Violent Shooter Manifestos

fake news vidiot

Result of the Nixon anti-libertarian law

Like the Unabomber, Patrick the El Paso shooter wrote a manifesto. The Unabomber manifesto helped identify and arrest the violent anarchist. The El Paso amok’s confession includes Ecological National Socialist declarations of altruistic (not personal) motives in defense of the environment, and against being assimilated by foreigners. The thing even drips Dixiecrat eugenicist preaching agin’ shameless race mixers, oozes altruism, racial collectivism, and appeals to the initiation of force. Why? Because “we” need welfare, universal health care, and because racial mixing is SELFISH!


Republican President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1903 letter against “race suicide” (women practicing birth control) set the stage on paranoid racial collectivism when Adolf Hitler was an impressionable 14-year-old. Roosevelt 5 years earlier fired live ammo at Hispanics in Cuba, where he was resented as an invading foreigner. Hitler’s 1920 platform is a rich source of material for G.O.P. planks.

Democratic politicians and media groupies quote Patrick’s immigration rants with whoops of joy, but their silence on his econazi manifestations is as deafening as the vacuum of space. Quoting Al Gore for his title, under ECONOMIC REASONS the berserker praises “The Lorax“, claims “Water sheds… are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations” and bemoans “unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste” and a shortage of “recycling”(!)

Under POLITICAL REASONS, this troubled son of a coddling psychologist mimics the Unabomber’s “centrist” stance as if channel surfing between Fox News and CNN. “The Inconvenient Truth is that… Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us…”  Patrick expressly fears “the Democrat party will own America,” ignoring the fact that the Dems LOSE every election by promising to tax the air we breathe and ban electric power the way Republicans try to ban plant leaves and birth control. Dems win after God’s Own Prohibitionists shatter the economy. This was so in 1932, 1992, and 2008.

Bill Clinton won because Reagan and Bush wrecked the economy, invaded other countries with impoverishing asset-forfeiture prohibitionism, and caused the Exodus Northward. Obama’s election was a remake.  Bush Junior packed DC with faith-based prohibitionist fanatics whose orgy of asset-forfeiture looting, like Herbert Hoover’s, wrecked the economy. Absorbing Dixiecrat racial collectivism after the 1968 election mongrelized the GOP.

I’d lay odds this initiation-of-force manifester has never heard of the Libertarian party, much less knows how libertarian spoiler votes have efficiently repealed bad laws since 1972. Thanks to Richard Nixon’s use of the IRS as a mechanism paying the media to ignore the LP, teevee-inculcated youngsters haven’t a clue there exists an effective mechanism for peaceful change that begins by choosing the new party on the ballot or by signing:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

Find out how Temperance Pledge prohibitionists wrecked the U.S. economy in Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929. Live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Legal and immigration documents translated

Legal and Financial document translations

The Panic of 1857

Looter historians explain away financial panics, crashes, collapses and depressions the way their government sponsors expect them to. After all, who who pays the piper, calls the tune. Governments also pay for the public notices sections in the newspapers, and it pays a pauper paper to please petty politicians. Continue reading

Patriot Act, 1913

First the Balkans, now U.S.-occupied Afghanistan!

See the original article…

Remember Serbia? It was Servia back when communist youths shot European politicians practically every month before World War One. But war in the Balkans did not begin in 1914. Only when China overthrew its imperial government in 1911 and halted British and German dumping of narcotics did the price glut destabilize prices, then politics, in that opium-farming region. That particular outbreak of European opium wars began in 1911. Newspapers at the time juxtaposed related articles and let readers draw their own correlations and conclusions.

Prohibition linked to War

Decriminalization instead of legalization circumvents government dependence on addictive dope

Here is a sample of an Enabling Act or Patriot Act enacted by the Serbian government. This was over a year before another communist youth shot yet another feather-bedecked Germanic militarist as ratifying signatures slowly accumulated on the Hague anti-opium convention.

Article 1. The police authorities are authorized, in case of a deficiency in the regular organization for securing the liberty and security of persons and property, to ask military commander for the troops necessary for the maintenance of order and tranquillity. The military commander is bound to comply immediately with these demands, and the police is bound to inform the Minister of the Interior of them.

Article 2. Any attempt at rebellion against the public powers is punishable by five years’ penal servitude.

The decision of the police authorities, published in the respective communes, is proof of the commission of crime.

If the rebel refuses to give himself up as prisoner within ten days from such publication, he may be put to death by any public or military officer.

Article 3. Any person accused of rebellion in terms of the police decision and who commits any crime shall be punished with death.
If the accused person himself gives himself up as a prisoner into the hands of authorities, the death penalty shall be commuted to penal servitude for ten or years, always provided that the commutation is approved by the tribunal.

Article 4. Where several cases of rebellion occur in a commune and the rebels do not return to their homes within ten days from the police notice, the authorities have the right of deporting their families whithersoever they may find convenient.
Likewise the inhabitants of the houses in which armed persons or criminals in general are found concealed, shall be deported.
The heads of the police shall transmit to the Prefecture a report on the deportation procedure, which is to be put in force immediately.
The Minister of the Interior shall, if he think desirable, rescind deportation measures.

Article 5. Any person deported by an order of the Prefecture who shall return to original domicile without the authorization of the Minister of the Interior shall be punished by three years’ imprisonment.

Article 6. If in any commune or any canton the maintenance of security demands the sending of troops, the maintenance of the latter shall be charged to the commune or the canton. In such a case the Prefect is to be notified.
If order is restored after a brief interval and the culprits taken, the Minister of the Interior may refund such expenses to the canton or the commune.
The Minister may act in this way as often as he may think desirable.

Article 7. Any person found carrying arms who has not in his possession a from the police or from the Prefect, or who shall hide arms in his house or elsewhere shall be condemned to a penalty varying from three months’ imprisonment to five years’ penal servitude.
Anyone selling arms or ammunition without a police permit shall be liable to the same penalty.

… and so on for another two pages. The lesson here is that economic dislocation–such as resulted from the George Bush Jr. asset-forfeiture crash or the religious terrorism the Bush Dynasty invited by the entangling shelling and bombing former Ottoman territory–results in even grosser initiation of force in a mystically mixed economy.

The initiation of harmful and deadly force sets in motion a feedback loop with forced oscillations. Voting Libertarian is the only effective way to counter these buildups, as the Kleptocracy parties are well aware. Why? Because candidates and partisans oppose the initiation of force for political or social reasons. No initiation of force means there is no pretext for violent retaliation.

Defeat doublethink and reality control
Orwellian interpreting and translations. Don’t miss out: foreign blog….



Duterte to replace Sessions

As usual, rumors are everywhere that El Presidente is about to fire or replace someone. And yet barely two centuries ago such rumors in Europe were about a ruler preparing to burn or behead someone. That’s Progress. But Beauregard Sessions is more than a reproach. The Alabama bigot was a return to George Wallace partisans keeping “dark people” in their place–much as satirized in Mr. Dooley and George Orwell’s “Burmese Days.” 


“Our number’s up.** Best thing we can do is to shut up shop and let ’em stew in their own juice,” remarked Senator Grassley (R-IA).

“I don’t agree, I simply don’t agree,” Senatrix Feinstein replied. “We could put things right in a month if we chose. It only needs a pennyworth of pluck. Look at Amritsar. Look how they caved in after that. Dyer knew the stuff to give them. Poor old Dyer! That was a dirty job. Those cowards at the UN have got something to answer for.”

There was a kind of sigh from the others, the same sigh that a gathering of Roman Catholics will give at the mention of Bloody Mary. Even Mr Trump, who detested bloodshed and martial law, shook his head at the name of Dyer.

“Ah, poor man! Sacrificed to the liberals at the UN. Well, perhaps they will discover their mistake when it is too late.” “What about this fellow Duterte? Might he be a replacement for Mr. Magoo?”

** With apologies to Eric Arthur Blair–son of British Sub-Deputy Opium Agent Second-class, –and author of “Burmese Days.”

Ever need a translator for travel visas, immigration or contract interpreting?

The Valentine’s Day Massacre

Chapter 40

The Valentine’s Day Massacre

The electoral college had barely confirmed the election of the Hoover-Curtis dry fanaticism slate voted in 1928. There were still over two weeks to go until inauguration day which, back then, was on March 4th.


            Radio newscasters shocked the nation with the story of the Chicago Saint Valentine’s Day massacre in which five gangsters an optician and a mechanic were machine-gunned against a brick wall. The drys fell upon this with whoops of joy and redoubled their lobbying efforts for passage of a draconian enforcement bill introduced a year before by Congressman Gale Hamilton Stalker and Senator Wesley Livsey Jones.[1] What disturbed Chicagoans was the economic reaction; corn dropped 1 & 1/8 cents, and bank stocks likewise fell. All 7,000 saloons, speakeasies and beer flats in the city were immediately shut down, which effectively dried up a major source of income for that convention city. The dry autocracy sprang into action and Congress was besieged with heated demands that something be done immediately to enforce prohibition. Senator Glass, as always, resumed his railing against stock market gambling.[2]

Ferrari’s City Trust depositors, by now sick and tired of obfuscation, organized to demand what New York State feared most: answers.

Investigation of narcotics trial Judge Winslow now went to a House committee, and ailing Hollywood star Alma Rubens was humiliatingly exposed as a morphine addict. As icing on the cake, one John Sergi was arrested for the 14th time and charged with running a mail-order business in heroin.[3] All these stories broke Thursday, February 17, but none were as important as the other white powder connection.


[1] (NYT 3/24/29 27)

[2] (CT 2/17/29 1, III-8; 15) (WSJ 2/16/29 1) (NYT 2/17/29 1)

[3] (NYT 2/17/29 24; 2; 23)



Lysander Spooner, anarquista ou libertário? Fascículo 10

Continuação da crítica do Lysander Spooner, advogado antiescravagista horrorizado pelos resultados da invasão, pela União Alfandegária, dos Estados Separacionistas na esteira da Guerra da Secessão. Esta guerra, no Sul, se descrevia como a Invasão e também como a Guerra entre os Estados.


A Constituição, além de não ter agora obrigatoriedade sobre pessoa alguma, nunca teve tal obrigatoriedade. Nunca comprometeu a ninguém, pois jamais foi convencionada de maneira que, de acordo com princípios gerais do direito e da razão, a fizesse vinculante sobre alguém.
É princípio geral do direito e da razão, que o instrumento escrito não compromete a ninguém, a menos que o tenha assinado. Tão inflexível este princípio, que apesar do cidadão não saber escrever seu nome, deve ainda “fazer sua marca”, antes que lhe passe a ter obrigatoriedade o contrato escrito. Esse costume foi estabelecido há séculos, numa era em que poucos homens sabiam escrever seu nome; quando o escrivão – isto é, a pessoa que soubesse ler e escrever – era raridade tão valiosa que mesmo culpado de delitos ou crimes graves, merecia clemência, isto porque o público não tinha condições de perder seus serviços. Mesmo naquela época, o contrato lavrado teria de ser assinado; e os que não sabiam escrever ou “faziam a sua marca”, ou assinavam com cunho na cera presa ao documento no qual estava assentado o contrato. Daí o costume de selar documentos, que continua até hoje.
Reza a lei, e declara a razão que, enquanto não for assinado o documento escrito, deve-se presumir que a parte para a qual seria obrigatória optou por não assiná-lo, deixando assim de se comprometer. Tanto o direito como a razão dão a ela o direito de decidir, até o último momento, se assina ou não. Nem o direito, nem a razão requer ou espera que o cidadão concorde com um instrumento até que este seja lavrado; pois a menos que esteja escrito, não tem ele como saber o seu significado jurídico exato. E quando estiver reduzido a termo, tendo o interessado aproveitado da oportunidade de se satisfazer quanto ao seu significado jurídico exato, aí sim, e não antes, espera-se que decida se quer ou não convencioná-lo. E se é que opte por não assiná-lo então, supõe-se que seu motivo seja que optou por não se comprometer com tal contrato. De nada vale o fato de ter sido o instrumento preparado para ser firmado por ele, ou na esperança de que ele o assinasse.
Imagine a fraude e o litígio se uma parte pudesse entrar em juízo com uma escritura desprovida de assinatura e insistir que a façam valer, arguindo que fora lavrada para que outro a assinasse? que havia prometido assiná-la? que devia tê-la assinado? que tivera a oportunidade de assiná-la, caso quisesse? mas que se recusou ou omitiu de fazê-lo. Porém nada além se pode dizer da Constituição.b Os próprios juízes, que professam derivar toda a sua autoridade da Constituição – de um instrumento jamais assinado por ninguém – desprezariam qualquer outro instrumento sem assinatura que lhes fosse apresentada para adjudicação.
De mais a mais, no direito e na razão, não basta o instrumento ter sido assinado, devendo também ser entregue à parte (ou procurador desta), pela qual foi lavrado, antes de que possa ser válido para a parte que o assinou. A assinatura não tem efeito algum a menos que o instrumento também seja protocolado. E a parte tem perfeita liberdade de se recusar a protocolar um instrumento escrito após tê-lo assinado. É tão plena esta liberdade de se recusar a entregá-la quanto a de se recusar a assiná-la. Além de a Constituição nunca ter sido assinada por ninguém, ela também nunca foi entregue por ninguém, tampouco a procurador ou agente de pessoa alguma. Não tem como ter mais valia, portanto, que qualquer outro instrumento que jamais foi assinado ou entregue.
(Continua na Parte V…)

Lysander Spooner, anarquista ou libertário? Fascículo 5

Conclusão do argumento de Spooner que a votação nos EUA (ainda voluntária, só que com voto cada vez mais secreto após a Guerra da Secessão) nada prova sobre a aceitação da constituição pelo eleitor. A 14ª Emenda já era familiar e a 15ª – garantindo o voto, inclusive aos ex-escravos – ainda era novidade. Segue o 1º parágrafo da 14ª, a segunda das três Emendas da era da Reconstrução: 

  1. Todas as pessoas nascidas ou naturalizadas nos Estados Unidos, e sujeitas a sua jurisdição, são cidadãs dos Estados Unidos e do Estado onde tiver residência. Nenhum Estado poderá fazer ou executar leis restringindo os privilégios ou as imunidades dos cidadãos dos Estados Unidos; nem poderá privar qualquer pessoa de sua vida, liberdade, ou bens sem processo legal, ou negar a qualquer pessoa sob sua jurisdição a igual proteção das leis. (…)

–Voltando ao Spooner, advogado antiescravagista, conclusão da Parte II, votação.

Pelo leque de motivos aqui exposto, a votação não oferece evidência jurídica alguma sobre quais os indivíduos (existindo algum), que apoiam livremente a Constituição. A votação portanto não apresenta evidência legal alguma de que haja quem a apoie voluntariamente.

No que diz respeito à votação, a Constituição, na perspectiva jurídica, não conta com o apoio de ninguém.

A bem da verdade, não há a mínima probabilidade de que exista, em todo o país, um único partidário legítimo da Constituição. Vale dizer, não há a mínima probabilidade de que exista um ser humano no país que entende o que realmente representa essa Constituição e que a apoie com sinceridade pelo que realmente é.

Os ostensivos partidários da Constituição, como os supostos partidários da maioria dos governos, se decompõem em três categorias, viz.: 1. Tratantes, classe numerosa e ativa essa, que percebe no governo instrumento para seu próprio enaltecimento ou para se enriquecer. 2. Otários – grande categoria, sem dúvida – cada um desses, por ser permitido uma voz em milhões na decisão sobre o que pode fazer com sua própria pessoa e propriedade, e por ser permitido a mesma voz no assalto, apresamento e assassinato de outras pessoas que estas têm em assaltar, escravizar e apresá-lo, é parvo o suficiente para imaginar que seja “um homem livre”, “soberano” nos direitos; que seja este um “país livre”; um “governo dos direitos iguais”, “o melhor governo que existe” e outros disparates. 3. Uma classe dos que têm alguma apreciação das maldades dos governos, porém não sabem como se ver livre, ou optam por não sacrificar seus interesses particulares de modo a se dar, de maneira engajada e séria, ao trabalho de fazer as mudanças.

(Fim da parte II, continua na Parte III)

Necessitando de um tradutor ou intérprete jurídico com longa experiência no ramo, entre em contato.