WillY:
The powers that be are working the same fraud on the people as they did with
the booze during prohibition. When everything comes out in the wash, you
will see all of the supporters and financiers of government running the
whole industry.
Beer, wine and whisky was just too easy for everyone to make and drugs are
the same way. It is a big business, just like alcohol and it takes powerful
government to keep the little people out.
The big boys have no intention of trying to compete in a free enterprise
type of society; they need big government to keep things under control while
they rake in all of the dough.
The Communist Manifesto, on page 25, tells us that we must have a heavy
progressive or graduated income tax. Abolition of all right to inheritance;
they take a big bite there. Centralization of credit in the hands of the
State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive
monopoly. Our controllers bought themselves a government, set up the
privately owned Federal Reserve System and had their government pass the
Tax-Free Foundation Act, checking themselves out of the tax stream in
perpetuity. There is now more than 100,000 of these tax-dodge, tax-free
foundations stealing the fruits of the loamier of millions of people who
actually believe that these crooks are running beneficial charities.
Philanthropy, my backside! Even the Commie, Gorby, has one.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries. Ever wonder what
is happening to all of the ranchers and farmers? It's a secret.
Free education for all children in public schools. "A general state
education is a mere contrivance for
> moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in
> which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the
> government, whether this be a monarchy, a priesthood or an
> aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion
> as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the
> mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body." John Stuart
> Mill.
Centralization of the means of communication: This is how it works: "One
night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the
preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honor at a banquet given
him by the leaders
of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast
to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as
an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if
you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid
weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you
who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the
streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear
in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be
gone.
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie
outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to
sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know
it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the
jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our
possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are
intellectual prostitutes."
"The World's greatest problem is the zeal with which deceived people defend
their deception."
"For this democracy to work, the majority has to believe many lies, ignore
many facts, make many false assumptions and be quick to ridicule anyone who
would dare try to enlighten them." I do not know who was responsible for
this quote nor the one just above, but one of the biggest lies comes from
those who call the Republic a democracy; and the deceived are quick to
ridicule anyone who would dare to enlighten them.
Speaking to the House of Lords on March 2, 1770, William Pitt observed
that "There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself."
Benjamin Disraeli in his novel Coningsby said: "The world is governed by
very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind
the scenes." President Woodrow Wilson, in his book "The New Freedom",
written in 1913 wrote: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's
views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the
field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of
something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so
subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they
had better not speak above their breath in condemnation of it."
We have been under this secret control system for over one hundred years;
the elite of all countries are involved, and our lives do not mean a damned
thing to any of them. The elite have been using drugs on the people of the
world for many years; the Rockefellers were shipping boat loads of opium
into China before most of us were even born. The government in England has
been doing the same to many countries and the present CFR controlled
government in the USA is now one of the biggest drug pushers in the world.
This is all about letting people know that nothing has changed over the past
many years; just the names of the actors who are selling the people, the
government, and the world - down the river. This criminal action will not be
stopped until enough people become aware of the problem and how these
criminals operate.
The Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and all the rest of
the traitors are now in a big hurry to usher in their New World Order. In
their haste, they are making big mistakes; the internet exposure is the
reason for their haste; they will be slipping in their own manure and this
is the time and the place to catch and to expose them. Get the word out to
as many and as fast as you know how.
Yours truly,
Cliff Hume.
At 05:48 AM 10/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
>No more ICHMIWA defense!
>========================
>
>With the nation finally beginning to emerge from the long silence
concerning the failure of the War on Drugs, it is time to examine possible
alternatives to drug prohibition. First of all, no one is arguing for the
complete "legalization" of drugs, without any controls by government. The
War on Drugs did not fail because the government tried to control drug
distribution, but because it tried to control drug USE. In short,
prohibition tried to control TOO MUCH.
>
>Those of us who oppose prohibition must come up with a plan to make sure that:
>
> 1) Drugs are kept out of the hands of children.
> 2) Public drug use does not "scare the horses."
> 3) Costs of drug use to society must be minimized.
> 4) Crime does not increase because of drug sales and use.
>
>These are the principle fears that almost everyone has concerning the
decriminalization of substances currently forbidden and seem to us quite
reasonable, as long as it is accepted, as first principle, that the
government has no business whatsoever dictating to the individual what he or
she ingests.
>
>Keeping mind altering drugs out of the hands of children is perhaps the
easiest task. Teenagers routinely report that marijuana is easier to obtain
than alcohol, despite the "legality" of the latter. Why? Because when drug
laws are rational, everyone has a vested interest in seeing that they are
obeyed. The liquor store owner who sells booze to minors is risking a very
lucrative business in return for negligible instant profit. The natural
tendency of teenagers to defy authority is counteracted by tough enforcement
of minimum-age-of-purchaser laws. Of course, there will always be some
teenagers who find ways to break those laws, but hey, what else is new!
>
>Existing laws on loitering and public disturbances should be sufficient, if
enforced, to keep drug users from "freaking out" in public. Indeed, urban
centers, in particular Mayor Giuliani's New York City, have recently moved
in this direction precisely because preventing legal decay at the lowest
levels discourages higher level criminality...the so-called "broken window"
theory of urban law enforcement. This theory, which seems to work, suggests
that visible deterioration of public sensibility encourages a descent into
lawlessness in a vicious loop and that enforcement of the lowest level laws
tends to break that loop at the outset.
>
>As for minimizing the costs, now and in the future, of mind altering drug
use, much could be achieved by the simple expedient of being able to tax
legally sold substances. These taxes could be set in accordance with the
perceived current costs of drug use and abuse, and periodically adjusted to
reflect actual costs. Furthermore, the decriminalization of drug sales and
use would allow overtasked police departments to put much more effort into
combating those crimes that are universally seen to be serious. Finally, it
is hard to overestimate how much of the cost of drug prohibition is directly
due to the fact of the drugs being illegal. If nothing else, "Rap Brown"
syndrome...the tendency of someone who is already breaking some "serious"
law with severe penalties to think nothing of breaking any other, less
serious, law...would be almost completely eliminated vis a vis drug use.
Likewise, the turf wars of drug dealers, which are really about MONEY, not
DRUGS, would be completely eliminated.
>
>Finally, there is the fear of the increase in other crimes if drugs are
made easily available to adults. Drug prohibitionists point to the huge
increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol related crimes that has
accompanied the legalization of that drug.
>
>We would counter that the single most critical cause of that surge in
criminality was the tendency of society to excuse behavior committed under
the influence of mind altering substances. When alcohol prohibition was
ended, a long period of leniency toward crimes committed under the influence
of alcohol began. Whether those crimes were trivial like "public nuisance"
or serious, like manslaughter with a motor vehicle, drunks were routinely
given lighter penalties than those who committed the same crimes while sober.
>
>THIS WAS EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO!
>
>Furthermore, most people have come to this same conclusion, a sign that,
finally, our society is becoming mature and responsible, at least about
alcohol inebriation. State laws against drunken driving have lately been
increased to reflect the actual consequences of the behavior rather than the
mental state of the perpetrator. This tendency was probably accelerated by
the observation that we had actually been ENCOURAGING
lawlessness-while-inebriated with our previous stance. We have also been
giving an cheap excuse to anyone who does not want to quit self destructive
behavior.
>
>We would apply this same wisdom to the decriminalization of all other
substances. That is, the ICHMIWA defense...I Couldn't Help Myself, I Was
Addicted...has got to be completely purged from our legal system.
>
>What's that you say? An addicted individual really CAN'T help him or herself?
>
>BULLSHIT!
>
>Not only have we romanticized the notion of addiction with this fiction,
but we have allowed our "meddling" professions...counselors, rehabilitation
"experts," psychiatrists, social workers and psychologists...to keep adding
ever new behaviors to the list of "addictions." Bill Clinton is "addicted
to sex." Children get "addicted to television." Now, even the Internet has
entered the arena of "treatable behavior disorder"...read: sickness...with a
"Web surfing addiction."
>
>WHAT CRAPPOLA!
>
>First of all, NO ONE gets addicted to anything that they do not want to do.
People do NOT use heroin or cocaine because they are "addicted" to it but
because they like...REALLY, REALLY LIKE...the high it produces. The fact
that habitual use of a drug causes withdrawal symptoms when its use is
stopped is an additional factor to be taken into account, but it certainly
does not trump the real reason that the drug is being used. Furthermore, no
street junkie will EVER say...except to a cop or counselor...that they HAD
to use the drug. They all know perfectly well why they are doing it. They
also know that, sooner or later, they will have to bear the pain of
withdrawal. That they put off this time of reckoning as long as possible is
simply rational behavior. Getting caught, of course, changes their whole
story. They have been carefully "taught," by the drug control-freaks, that
they are "sick" individuals who can be rehabilitated. Hey, why not? It's
better than jail, right?
>
>If we decriminalize all drugs...and we suggest just that...then the next
step is to re-criminalize the commission of ANY OTHER CRIME while under the
influence of mind bending drugs. It might even be a good idea to INCREASE
the normal penalty for that crime if the individual is also intoxicated when
committing it. We feel that this single expedient, if adopted, will make
the transition from prohibition to controlled use that much easier.
>
>One final note. The reader will have noted that "addiction" bears a
striking resemblance to another mental "illness," obsessive/compulsive
behavior. We maintain that this too is a fiction, that we are ALL, at
heart, obsessive/compulsives. Most of us control it. Some, like Jack
Nicholson's character in the movie As Good as it Gets, do not. But that is
a subject for another column. Suffice to say, for now, that just as it is
important for a free individual to assume responsibility for all his or her
actions, it is likewise essential that society, as a whole, do so as well.
The first step is to recognize that the notion of "addiction" is a hummer
and banish it to the dustbin of history.
>
>Talk to you later...
>
>============================================
>
>We now have a discussion forum at:
>
> http://www.dreamagic.com/wwwboard/wwwboard_HCYL.html
>
>This column is also published on the Web at:
>
> http://www.dreamagic.com/bruce/gandw50.html
>
>Go there if you wish to investigate the links, or visit the following URL
for all previously published columns:
>
> http://www.dreamagic.com/bruce/prvbruce.html
>
>To write to Gypsy and Willy, reply to this email and delete the text you
don't want repeated.
>
>Would you like to recommend this column to some friends?
>If so, go to the page:
>
> http://www.dreamagic.com/cgi-bin/birdcast1.cgi
