pretensions of Evil. Your life and your future depend upon it. Evil is never going to reveal Itself. Evil is far too hideous for that. On the contrary, Evil always lies, deifies, sanctifies and beautifies Itself as most Godlike of all creatures. (See e.g. Its “the chosen people.”) Therefore if Evil is ever to be seen exposed, perceived, and known for what It really and truly is, then someone other than Evil must do so. But who, you?
Similarly Evil will never check, stifle or stop Itself. Therefore only someone other than Evil could possibly ever do so. But where is this anti-Devil or Dragon-slayer precisely now when we need Him most?
What kind of a father wants his family to be defenseless, vulnerable, unarmed,
unprotected? Surely not a loving father, but perhaps a
hateful father who secretly wants his family to be harmed by others. But most of all ’tis an abusive, violent, malevolent and predatory
father who wants his family to always be incapable of ever checking, stopping
or ending his personal violence against
them. The last thing such a battering and
tryannical father would do would be to arm or to teach his battered family to
shoot. Does that make sense? And are presidents not regarded as fathers of
But a good, well-meaning and provident father (or president), because he loves his family as he loves himself, wants his family (or citizenry) armed and capable of self-defense, both physically and mentally. And why not?
But a wife-beating and/or child-abusing anti-father (or gov’t) does not, because he well knows what he is, and what he does, and what he intends, and what he will continue to do, because it is his sadistic or predatory pleasure to do so.
But the Good Shepherd wants His (truly “chosen”) people armed: all the better to keep them from all harm. But the Tyrant and Wolf want their prey disarmed: all the better to safely do them harm.
A tyrant well knows what evils he intends, and so he very much wants his political subjects to be completely defenseless before his malevolence, that he may with total impunity inflict all his secretly intended evils, oppressions or violences against them. But of course he will ceaselessly profess the very opposite: that he is a good and protective political shepherd or father (of his subjects). And woe to all citizens who disbelieve (and especially those who dare publicly profess so) in the “very best intentions,” the “fatherly love and care,” and the “goodness” or “Godness” of the tyrant or “president.” Typically such public doubts (and doubters) are officially or politically persecuted (arrested, “tried,” “convicted” and “punished”) as “slanders” (and “slanderers”).
The tyrant wants his subjects defenseless before his tyranny, simply because he intends to impose or force his malevolent and predatory will over the will of his political subjects, victims or “citizens.” And also the tyrant wants to be able to safely ignore the will, desires or votes of his subjects. Votes or ballots are harmless paper, and hence easily ignored by tyranny. But bullets are by their very nature an entirely different story. And ballots without bullets become mere impotent petitions.
perceive the political impotence of the popular vote or the democratic ballot,
see e.g. the “white flight” of American Euros from violent, predatory and
unwanted Negroes; or see the forsworn and traitorous entries of
“jewish”-Amerikan presidents (Wilson and Rosenvelt) into their World Wars (I
—upon which contrary and
pacific (but false and perfidious) promises both presidential liars and
tyrannical betrayers of the popular will and majority ballot were
so “freedom claws and teeth” (a.k.a. guns and cannon) are not so easy for
Tyranny or Perfidy to ignore as are the impotent paper-“bullets” of the ballot.
And so Tyranny, Malevolence or Evil is very careful to first (coercively and
disarm Its citizenry by criminalizing all unofficial, un-“permitted” or
un-“licensed” weaponry, and thus by persecuting (“prosecuting”) their
“unlawful” owners, bearers, wielders, users. (But if your right to own and
carry weaponry is divine, then any “laws” to the contrary must be crimes of
look at the “jewish” Soviet “
any public officials, gov’t or political party, who coercively, violently,
“legally” disarm the citizenry are necessarily a predatory pack of political
—(the very worse kind). For an honest wolf admits what he is, and what he does, and so he
neither blames nor beats his prey for their self-protective running away.
But a demonic wolf poses as the “savior” of his prey, and so he punishes their
(What were they thinking of? Do they not know or believe that salvation lies within their tyrant’s’ grasp, belly, state or party? But if not, they must be politically “re-educated” in “jewish” “truth” or “political correctness.” (See e.g. their Soviet “Pravda.”)
And so the more predatory or evil political or “public” officials are, the less they confess so, and the more they profess and pretend they are the most loving and protective of political fathers and shepherds. (For Evil is extremely (or sanctimoniously) self-righteous or “holy.”)
“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” says a popular bumper-sticker.
But what about in-laws: political or “public” officials, soldiers, police, sheriffs, deputies? Shall they also have no guns? Or shall they be hunted outlaws for having them? (“Of course not!”)
And thus we are being asked, persuaded, commanded or coerced to undergo or suffer under a “police state” or a “prison-state,” i.e. a political dictatorship of armed officials reigning or lording over us disarmed unofficials or mere citizens. Let’s not go there, dear readers, but, at most, only in our minds; thererby and therein to clearly see this proposed future (or present) lunacy. For such a place as “Citizen-Disarmament” is neither good nor healthy for you nor me.
And thus a slight amendment: “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws and in-laws (or political officials) will have them.” And which party declares guns illegal: outlaws, in-laws or the electorate? We know its not the former, and so that leaves the latter two suspects to defend ourselves against.
But how? Simply by recalling and remembering the concept of divine or inalienable rights, and by accepting, believing, claiming and defending them as your very own. If they’re really, truly and divinely yours, then who but God (and yourself, via your lack of faith) could possibly ever rightly or justly take them away from you? And who but the Devil and Its demons could or would ever even try to?
who else but Satan’s demons (perhaps in human form and
armed with badges, guns and bullets, and maybe even popular ballots) would ever
even try to deprive you of your divine rights, or take them away from you? For
divine rights by definition cannot be annulled by demons nor humans
—not even by entire
electorates of them —not even by the almighty, democratic
“Majority” —a mighty earthly god in
thought, if not in deed.
And these political adversaries (if they have sufficient power) can indeed take your life, your liberties and your properties, but never your divine rights to these earthly gifts God gave you. And there’s your divine justification and fierce determination to defend and keep your divinely “inalienable” rights from Satan and all your other earthly and political adversaries.
For what you think or believe can either save you or damn you, enslave you or set you free. It matters what you (and yours) think. That’s why Marxist, communist or humanist officials want (no command) your children be placed inside their Godless gov’t schools: to possess their minds, make them their tools, and hence estrange them from you, their parents, and from their God.
recall it is both God and yourself who gave or give you your divine rights. For faith alone is the key to their priceless possession, but
otherwise they are free for the taking. (Perceive e.g. how Satan’s
“jews” have always taken what God in truth never really gave them.
It’s a spiritual thing, a psychological, philosophical and religious thing. For you yourself must wholeheartedly value and accept your divine gifts (from God). For to really and truly ever have them and hold them, you must take them to your heart as far richer than golden. And then you must perpetually defend them in order to perpetually keep them. But once you perceive their priceless value, you’ll forever want to.
Have you every contemplated life without rights, powers, liberties and properties, or lived your life in the spiritual poverty of life without them? Just recognize the priceless value of divine or inalienable rights, and realize that without them you’ve got little in heart and hence in hand, and even that little shall soon be taken from you without internalizing or believing in your divine rights to wholeheartedly take, to own, to protect and to defend whatever things you truly believe God gave you, or wants you to have, hold or possess.
And again note, dear reader, how “our” gun-toting, gun-outlawing officials or in-laws are not outlawing nor condemning themselves for gun-toting, but only us unofficials. They’re not officially declaring (commanding, “legislating,” decreeing, dictating) guns or firearms to be illegal for themselves to own or to carry, but only for us unofficials to own or carry.
Why? Explain this to me! It is not because political officials well know our loss of fire-power shall be their gain, and that they tyrannically crave power?
And so it is not power, power and even more power (over us) which these disarming “public” officials covet or crave, that they may be even more established, inexorable and undislodgeable in their political dominion over us, and hence may then oppress, dispossess, and enslave us with even greater impunity than they do now? And so in outlawing guns for us unofficials, are the official party or political class not thereby publicly signaling, attesting, indicating or evincing their malevolent intention of imposing or perpetrating an official dictatorship or tyranny over us mere unofficials? Is this intended tyranny not the secret motive and truth well-concealed behind all the self-serving lies and “public-service” masks of oppressive and tyrannical political officials?
No?! Then why else would they want us citizens disarmed and incapable of self-defense? Why else would this official class desire (seek, command, dictate, decree, enforce) that all us unofficials (via their coercive disarmament) shall be perpetually incapable of defending ourselves against their (potential, if not currently active) official class tyranny?
For the reason(s) they give us?: that they (as if our loving and protective parents or shepherds) love us loveable but emotional, immature and foolish children so much that they never want us to hurt or kill each other (or ourselves) via our nasty weaponry? (And yet, if you notice, dear reader, the official weaponry (of this official class) is far “nastier” than our own, even infinitely, even nuclearly, chemically and biologically so. Is this not so?)
so as little boys must never be suffered to play with knives as if with toys,
we unofficials must never again be suffered to be armed?
—but must now and forever
remain perpetually incapable of ever again defending ourselves? —and not only from each
other’s unofficial (and hence mundane or profane) violence, but especially from
the “legal,” political, state or official (and hence sacred or heavenly)
violence of this very citizen-disarming official class?
And if this official tyranny were not real and true (but hidden) intent of this official or political class in their coercively disarming us unofficials, why then do they never mention that an armed citizenry is (official) tyranny’s only real political check, block, deterrent and preventative? For again, was there even an unofficial (and hence non-self-sanctified) tyrant or tyranny? Or is the attack of the tyrant always merely physical, and not also spiritual, mental or psychological, and hence “authoritative,” “divine,” “sacred” or “official”?
you must never defend yourself against my official, political or “sacred” violence,
dear reader, simply because I have a badge and you do not? And you must never
again even be capable of doing so because you have dutifully obeyed my sacred
command for you to disarm and surrender all of your nasty weaponry to me?
What’s wrong with this political picture, dear reader?
—(aside from my
taking the tyrant’s part).
don’t ever go there, dear reader. But at most, and if you must (i.e. if “your”
tyrant insists) then say (or even swear) that you complied with the tyrant’s
dictate to totally disarm. (For an oath compelled is no oath at all.) And
besides, know that “gun-registration” or “licensing” is the first and logically
necessary step towards your official, political or “legal” disarmament, and
from hence your official, political or “legal” dispossession and enslavement.
(Again see the “jews’” “
So you see, dear reader, we really cannot rely on political officials, nor electorates, nor contracts, nor constitutions, nor pieces of paper to protect and defend ourselves and our loved ones, our rights and our properties. For papers tear or burn, and turn to ash. And constitutions can be changed or “amended.” And political officials almost always betray us. But only in the Lord God is there genuine safety, security and surety. Only He can safely be trusted to be faithful and true (to those faithful to Him).
And should this political truth of this solely reliable One ever suprise anyone? If so, why? Because religious/political fools have been well-deceived by false promises, false pretenses and political tricks of much “religious” authorities, “public” officials, human “holier-than-thou’s” or political “sanctities” somehow lying on two crooked legs.
Thus we can all hopefully see it is none other than personal power or might (“so help me God”) which makes or keeps one (politically) free. (For again is freedom or enslavement ever other than “political”?) And so to stay free the free man must make his protection (and hence his freedom) his very own personal responsibility, as well as his highest priority. For the free man can never safely leave the maintenance of his freedom or his protection to another than himself. For another simply cannot be trusted with so precious a commodity as your absolute liberty, be he a mercenary, or a hireling, but especially if he be a political official: a policeman, sheriff, judge, parliamentary “representative,” taxman or what-have-you. For “public” or political officials are notoriously unreliable, venal, purchasable, treacherous and tyrannical.
without weaponry (and hence freedom) the unfreeman or
slave has nothing left but his life
—(and the mere but hopeless hope of a
successful future rebellion, and hence self-liberation). For once the official
class has seized all the weaponry of the unofficial citizenry, what possible
realistic hope are they left with to ever achieve
(political) liberty? For to possibly successfully self-emancipate (or “rebel”),
or merely to withstand or survive their official tyrants, the political subject
and his fellow rebels must have nearly as many (or more) weapons, numbers and
might as their political oppressors or official enemies. And that again is
merely “real politics.”
And therefore the sheriff (much less any other political official, nor even the electorate or the almighty majority) must never, ever be suffered to encroach nor even touch the divine or sacred right of all citizens to own and carry guns, firearms or weapons. For to defend to the death this divine right of all county citizens is the sheriff’s sworn promise and sacred duty. And hence to deny, “suspend” or betray this absolute or inviolable right of weaponry is the greatest possible sin, offense or crime a sheriff (or his deputies) could ever possibly commit; and for which political remedy all the county citizenry must and should remain forever armed and dangerous.
how else could any citizenry anywhere ever really be free?
—other than by being
powerfully armed and hence incapable of being conquered or overthrown, either
from within or from without their city-state? —and surely never by
trusting in political office or “authority” (of county sheriff or
what-have-you?) to liberate them (from political office or authority,
oppression or tyranny) and/or to forever keep them free from same?
the freeman’s freedom is the freeman’s task and responsibility (and perhaps
even duty) to himself and his loved ones
—and his and his alone.
(For whether a man has a duty to himself (much less to anything else: e.g. his
family, race, nation, state, God or gods) is simply not for me to judge or
decide, but for him alone —at least in my truly “liberal” philosophy or
mythology.) And that is the political truth: that the liberty of freemen, as
well as the tyranny of officials, proceeds primarily from barrels of guns.
Therefore, dear reader, be ye ever armed and dangerous, that you might ever
remain free from (official, political) tyranny. (For again is there any other
therefore I repeat that the sheriff must never be permitted (by the armed
citizenry, if not the electorate) to ever touch (much less to encroach) upon
the divine right of all citizens to own and carry weapons
—and especially in times
of great emergency, danger, crises, fear or violence in the land. For in
precisely just such times are weapons most clearly and sorely needed by
citizens to protect themselves (from the danger, crisis or violence). Yet in precisely just such times do would-be tyrants most
often (coercively or “legally”) disarm their would-be subjects —all the while of course
sanctimoniously professing, like all good “public servants,” their love for the
public, and their sacred or official duty towards creating, imposing or maintaining
“public peace, safety and/or tranquillity.” And a
disarmed public are indeed less potentially violent, being far less capable of
defending themselves…from the armed.
Like a stalking wolf in shepherd’s clothing, tyranny usually proceeds gradually by carefully-planned steps. But tyranny takes giant steps in times of public crises, fear or uncertainty. Thus tyranny carefully prepares its way, and deliberately proceeds toward its goal of total power (over its disempowered, disarmed, impotent and defenseless subjects). And the latter empowers the former as much as the former disempowers the latter. Remember the political see-saw of official and citizen.
And thus enters the official tyrant, and the public’s enemy #1, and the outlaw-sheriff. And barring a deputy’s betrayal of his master, who but the secretly armed (and thus “criminal” or “outlawed”) citizenry could possibly unsaddle such a sitting or reigning outlaw-tyrant, or such a public enemy in public office?
But how far (if at all) should the sheriff be allowed or tolerated to disarm the citizenry in town or city? Doubtless (for obvious reasons) within the court house and the jail house, and perhaps the sheriff’s office, if separate from the latter. But where else? Anywhere else? The county mint and/or bank, perhaps? And any or all other “official” or gov’t buildings, perhaps? Perhaps, but if so, let the sheriff’s disarmament of the citizenry stop with the official or governmental buildings, and proceed no further, and thus venture not at all into the public places: the streets, the parks, etc. For that way lies citizen disarmament everywhere in town (or city). And of course the next official step is citizen disarmament everywhere outside of town or city, (i.e. everywhere within the entire county). And hence we see the completed tyranny of political office over the citizenry. So let’s not go anywhere near there, but carefully watch our steps, and especially those of our “public” officials.
For recall that all this citizen-disarmament mischief
started with a local decree, order, ordinance or law (by the sheriff or mayor,
the town- or city-council) outlawing all unofficial or “unlicensed” guns within
the limits of the town or city “proper”
—(meaning the place
wherein the land ended and the buildings began.) And then from there the town- or
“city ordinance” spread outward like a officious fire or cancer, until a man
was a “criminal” for wearing a gun even outside
of the town or city “proper,” i.e. anywhere at all within the county or the
state; and then perhaps even upon his own landed property. And last but not
least, and the official (but unconfessed or secret)
intention, upshot and goal of all this “gun control,” the unofficial citizen is
officially-forbidden from owning any weapons whatsoever, much less from ever
daring to publicly wear, show or use them, even for self-defense, and even
within his own home.
And there’s the official, political, “legal” or “unconstitutional” end of our “freedom claws and teeth,” and hence of our “inalienable” freedoms or liberties. For without the former, there are no latter, or they won’t last long thereafter. Or what happens to the “criminal” once he is officially disarmed? Is he not then bound and led to a cage or a noose?
(“But surely you’re not equating the disarmed citizen with the criminal.”)
If his “public” officials are would-be tyrants, then his “crime” is his weaponless impotence.
Do you see what thin ice is “constitutionism,” how untrustworthy are its “guarantees,” and how foolish all faith therein?
to whom or what do we mere unofficials (not owe but) lose our rights and
liberties? To whom else but to those
very “public” officials who officially, dictatorially, coercively, “legally”
“constitutionally” or not? (Our loss of liberty or power becomes their official
gain.) And to what
else but to the “sacred” or superior “authority” of these political officials
over us unofficial earthworms, thus officially trampled underhoof
For by the “see-saw law,” our (unofficial) loss is their (official) gain, and vice-versa. And hence this (unofficial) book. Watch them try to censor or outlaw it, and/or to forever silence its writer. For liars hate truth and darkness hates light like (official) vampires hate the (unofficial, unlicensed, unpermitted and hence “illegal”) sun.
surely public, commercial, or religious establishments, and surely private
individuals and groups have the “right” (if not the power) to exclude armed
customers or guests from entering their premises
—or at least to politely
ask or require them to disarm or to “check” their weapons at the door.
(“And if the ‘politely asked’ armed ‘guest’ will not willingly disarm, then what?”)
(Then you as his unwilling host have three choices: to suffer his armed presence; to personally disarm and/or expel him from your presence and premises; or to call the sheriff to referee the dispute between you two. And perhaps he will decide that the unwanted armed individual has “criminally trespassed” upon your property.)
Again, businessmen surely don’t want to be robbed (by armed gunmen). Certainly bartenders don’t want their customers or barrooms shot up by drunken patrons. Surely hosts (or hostesses) of private parties don’t want their guests shooting one another, nor damaging their homes or establishments. And “old-time” preachers certainly don’t approve of the (unofficial) weaponry or violence of anyone other than Moses and/or his god. And so such establishments might certainly desire and request all visitors, guests patrons or customers to be disarmed upon entry.
And so the armed visitors might either comply, or not, and by either entering unarmed, or not at all. And any businessman, e.g., who lost too much business via a bad business policy of driving away customers via tiresome demands (as e.g. requiring all customers to disarm at his door) might therefore have to rethink or amend his irksome gun policy, or else go out of business.
these are the private dealings of private (or unofficial) individuals, for
which “public” or political officials have no official business
inquiring into nor meddling with. And so no sheriff (nor deputy) has the
business of enforcing private deals, contracts, relations or understandings
between citizens a-priori, but only after the fact of an egregious breach, and
merely via responding to a complaint of one citizen against another
—as e.g. that I as a rule
or on “principle” always refuse to surrender or “check” my guns at your door,
saloon, business, church, or what-have-you?
is what I mean by “freedom of association”
—of mutual or voluntary
association. If you don’t want to be, play, work, study or live with me (for
any reason whatsoever: good or bad, smart or stupid, self-provident or
self-sacrificial), then you simply don’t have to, and vice-versa. (This
liberates us both from each other, you see?) And if either forces himself upon
the other, than that’s the very opposite of free and mutual association, isn’t
it? It is predation or rape.
(It’s not for “God’s gift” to force itself/himself on those unwilling bodies and souls who would not be thus “blessed.”) (Perhaps someone should write a book on the vast or antithetical difference between free association and predation.)
Therefore if you don’t want to associate or deal with me (because you e.g. dislike my age, gender, race or nation, my weapons, values, beliefs, thoughts, words, writing style, personality, looks, or for whatever reason(s) you say or do not say), then you simply don’t have to (associate or deal with me), and vice-versa. This is mutual self-liberation.
As surely as any individual may (for whatever reason) lawfully refuse entry into his place to any other individual (or official for that matter, except the sheriff, or his deputy, if armed with a sheriff’s warrant to that effect), so surely may proprietors prevent any customers from entering their premises, establishments or businesses, or refuse to do business with them. Call it “boycotting” or “barring” of customers, if you like. (For why make or keep the business boycott merely one-sided? Clearly free trade or commerce is the free exchange of free citizens to buy or sell whatsoever they please from and to whomsoever they please.)
economic or business dealings among private or unofficial
citizens is, like their social interactions, their own private business,
and no one else’s
—and especially no “public” or political
official’s. For business, like society, must always be
voluntary, or else it is predation, rape, war or robbery, and hence the
antithesis of society or civility.
Therefore you, dear reader, may refuse to deal with me (socially, racially, politically, economically, business-ly, or whatever) as surely as I may do so with thee. Thus I set my own terms of my business or social dealings with you, as do you with me. And it is no one else’s business but our own, and especially no official’s. And so again if you don’t want me in your company or on your property, then either I respect your wishes, or I do not, and vice-versa. And unless one of us makes an official complaint to the sheriff about the other, then we ourselves settle our dispute or differences.
dueling, e.g., be lawful or legal? I don’t know. Ask yourselves. And ask your
candidates for the well-paid “public” office of county sheriff whether he shall
enforce any current anti-dueling law. (For remember our proposed county sheriff
shall dictate or make no laws whatsoever, but shall merely declare before his
election which laws, if any, his office will not enforce if he is elected.) And vote for that candidate (if any)
who gives the right answers to your questions
—i.e. your answers. And
make damn sure your elected sheriffs do whatsoever they promised you while
campaigning for your vote. For otherwise the campaign, the election and the
county office is thereby made a sham and a mockery. And therefore any and all
perfidious sheriffs should and must be run out of office (and hopefully out of
county) —and by who else but the
by the way, forbade his officers to duel amongst themselves
—(mostly over women and
“honor,” I suppose). For that lethal but “honorable” custom and practice was
decimating his officer core.)
Each man armed and therefore free protects himself, his home and his family. And that’s his own responsibility. For he alone (and no sheriff) can make him free.
because all county citizens possess the divine right of self-defense, and hence
of weaponry (and good thing for their sakes that they do too, as without this
“inalienable” right they’d soon become disarmed slaves), and of
free-association, they therefore constitute a potential unofficial army in
combination. But not a “standing,” established or permanent army (of
unofficials, common or regular folks), but a freely associative army
—i.e. one whose autonomous
members are ever free to combine and to separate as they please —except perhaps for short
mutually-contractual periods of time, and especially during a county invasion
or other local crisis.
And collectively-speaking, those armed and therefore free citizens who freely choose to, can, will (and for their own sakes probably should) combine into unofficial citizens’ “militias,” forces, posses or armies to defend their county from outside invasion or internal usurpation, whether unofficial or official, but especially against the only intra-county “public” official powerful enough to possibly perpetrate just such an intra-county usurpation: the county sheriff and his deputies.
In other words, the office of county sheriff shall be the only official check on the county citizens or unofficials, whether individually or combined, and also on all other political offices or officials inside or outside of the sovereign county. And the armed citizenry shall be the unofficial or citizens’ check upon the county sheriff’s office. And thus the (unofficial) aim and hope is to approximate or achieve an internal balance of official and unofficial county powers or “posses.” You see?
It is of course to be hoped that in times of county crises and/or invasion the official army of sheriff’s deputies and the free citizen’s militia(s) (or citizen army) will be able to work together to protect, defend and preserve the sovereignty, autonomy and prosperity of their county.
But the various county “militias,” being military or militant associations of armed private citizens (or unofficials), are the county citizens’ own private social business, and should in no way be legally subordinate, nor inferior in power, number of members, nor weaponry to the sheriff’s official “army” of full-time and part-time deputies, or of regular and “special” or temporary deputies, as e.g. employed in “sheriff’s posses,” and as prescribed by the county electorate.
any sheriff’s order for any county militia to disarm or disband (as
distinguished from to disperse at a specific time and place
—as e.g. in an attempted
prisoner-abduction and lynching) is treasonable and an official declaration of
war against the citizenry and their divine or “inalienable” rights. For always
and everywhere the citizen must remain master over the political official, and
especially over the highest “public” official, the proposed new sheriff. For
wherever any official army has grown stronger than the armed citizenry (the
citizen’s army or “militia(s)”), or wherever (via whatever pretext, excuse or
conditions) the citizenry have been officially disarmed, then tyranny is not
merely an accident waiting to happen, but has doubtless already done much to
make conditions ripe for its official emergence.
And whether a full-time deputy should at the same time be allowed to be a member of any citizen militia is yet another issue (like so many others) for the county electorate to debate and decide.
(And see, if you please, the chapter entitled “To Have or not to Have (“Constitutional”) Weaponry? And Who needs it?” within Appendix II, On Constitutionalism…
county citizens should ever be forced to join any (temporary) sheriff’s posse.
But whether county-conscription shall ever be lawful, and if so, under what conditions,
is another thorny question for the county electorate to answer. But recognize
and ever beware, dear reader, the great political danger of forcing citizens
into an official county, force, posse or army
—and thus out of their
unofficial county forces, militias, or army.
if ever you do conscript your county citizens into a county army, (and
hopefully merely a temporary army raised to meet a temporary challenge or
—for a permanent,
established or “standing” army is a tyranny, usurpation, take-over or
“revolution” waiting to happen), never make the sheriff your
county-commander-in-chief, but always pick another man, and preferably an
unofficial. And thus at that extraordinary and politically dangerous time you
shall have two official county forces or armies; (for any “sacred” coertion is by definition “official”): the sheriff, his
deputies, and any (temporary) posse-members; and the conscripted county army;
each hopefully acting as an official check upon the other, and the yet
unofficial and free citizens’ militia(s) hopefully acting as an unofficial
check upon both official county armies, forces, powers. For again the free
citizens’ militias (or their combined army) is ever
necessary to check the potential official tyranny of the sheriff’s office, and
of any (conscripted and hopefully temporary) county army.
the same way it was hoped that the “free militias” within the several American
states would be sufficient to check the invasion, conquest, usurpation and
tyranny of any “standing” or permanent armies of the “federal” gov’t. They
weren’t. And thus died the “sovereign” states of
to place or invest the power of conscription in any county sheriff or, much
worse, in the sheriff’s office (and therefore in every sheriff) is far too much official or political power to give,
place, trust or invest in any one man or, much worse, in any one political
office, badge or authority. It’s simply far too much official power to possess
and hence wield over the county citizenry. For such power of sheriff-conscription
into an official county army under his personal generalship, would be like
the power of a coercive or conscriptive sheriff’s
“posse comitatus” squared or cubed. It would make the sheriff the commander-in-chief
of a conscripted county-army, which would be an unstoppable and hence dictatorial
force within (or rather over) the county. And that is military and hence political
—exactly like that from
of course insist that any and all militias of free citizens or unofficials
—(as they are by character,
nature and definition) —except perhaps for short periods of mutual
contraction or obligation, as occurs in countless other areas of civil life:
property leases or other contracts, e.g. And of course let
each unofficial militia of free citizens freely choose or elect their own
leaders. And if during a county invasion or crises these
free citizens’ militias volunteer to join with (or even under) the sheriff
or any county conscript army, then that’s their free choice, and maybe their
bitter regret. (I would not say “never,” but would ever say beware
tyranny, and beware “precedent.”)
Finally, as all citizens are ever armed and hence ever free (unless whenever and wherever conscripted or contracted) there is nothing stopping them from voluntarily and unofficially forming armed groups without the slightest duty or obligation to stay together, like any member of any free or unconscripted army, force or posse.