Sunday, April 12, 2009

Mind Control And Gun Control

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - May 1999

Just a week before the National Rifle Association has its annual convention in Denver, Colorado, two or more insane teenagers (just four miles south of Denver) shoot and kill 13 of their classmates with firearms and then kill themselves. This seriously challenges the law of chance. Anyone familiar with the history of so-called "gun control" in America, beginning with the "Texas Clock Tower Sniper", to Lee Oswald, to Sirhan Sirhan, to James Earl Ray, and through to Patrick Purdy (Stockton schoolyard shooter), and Colin Ferguson (Long Island railway shooter) will smell a rat.

How many of these senseless "random" incidents will it take for the American people, in their fear, naivete and ignorance, to willingly surrender their right to keep and bear arms? If you wanted to disarm the citizenry of America there is no better way than to barrage the excitable public psyche with horrendous acts such as the Colorado High School massacre. Hitler disarmed his opponents, including all Jews, also promising "public safety".

It is time for concerned Americans, whether they own guns or not, or whether they support or oppose "gun control", to seriously consider the possibility that the murderers in many, if not most, of these bloody incidents were under the mental influence of "handlers", or, to put it bluntly, mind control experts.

Before you toss me off as a conspiracy kook, I ask you to take the time to research the below listed clinical studies and scientific discussion on hypnosis. These will not meet your standard Psych. 101 assurance that "you cannot be hypnotized and forced to do anything that is against your moral fiber". Most obviously, who can say what the moral fiber of those two Denver teens actually was? Not much, we can agree on that. I'll let the scientific papers listed below make my case. You decide about how you feel about "gun control" and "victim disarmament" after you've contemplated this material. You should be able to retrieve all these papers on the Internet. Additionally, search keywords "hypnosis/coercion" and "hypnosis/antisocial behavior" for other material. Improved search engines will turn up far more than what is listed.

Gibson, H.B. (1991). Can hypnosis compel people to commit harmful, immoral and criminal acts?: A review of the literature. Contemporary Hypnosis, 8, 129-140.

Kline, M.V. (1972). The production of antisocial behavior through hypnosis: New clinical data. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 80-94.

Watkins, J.G. (1972). Antisocial behavior under hypnosis. Possible or impossible? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 95-100.

Orne, M.T. & Evans, F.J. (1965). Social control in the psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 189-200.

Orne, M.T. (1962). Antisocial behavior and hypnosis: Problems of control and validation in empirical studies. Hypnosis: Current Problems.

Barber, T.X. (1961) Antisocial and criminal acts induced by "hypnosis": a review of experimental and clinical findings. Archives of General Psychiatry, 5, 301-312.

Kline, M.V. (1958). the dynamics of hypnotically induced antisocial behavior. Journal of Psychology, 45, 239-245.

Marcuse, F.L. (1553). Anti-social behavior and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 1, 18- 20.

Estabrooks, G.H. (1951). The possible antisocial use of hypnotism. Personality: Symposia on Topical Issues, 1, 294-299.

Weitzenhoffer, A.M. (1949). The production of antisocial acts under hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 420-422.

Brenman, M. (1942) Experiments in the hypnotic production of anti- social and self injurious behavior. Psychiatry, 5, 49-61 (note: This research is mentioned in the dialogue in the motion picture "The Manchurian Candidate". You must see it. It is a marvelous movie. Frank Sinatra was denied an almost certain Oscar for his fantastic performance because the film was pulled from circulation and remained unviewed by the public for thirty years!)

Gibson, H.B. (1991). Can hypnosis compel people to commit harmful, immoral and criminal acts: A review of the literature. Contemporary Hypnosis, 8, 129-140. (for a complete list see website:

Rowland L.W. (1939). Will hypnotized persons try to harm themselves or others? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34, 114-117.

Hoencamp, E (1990). Sexual abuse and the abuse of hypnosis in the therapeutic relationship. International Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 38, 283-298.

Levitt, E.E., baker, E.L., Jr., 7 Fish, R.C. (1990). Some conditions of compliance and resistance among hypnotic subjects. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 32, 225-236.

Levitt, E.E. 7 Baker, E.L. (1990). Compliance and resistance in the hypnotic state: The effect of a social and academic counter- motivation. In R. Van Dyck (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Theory, Research and Practice (p. 121-130) Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Balson, P.M., Dempster, C.R., & Brooks, F.R. (1984) Auto-hypnosis as a defense against coercive persuasion. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 26, 252-260.

Levitt, E.E. & Baker, E.L. (1983). the hypnotic relationship: Another look at coercion, compliance and resistance. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31, 125-131.

Conn, J.H. (1981). the myth of coercion through hypnosis: A brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29, 95-100.

Perry, C. (1979). Hypnotic coercion and compliance to it: A review of evidence presented in a legal case. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 187-218.

Levitt, E.E. (1977). Research strategies in evaluation the coercive power of hypnosis. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 296, 86- 89.

O'Brien, R.M. & Robuck, S.J. (1976) Experimentally produced self- repugnant behavior as a function of hypnosis and waking suggestion: A pilot study. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18, 272-276.

Levitt, E.E. (1975). the objectional act as a mechanism for testing the coercive power of the hypnotic state. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17, 263-266.

Levitt, E.E. Aronoff, G., Morgan, C.D., Overly, T.M., & Parrish, M.J. (1975). Testing the coercive power of hypnosis: Committing objectionable acts. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 23, 59-67.

Parrish, M.J. (1974). Moral predisposition and hypnotic influence of "immoral" behavior: An exploratory study. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17, 115-124.

Coe, W.C., Kobayashi, K., & Howard, M.L. (1972). An approach towards isolating factors that influence antisocial conduct in hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 118-131.

Orne, M.T. (1972) Can a hypnotized subject be compelled to carry out otherwise unacceptable behavior?: A discussion. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 101-117.

Wagner, F.F. (1966). The delusion of hypnotic influence and the hypnotic state. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 14, 22-29.

Cheek, D.B. (1959). Use of rebellion against coercion as mechanism for hypnotic trance deepening. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 7, 223-227.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Let's Build Prison Farms

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - October 1996

The idiocy of the liberal mind struck me full force when I read a news story from a New Zealand newspaper. It seems a store owner had been burgled three times in less than a month. It was obvious that juvenile delinquents were the perpetrators. Typically, the police weren't about to mount much effort to catch the thieves. So this store owner doesn't get a guard dog, doesn't buy a burglar alarm, and doesn't hire a couple of large thugs to lie in wait for the punks who are ripping him off. No, this bleeding heart crime victim decides that he will fund a frigging rugby team for the "disenchanted" youth of the community because the thieving little fecal worms are "bored" and have "too much time on their hands". Jeez, maybe if the punks keep ripping off the people of the community, the village council will vote to build them a swimming pool and a free video arcade.

Here's the bottom line: crime pays. Any kid can understand that it is now as easy and safe to get money by thievery as by earning it. Isn't it time for the pendulum to swing the other way?

Don't you think it's time to return punishment for crime to our way of life? We can wring our hands over the breakdown of the nuclear family, the widening gap between rich and poor, the dumbing down of our children, and violence on television (and attempt to do something about these problems), but we still have to make a single, old-fashioned equation very clear: If you steal, you go to jail. It doesn't matter if you are 15 or 50. The rich kid shoplifter and the ghetto burglar both go to jail.

And when you get to jail (juvenile or adult) here is what you find: 1. No television. 2. No Walkman CD player. 3. No Nintendo. 4. No school yard games or weight training. 5. No "self-esteem" therapy sessions. 6. No radio. 7. No fancy hair styling, pierced ears, flash clothes, or Nikes. You see, boys and girls, these are all things that civilized people earn by the sweat of their brow. Since you have not earned these things, you simply do not get them. (Hey, Liberalbrain! How is this cruel and unusual?)

In fact, you don't even get fed unless you earn the food. Why should jail be any different than the natural world? The lazy coyote starves to death. Who said that human beings living in this "biosphere" are somehow privileged to break this fundamental law of nature? I'm not talking about compassion for those too young or physically or mentally incapable of working for their food.

Starting with Juvenile Hall, we should immediately begin offering offenders (beginning with the very first conviction) a simple, real world choice. Work or starve. Every youth or adult penal facility should be a highly-organized farm. We don't need these vast, mega-million dollar condos. Criminals should labor in the fields, or elsewhere on the facility, to produce fruit, vegetables, poultry, eggs, or meat. It's an eight-hour workday (less strenuous than many American farmers live with all their lives).

Are you an "inmate"? No, you are a prisoner, a convicted criminal. And, as a prisoner with a debt to repay, you rise at six in the morning to a rousing half-hour of calisthenics. (We may play some music for you during your jumping jacks. Maybe something German with a distinct marching rhythm. Sorry, dude, no U2 or Snoop Doggy Dog). You then shower and shave (face and head) and present yourself for a large, nutritious breakfast. All you can shovel down in half an hour. Then it's out to the field where the taxpayers (who you have been victimizing) have generously provided you with acres and acres of fertile soil.

You are given a wide brim hat, a long-sleeve shirt, sun screen, sunglasses and plenty of pure spring water. Oh yeah, and a hoe and work gloves. Get down, bro! There are weeds to be pulled, soil to be turned, bugs to be squished (we're strictly organic here). You get a 15-minute break for coffee and a cigarette (if you're old enough). Then it's back to work until the noon whistle. You shuffle over to the lunch tent and are served another huge, rib-sticking meal. All you can eat in an hour. Doesn't that chicken taste good? It should, you raised that chicken, amigo. Aren't you secretly a little proud? How about those big potatoes and that gravy? Came right out of the soil your tired ass is sitting on.

Oops, it's one o'clock. Back to work. What? You don't want to work anymore? Are you sure, honey? Okay, we'll take you back to your tent and you can skip dinner and breakfast in the morning. The rest of you get off at four and have the rest of the afternoon and evening to read or attend classes. You can choose to improve yourself or just do the minimum needed to get your meals. But there's no free lunch anymore. Whoa! Vastly harsh! Call the ACLU!

The extra food you grow on the prison farm goes to feed the truly needy. Isn't that a unique idea? Minimum stay on the farm is two weeks. Caught shoplifting? First offense? Two weeks. No plea bargain. No "counseling". No fancy attorney to finesse you out of the two weeks of sweat, dirt and payback. Isn't life cruel? Maybe it is. But we'll see if you go back and steal again when the next conviction gets you a guaranteed six months in the fields. The question is: Will Americans come to their senses and demand that the judicial system and prisons be run this way?

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The McVeigh Verdict And You

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - July 1997

There's a saying out in Nevada cattle country. When a steer is down and beyond help, a bullet in the head is the only humane solution. A .357 cartridge costs about ten cents. Tim McVeigh deserves "the ten cent vet".

Anyone who favors the death penalty, in an absolutely clear case of guilt, could reasonably be invited to drop the hammer. The reason that I believe I would be able to pull the trigger with a clear conscience is that McVeigh's attorney confessed for his client (ostensibly with McVeigh's full approval) to the mass murder in Oklahoma City. (Nagging question: Can anyone out there tell me why this was a responsible tactic from a defense attorney attempting to keep his client's neck out of the noose?)

Also strange behavior from McVeigh's attorney was his plea to the jury to not make Tim McVeigh a "martyr" by executing him. What a strange, yet vile, innuendo that is. I don't know of a single anti-government critic (and I have met and conversed with quite a few of them in the last seven years) who did not fervently condemn the Oklahoma City bombing.

A dangerous illogic is at work around this pernicious event. The forces of police statism in our country are, in the eyes and minds of a gullible, tv-entranced public, effectively painting millions of morally-upstanding, intelligent and yes, patriotic, dissidents with the label of "right wing fanatic".

The perverse illogic goes: McVeigh was appalled by the FBI's apparent incineration of the Branch Davidian church members at Waco. Therefore, anyone who is also critical of the fed's handling of the Waco situation is the moral equivalent of a Tim McVeigh.

McVeigh was a vocal critic of "gun control" schemes, therefore, anyone who views the unconstitutional disarming of the sane and law-abiding American public as a dangerous step towards tyranny is the moral equivalent of a Tim McVeigh.

McVeigh seemed to have an obsession with the virulently anti-Jewish screed espoused in the book The Turner Diaries. Therefore, anyone who takes a stand against the socialistic path this country is headed down must also be "anti-Semitic". This has become the incessantly chattered party line for such intellectually bankrupt socialist groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The irony of this, in my own experience, is frustrating. The single most articulate and powerful voice against "gun control" in this nation is that of Aaron Zelman, a proud Jew, and founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The single most articulate and powerful voice against the corruption of the American justice system is Godfrey Lehman, a proud Jew, and the "grandfather" of the jury rights movement in this nation. Lehman's newest book, soon to be published, is entitled We, the Jury. It is an eminently scholarly work and describes the twelve most important jury trials in history.

And the single-most rational voice against the dangers of "liberalism" (in the past more accurately defined as Marxist socialism) is Dennis Prager, a proud Jew, and the author of a terrific, common-sense book entitled "Think a Second Time".

Fortunately, Zelman, Lehman and Prager are steadily gaining the attention they deserve. Thinking men and women (thanks to the research of Zelman and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms) are reconsidering the amazingly "coincidental" resemblance of Nazi German "gun control" laws with the American Gun Control Act of 1968. Also coming to light (again, thanks to Zelman and JPFO) is the carefully documented correlation between past "gun control" schemes and the major genocides of the 20th century.

No better validation of Godfrey Lehman's warnings about the manipulation of juries exists than the jury selection process that resulted in the abysmal verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial.

Dennis Prager's insights strike to the heart of virtually every social problem we face today. Prager's views on racism, abortion, personal responsibility, "family values", and capital punishment are must reading for any concerned American.

The forces of socialism in our country simply cannot risk a rational debate with the likes of Zelman, Lehman and Prager. Those of authoritarian mentality must demonize the articulate and logical opposition if their plans are to be furthered. The propaganda sound bytes of the socialists at the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Handgun Control, Inc. simply cannot stand up to the scrutiny of documented historical evidence and the logic of common sense.

Zelman, Lehman, and Prager each ground their convictions in the fundamental right, even duty, of the individual to take charge of his or her own life. Aaron Zelman asks us to each take responsibility for our own self-defense by arming ourselves and quietly letting criminals, both inside and outside of government, know that each of us is somberly willing to oppose victimhood with lethal intensity. A scary proposition this may be, but freedom is not free...and it has never been comfortable.

Godfrey Lehman asks each of us to contemplate the individual conscience that a juror (meaning you and me) must exercise with an almost religious dedication if our nation is to remain even remotely just and righteous.

Dennis Prager's essays constantly remind each of us that life is a constant series of choices. Morality is choice. Freedom must be seized and nurtured in the mind of the man or woman who would deserve to be free.

No, Tim McVeigh did not speak for me and those I most admire. Whether by plan, or by coincidence, Tim McVeigh is exactly what the forces of police statism needed at this moment in history. Pay very, very careful attention to the upcoming Oklahoma state trial of McVeigh and the independent investigations of the Oklahoma City grand jury. McVeigh's conviction is just the first chapter in a much larger story. Whether you believe me now or not, your and your children's future will be written on those pages.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

The Sociopaths

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - March 1997

A while back I was in a store and a television was blaring from the upper corner of the showroom. Bill Clinton was giving the so-called "State of the Union" address. There were no other customers in the store, and I, being virulently allergic to the fetid slime bag from Arkansas, petulantly asked the sales clerk to either change channels or turn off the damn television while I perused the merchandise. The sales clerk changed channels... and I was confronting the lunatic hubbub pending the O.J. Simpson civil trial's jury decision. I couldn't help myself. I pontifically blurted out: "Can't you see? America's consciousness is presently dominated by two lying sociopaths!" The sales clerk, a young white woman, looked at me with wide, stunned eyes. "Do you really think that O.J. did it?"

I think she was kidding. And she prudently didn't tell me what she thought of our Commander in Chief. I didn't ask. I already suspected her point of view, because she had been imbibing his rhetorical bilge with rapt attention.

Later, I went to the dictionary (Webster's) and looked up "sociopath". The word isn't in the dictionary. My computer's spell checker has it in memory, but it wasn't in the dictionary. And it wasn't in a huge 1934 Webster's that is ponderously nested on my bookshelf.

I was told, back in Psych. 101, that a sociopath is a completely amoral person, someone with zero conscience. Luckily, not many members of society are afflicted with this immense character flaw, but (and this is the scary part) those who are, often have high intelligence. High intelligence mixed with zero conscience equals, in my estimation, a character trait called "cunning". One would have to call O.J. a cunning man. And one would certainly not be off the mark in so characterizing William Jefferson Clinton.

Let me list some other cunning sociopaths who have left their mark on history.

Karl Marx: A brilliant, yet personally despicable, human being. One of his mottoes: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Vladimir Lenin: The totally ruthless first leader of the Soviet Union. It was Teddy Roosevelt, I believe, who once called Lenin "evil incarnate".

Joseph Stalin: Responsible for the murder of more than 20 million Russian citizens. Harry Truman once delicately referred to Papa Joe as "one evil son of a bitch".

Mao Tse Tung: Responsible for the murder of more than 60 million Chinese citizens. Completely unfettered by the "weakness of conscience".

Adolph Hitler: Considering the body count, not quite the big league genocidist of either Mao or Stalin, but still paving his way to hell over the bodies of some 16 million innocent people.

Now, neither Clinton or O.J. are anywhere in the realm of kingpins listed above, but if either Clinton or O.J. were given the power that Stalin or Hitler had at their disposal I believe we would see a terrifying state of affairs.

Seriously. Imagine someone with absolutely no conscience. They can look you right in the eye and lie to you with a warm, puddin' cake smile that warms the cockles of your heart. Oh yes, I believe you do feel my pain, Mr. President. Because you tell me so. And I, because I am brainwashed human cattle, want so much to believe your teary-eyed, corn pone, socialist bull manure.

And O.J. trying on that glove? Lawdamighty, wasn't that touching? Yep, Mr. Lincoln was certainly correct. You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Above and beyond anything else, sociopaths are the ultimate materialists. I'm speaking here of the philosophy of materialism, not the greedy acquisition of material goods. To the pure materialist there is no God. There is no good and evil. There is just what works to their benefit and what doesn't work to their benefit.

Imagine being unencumbered by morality. There is no punishment for sin. There is no Heaven and there is no Hell. No karma. Social niceties don't bother you. Personal power is your goal, even if you have to grind others into a bloody pulp to achieve that power. After all, morality is relative, isn't it? Religion is the "opiate of the masses", isn't it? The only limit that concerns you is if you will be punished by your fellow human beings or not. You are only wrong if you get caught and punished.

The architects of the American Constitution understood the mentality of the sociopath. They had seen the tyranny of monarchies. They understood that the law and an armed citizenry must eternally stand as a barrier to the desires of the insatiably conscienceless who crawl out from under rocks and into the halls of power.

There is only one way to deal with the sociopaths among us. We must keep them afraid for their lives. A sociopath like O.J. must know that the gas chamber stands ready. (Or what if Nichole had just shot his halfback ass off?)

A sociopath like Bill Clinton (or many of the other men and women who lust for political power in America) must fear the citizenry. They must know that an uncorrupted legal system awaits to stop, and then harshly punish, their amoral behavior. Failing this, they must know that millions upon millions of armed Americans stand guard over their public servants and demand that the restraints of constitutional government be enforced, even at gun point. If you ever surrender your personal power (your right to keep and bear arms) into the hands of the sociopaths you will be enslaved. It will be like begging Charlie Manson for mercy.

Too few Americans have the common sense (or personal courage) to understand this. And so, the sociopaths among us fuel their ravening ambition with this comforting knowledge.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

A "Flat Tax" Leaves The IRS Alive

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - February 1996

The biggest misconception about the so-called "flat" income tax is that it would somehow destroy the Internal Revenue Service. Mind you, a flat tax would be an improvement on the present, so-called "progressive income tax". A flat tax might slightly reduce the tyrannical power of the IRS in our lives. That is good. But there would still be an IRS. And that would be bad.

For six years I have been suggesting that a standardized national sales tax (replacing the income tax) would be the fairest way to tax the America people. All state sales taxes should be abolished. The rate? I'll stand firm on ten percent. God doesn't ask for more than that.

However, each state would retain complete control of eighty percent of the revenue collected. Twenty percent would be sent from each state to Washington D.C. to fund the federal government. The states would take over the operations of most federal buildings and agencies and become the employers of most of the now federal employees.

The federal government would shrink and the state government would be come more powerful. But that power would be more directly answerable to the people of each state. Something tells me that is more along the design the framers of the Constitution intended.

The income tax would be abolished. Capital gains taxes would be abolished. Inheritance taxes would be abolished. Property taxes would be abolished. True ownership of private property would be restored, and productivity would be rewarded and not punished.

What about the poor being burdened by a national sales tax? Simply make certain items exempt from the tax. No tax returns needed. It all happens at the cash register. No sales tax on food, medical expenses, insurance policy payments, school tuition, or on the purchase price and mortgage of primary residence or the expense of primary housing rental. That leaves the poor with their food, shelter, education, insurance, medical expenses, and income untaxed.

Government exists (at least in the original America ideal) to protect life, liberty and property. Each American deserves equal protection of his life. The cop should not differentiate between Joe Sixpack and Bill Gates when he walks his beat. Our liberty is protected by the court's jury systems and, ideally, the poor man should be treated with the same care and respect as the rich man. Our liberty is also protected by our military forces. A soldier doesn't serve just for certain classes of Americans. He is pledged to protect all. These protective aspects of government are across the board and are due every American.

However, when it comes to protecting private property, a blatant differentiation arises. The property of Bill Gates requires much more protection than my property. And it is here that a sales tax is a marvelously equitable technique to fund government's protection of property. When Bill Gates buys his ten million dollar vacation ranch (remember, primary residence is excluded) he will cough up one million dollars in sales tax (if the rate is ten percent). If Mr. Gates buys a nice big Montana ranch, $800,000 of the sales tax money stays in Montana and $200,000 goes back to Washington D.C.

The key is the local control of assets that are meant to protect the property in each state. Now you don't let Mr. Gates lease his ranch tax-free. He'll pay sales tax on that because his primary home is in Seattle. If he wants to move to Montana permanently, you can bet the Seattle sales tax collectors will pick up the slack on their end. No loopholes. No IRS. The real estate salesman simply make sure that the million is collected and sent off to the Montana State government, just like sales taxes are collected now. In California, every store owner is already a tax collector. And they all work for free! The budget for the IRS is presently more than seven BILLION dollars a year.

We constantly hear that a national sales tax won't pay the bill. And I ask: The bill for what? It's obvious that our federal government has become a bloated, blood-sucking monster. Aggressive and sizeable cuts in spending must happen, regardless of which tax system we operate under.

A consumption tax (sales tax) is a good idea. The gasoline tax is a consumption tax. Mile for mile, it has provided America with the finest road and highway system in the world. Big cars do more damage to highways and bridges. They use more gas. The owners of big cars automatically pay a larger share of tax.

Commerce demands the stability (the obligation of contract) that government and law provide. The heavier the commerce, the more tax is generated to provide the necessary fundamental services that provide social (i.e., economic) stability.

In case you didn't realize it, the rich would like to spend more of their money instead of hiding it away with every new tax scam under the sun. The image of Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vat of cash and coins is funny, but fictional. Certainly the wealthy (and the not-so-wealthy) also want to provide for their family and heirs. So they don't spend all of their money.They save some of it. But savings are reinvested. These investments create more businesses that create more products which create more gross sales which create more sales tax.

As long as there are income taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, and property taxes, there can never be true ownership of private property. These devices of government sponsored thievery, forms of eternal extortion, were the main planks in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. And that is why the present insidious state of affairs is un-American and unconstitutional.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - September 1996

And here's another gem from W.C. Fields: "Never give a sucker an even break." Apparent non sequiturs to what is written below? Somehow, I don't think so.

You are walking down the street. You've just cashed your paycheck. Your wallet/purse feels fat and happy. I come up to you and stick a .357 right under your nose. I command: "Gimme your paycheck."

You hand over your wallet. I take 30% of the money out of the wallet and hand the rest back to you. As I turn and walk away, I yell back over my shoulder: "Don't worry. I'm going to spend some of this on a good cause."

As soon as your pulse rate lowers, your state of mind is: a) Fury. You have just been robbed at gunpoint. You call the cops. b) You are thankful that I only took 30% of your hard-earned money. And you don't bother to call the cops. c) You are completely satisfied with the entire affair because I told you I was going to spend the money that I stole from you on a good cause. And you don't call the cops.

Ladies and Gentlemen, what I have described above is the Federal Income Tax. There is absolutely no difference in the modus operandi. The only difference is that you can call the cops on a common mugger, but you can't call the cops on the Internal Revenue Service. They "police" themselves. Or it will take far more expense (and a miracle) to get your money back through the court system than most of you can afford.

We have given the government permission to steal from us because our ancestors allowed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution to become law. (The 16th Amendment wasn't lawfully ratified by three-fourths of the States. But that's another story.) Back in 1913, the government only stole from the "rich guys". So the huge majority of Americans weren't touched. In fact, they felt a snide little satisfaction that the "fat cats" were getting gouged.

We allowed our morality to become relative. A crime against a wealthy man became less heinous than a crime against a poor man. And, because there were far fewer wealthy voters than poor voters, the law stayed in effect. In fact, the thieves, being clever, realized if they cut the majority in on a slight bit of the action (government "programs") there was the likelihood that legalized theft would become a permanent fixture in American politics.

Now, the rich aren't stupid. Putting envy aside, one must admit that it takes brains, determination, cunning and discipline to make lots of money. It may not take honesty, but it takes smarts. So the smart rich guys grabbed control of the lawmakers who were spewing out all these tax schemes and simply built loopholes into the Income Tax system. That's why the Internal Revenue Code is now twice as thick as the New York City phone directory!

So some of us dummies are still thinking that the rich guys are getting gouged. Wrong. The burden began to fall on the upper middle class, because they didn't have the legislative juice to diddle with the tax codes. Then the upper middle class began to groan loudly and make angry noises at Congress. And so Congress "eased their burden" and dropped the Income Tax burden even further down the economic scale. Into the middle class. The trick to this balancing game was to attempt to always make a majority of voters think that they were getting something for nothing. Oh yeah, the government used a nice-sounding word to describe this: progressive.

A "progressive income tax". Now doesn't that make you feel better? You want to be "progressive," don't you? Aren't you all for "progress"?

You see, we think that we can give permission to the government to steal from one class of people and not end up being victimized ourselves. This is the height of folly.

But the thieves are not stupid. The plan is to get a majority of voters on welfare or employed by the government and paid by taxpayers' money. Are you going to vote to end your welfare check? Or your paycheck with the United States Department of Turtle Flatulence Evaluation? No way, dude. So automatically you don't want to see the income tax disappear. You don't want to see government become smaller. It would cost you your freebies or your job. So you piss and moan along with all the rest of the peasants. But you never really apply the heat to change the system, do you?

You keep buying into this socialistic system by voting for Socialist Party "A", the Democrats, or Socialist Party "B", the Republicans. Or maybe you are taking a closer look at Mr. Perot's "reform" socialism. The trouble is that your children will bear the weight of your vacillating. Think about it. Think about how we have legalized plunder in America.

Oh yeah. Pay your income taxes. You'll get your ass kicked if you don't. But while you're cutting that check, take the time to read up on what the Libertarian Party has to say about all this.

One final point. Excessive taxation fomented the American Revolution, and an attempt at "gun control," at Lexington, set it off. There is nothing new under the sun.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Through The Cross Hairs Darkly

by Kirby Ferris

The Coastal Post - May 1997

The lights go down in the theater. The young (late teens to early 20s) males stare in awe as the latest psycho-murderers-from-Arkansas splatter movie vomits its imagery into their minds. Along the top border of the movie screen are secret viewing ports. Infrared video cameras scan the testosterone-frenzied audience for the hottest of the hot, those individuals who really get a rise in blood pressure from degradation and violence. Telephoto lenses beam in on the eyes of the viewers. Pupil dilation is measured and recorded against the carefully engineered subliminal mind manipulation buried in the imagery of the movie. By the end of the movie the five best candidates are picked out of the audience of 200 young men. They will have tasks assigned later.

Fiction so far? I sure as hell hope so. But the rest of what you are about to read is based upon clinical papers and the guarded opinions (some off the record) of a minority cadre of this nation's most outstanding psychological researchers. My extrapolations into the recent history of America are my own, but are shared by a growing number of concerned observers who have supplied me with disturbing, mainstream, correlative material over the past five years.

Hypnosis has a dark side. College students are taught, parroting the optimistic opinion of the late, great Milton Erickson (one of the founding fathers of modern hypnotherapy), that no one can be hypnotized to do anything against his or her will. The 18th century novel about Svengali, and Trilby, his helpless trance-state sex puppet, is scoffed off as simple sensationalism born in ignorance. Psychologists assure us that hypnosis is safe and virtually foolproof "in the hands of trained professionals". If commanded to do anything against his or her moral fiber, the subject will balk at the order or snap out of the trance. In most cases this is absolutely true.

But can some subjects, a small minority of fundamentally unstable individuals, be hypnotized and successfully commanded to commit suicide? Clinical investigators of lofty moral sense claim the answer is no, because they would never take such an experiment through to its ultimate completion. Think about it. How many psychologists, even if they were sufficiently bent to conduct such an experiment, would come forward and publish their startling discovery that they had succeeded in getting subjects to willingly jump out of high buildings? So, if it has been done, you just aren't going to hear about it. Personally, I think it has been done, many times.

The next potentially dark facet of hypnosis has to do with what is called "induced hallucination". Stage hypnotists play with this one all the time. The hypnotic subject is put into a trance and told that a huge, cuddly dog has wandered out on the stage. The subject kneels down and pets the imaginary dog and, if snapped out of the trance suddenly, often asks where the "dog" went. Post-hypnotic suggestion, planted in the mind of the subject, can reintroduce the "dog" into the subject's consciousness at a later date. The subject is simply told that he will come across the imaginary dog on the sidewalk after the show is over.

In 1947 a researcher named J.D. Watkins induced hypnotic hallucination in the minds of American servicemen. They were told that they would enter a room and be faced by a bloodthirsty Japanese soldier. The subjects entered the room, where they encountered, not a crazed Japanese soldier, but the commanding officer of the Army base. The entranced subjects threw themselves at the commanding officer with unrestrained violence, and in one case the subject produced a pocket knife that the researchers did not know he kept concealed on his person. Only the fast action of Watkins and a powerful MP kept the subject from slitting his own commanding officer's throat! Watkins was suitably sobered by these experiments. He became one of the dissenting voices in American hypnotherapy who has asserted quietly, but persistently, over the years that "anti-social behavior" could be induced via hypnosis.

Watkins later became the prime researcher in post-traumatic stress syndrome, or "shell shock." Thousands of American soldiers owe the reconciliation of their horrendous memories and the healing of their psyches to Watkins and his ground-breaking work. Watkins' textbook on trance induction and hypnotherapeutic technique is fascinating reading.

Enter the "Lone Gunmen." Beginning the early '60s, with Charles Whitman, the "Clock Tower Sniper" in Texas, certain types of individuals committed despicable acts of murder with various firearms. Sirhan Sirhan had an obsessive fascination with hypnosis and visited more than a half dozen hypnotists prior to killing Bobby Kennedy. Sirhan's behavior after the tragic shooting in L.A. is textbook trance state. Lee Harvey Oswald's demeanor while under arrest by the Dallas police was dazed and confused. "I'm a patsy" is one of American history's most mysterious declarations.

The official autopsy report and police background biography of Patrick Purdy, the young man who committed the Stockton school yard massacre, is eerie reading. Purdy had earplugs in his ears when he mowed down those children with a semi-auto rifle and then shot himself with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. This young man, with a background of years of rampant drug abuse and addiction, had only traces of nicotine and caffeine in his bloodstream the day he did his filthy deed. He was strangely clean and sober.

The list goes on and on, from the Texas cafeteria shooter, to 101 California Street, to the Long Island railway shooter. Colin Ferguson, the Long Island railway gunman, swears vehemently that someone else did the shooting. Ferguson was tackled by brave bystanders before he could reload his semi-auto pistol and shoot more people...or himself.

Each of these tragic events propel the burgeoning wave of "gun control" legislation and the eventual confiscation of firearms from the sane, and law-abiding, American citizenry.

In Australia, after the recent Tasmania massacre, the people of that nation were ordered by their government to turn in all pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. Believe it or not, it is now against the law to protect oneself with a firearm in Australia! It can happen here, and your current President and his minions of naive, ignorant or downright evil "gun control" advocates quiver with spasms of unconstitutional legislation every time a "Lone Gunman" strikes again.

Every major genocide of the 20th century has been preceded by firearms registration campaigns and the resulting confiscation of those firearms from the citizens who then became the helpless, unarmed victims of their own government-gone-bad. A police state must disarm the citizenry. The twisted acts of "Lone Gunmen" are having an immense impact on the social and political realities of millions of people in the free world. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: "Never have the lives of so many been so affected by the actions of so few."

I sadly predict that in the near future a crazed "Lone Gunman," using a scoped hunting rifle, and with plenty of time and ammunition, will open up in a crowded sports stadium or concert venue and wreak abominable mayhem. I predict the shooter will kill himself or be killed by security guards. We will then see hunting rifles, aka "sniper rifles" (Teddy Kennedy's turn of speech) outlawed. All this will take is one entranced subject, properly programmed on top of an innate, sociopathic disposition.

The movie The Manchurian Candidate is scientifically valid. There is a reason that movie was pulled out of circulation shortly after its theater release in the '60s and only recently allowed to surface. "Gun control" had been soundly entrenched in the American way of life by the time The Manchurian Candidate was finally shown in a few theaters and offered in video decades after it was produced. Listen to the soundtrack carefully (when the Korean shrink lectures his audience). You will be told exactly how to find the actual clinical research papers on the induction of anti-social behavior via hypnosis. This is what is known as "Revelation of the Method". Let those who have ears, hear.

[author's March 2009 note: "The Manchurian Candidate", I have since learned, was actively suppressed by Frank Sinatra (a close personal friend of the Kennedys), but actually did air a few times in the 60s and 70s. It was, however, very, very long in coming to video.]