Monday, June 30, 2014

The Vampire State Draws Blood

"Implied Consent" in practice: Officers conduct a forcible blood draw.

Shigeru Mizuki, a historian and manga artist, has described a World War II muster call in which pilots were invited to volunteer for a kamikaze operation. Each was handed two ballots; one of them read “willing,” the other, “very willing.” Those who didn’t “volunteer” would be killed.

Imperial Japan, of course, was neither the first nor the last despotism to impose this eccentric vision of volunteerism. During the mid-1980s, a state radio broadcast in East Germany proudly announced a record-breaking national blood drive. In the audio equivalent of fine print could be found the critical, defining detail: “Most of the donors were volunteers.”

To celebrate what used to be called Independence Day, police in Oregon have announced a “no refusal” initiative for the Fourth of July weekend. Motorists who refuse to “volunteer” for a Breathalyzer test will be subjected to an immediate involuntary blood test, which will take place either at the side of the road, a nearby medical facility, or in a jail. Prosecutors and judges will be on call to rubber-stamp police requests for a blood draw warrant.

By treating the right to travel as if it were a state-granted privilege, the Regime and its affiliates created a concept called “Implied Consent.” This amounts to a plenary waiver of individual rights for anybody who receives a state-issued driver’s license. 

Under “Implied Consent,” police throughout the soyuz – like their East German antecedents – can detain any driver at their discretion, conduct a warrantless search of the driver's vehicle, and compel the driver to undergo a “chemical test” for alcohol, by way of either a Breathalyzer or the more invasive method of a bodily fluid test – blood or urine. 

Refusal to submit to this procedure will generally lead to summary arrest for “per se intoxication”; furthermore, as one legal advice website warns, “Under implied consent laws, in most states a driver's license is automatically suspended for up to one year, even if the motorist is not found guilty of DUI.”

So, in the East German sense of the expression, those of us who have driver's licenses have "volunteered" to be stopped, interrogated, searched, and surrender bodily samples at the whim of a DUI enforcement officer.

Under this totalitarian approach, “due process” consists of immediate judicial ratification of a police demand for self-incriminating evidence. The Breathalyzer is a notoriously unreliable technology, and police will readily admit as much – but only when that otherwise infallible device produces test results that exonerate a driver. The threat of an involuntary blood draw is being used to extort compliance with a scientifically invalid testing protocol – which in some cases simply serves as a prelude to even greater violations, including “rape by instrumentality” and torture.

In October 2011, a federal district court for southern Indiana dismissed a lawsuit filed by Jamie Lockard. Mr. Lockard passed a Breathalyzer test but was kidnapped, caged, and subjected to object rape by Officer Brian Miller, who was shielded from accountability by invoking the mystical concept of “qualified immunity.”

Lockard was ambushed by Miller after supposedly running a stop sign. At the direction of his armed captor, who claimed to smell alcohol on Lockard’s breath, the motorist performed a Breathalyzer test, which returned a BAC of 0.07 – well below the legal limit. Rather than releasing the victim – perhaps after handing him a ransom note (also called a “citation”) – Miller shackled him and faxed a search warrant application to a local judge, who approved the request within a few minutes. Since this happened at about midnight, it’s safe to assume that careful scrutiny of the application wasn’t a priority for the judge.

The driver was taken to Dearborn County Hospital and ordered to pee into a cup. When performance anxiety made this impossible, Lockard was charged with “obstruction” – a class D felony -- because “he refused to voluntarily give a urine sample.” That charge reflects the East German understanding of the term “voluntarily.” Rather than waiting for nature to take its course, Miller and another officer name Michael Lanning pinned him down while a nurse prepared a catheter.

Initially, this act of state-mandated object rape was to involve a straight size 16 Foley catheter. Helpless to resist, Lockard pointed out that he suffers from an enlarged prostate. The nurse opted for a smaller gauge – but this didn’t help: Lockard described the pain he experienced as “just as if somebody would take a burning hot coal and stick it up your penis.”

After being raped, Lockard was caged for several days in order to extract a guilty plea for reckless driving. Rather than being compensated for the injuries inflicted on him, the victim received 180 days’ probation, a $100 fine, and was assessed $165 to pay for the privilege of having the court inflict sentence on him.

In dismissing Lockard’s lawsuit, the appellate court made mention of more than a half-dozen previous cases in which police were allowed to commit forced catheterization in search of ambiguous evidence supposedly lurking in the suspect’s bloodstream. Two of the relevant precedents – Sparks v. Stutler and Levine v. Roebuck – involved forced catheterization of inmates by prison officials. In both of those cases, a district court judge ruled that the procedure was an unwarranted outrage on the victim – only to be reversed by a federal judge who ruled that object rape of an inmate is covered by the ever-expanding cloak of “qualified immunity.”

Lockard’s case was among the first to extend the practice of forced catheterization and similar procedures beyond prison walls into our larger prison society. Violations of the kind he endured are now routinely employed not only for DUI enforcement but also by forfeiture-hungry narcotics task forces.

Innocent drivers who submit to a blood or urine test and are fully exonerated by it will still be punished for their cooperation.

In April 2006, 19-year-old Lakeland, Florida resident Robbie Stout was stopped by a deputy named Dennis Mosser, who spotted a bad brake light. Stout was the designated driver for a group of friends who had been shooting pool at a nearby bar. Mosser ordered Stout from the car and demanded that he perform a sobriety test.

Unlike the officer who detained him, Mosser had worked a full shift at a productive job before spending a late night with his friends. He was very tired, and disclosed as much to Mosser, because “I wanted to be honest with him. I didn’t want to lie to a police officer.”

Mosser, a trained liar who is rewarded for dishonesty, didn’t reciprocate, claiming that he had been up for 24 hours.

“Yes, he lied,” admitted department spokesman Jack Gillen, dismissing this crime as “an investigative technique” used to “gain rapport with the kid.” A more honest person would have described this as an effort to deceive and disarm the victim. Mosser’s deception extended to his choice of an uneven, sloping section of the road on which to perform the walking sobriety test.

After achieving his desired result, Mosser abducted Stout. Despite the fact that he scored a 0.00 on his Breathalyzer test and a blood panel showing that he had no drugs in his system, Stout was caged for the better part of a day, his family was forced to pay $2,500 in legal fees, and the spurious arrest remains on his record. 

Another of Deputy Mosser’s victims, Polk County Commissioner Randy Wilkinson, requested a blood alcohol test after being arrested. Despite the fact that the test showed that there wasn’t so much as a picogram of alcohol in Wilkinson’s bloodstream, he, like Stout, was handcuffed, fingerprinted, forced to pose for mug-shots, and briefly jailed. The charges against Wilkinson weren’t dismissed until several weeks later. 

A few months later, the television program Inside Edition was able to document that DUI officers in Lakeland, Florida were under a strict quota (clothed in the euphemism “Performance Standard”) to make 10 arrests a month. To the surprise of no informed person, the program's investigative team was able to verify that similar quotas have been assigned to police departments nation-wide. 

While officers who inflict lasting injury on victims such as Jaime Lockard are beyond accountability, drivers who decide to revoke their “Implied Consent” by resisting blood draws can be tortured into compliance and then punished for their resistance. 

In 2007 a New Jersey appeals court ruled that officers who inflicted permanent damage on Russell Johnson while he was undergoing a compelled blood draw were protected by “qualified immunity.” Johnson suffered severe damage to a wrist after one officer placed the full burden of his tax-subsidized suet on one of the victim’s hands, while his comrade used a handcuff to restrain the other. Significantly, the injuries suffered by Johnson met the Bybee Memorandum’s definition of torture, since they resulted in “permanent impairment of a significant body function.”

About ten years ago, Arizona became the first state to train police officers to collect their own blood samples. This procedure is now used in Texas, Utah, Idaho, and other states. Police do receive training in emergency first aid, but they are not health care professionals – something Arizona resident James Green can confirm from first-hand experience.

Although he was arrested on suspicion of DUI within walking distance of a hospital, his abductor, a Pinal County Sheriff’s Deputy, insisted on performing the blood draw all by himself. Two ineptly executed and thoroughly unhygienic needle-sticks later, the officer had extracted a blood sample – and in exchange had given Green an aggressive infection that cost him months of work and thousands of dollars. 

When Brian Sewell was arrested by Pima County deputies, he understandably put up a fight rather than being siphoned by an armed stranger. Summary “street justice” was inflicted on Sewell through three Taser shocks that left him permanently disfigured. Charges against the victim were eventually dropped, but the scars inflicted while he was being “protected and served” are his for life. 

“No refusal” initiatives have no measurable positive impact on the problem of drunken driving, if only because none of the testing protocols offers a reliable way to identify drivers who are dangerously impaired. 

The blood alcohol limit of 0.08 is a political artifact intended to create a revenue stream for the political class by policing the bloodstream of the driving public. But Breathalyzers and related devices measure residual alcohol in the breath, not in the bloodstream – and, as noted above, even a clear breath, blood, or urine test isn’t treated as exculpatory.

If America were, to any extent, a country worthy of the heritage we celebrate on Independence Day, a proposed “No Refusal” traffic enforcement campaign would provoke an armed mass uprising. Our colonial patriot forebears drew blood over impositions much less offensive than this.


Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Genius... Keep going brother Will; the doors are gonna open for you.


JdL said...

Plundering armed criminal aggressors deserve to be stopped by any means that prove to be necessary. Are we the descendents of the Founding Fathers, or of mice?

Anonymous said...

...I would do my best not to fight back during one of these horrendous, unconstitutional incidents...but the people involved... from the cops who stuck the judge that signed the "warrant"...and especially the medical personnel who performed the violations of my person...they would have a hard time living out the month or the rest of the year...however long it took for me to plan my revenge....and as for the medical'd better think twice before you violate my rights...

RJ O'Guillory
Author -
Webster Groves - The Life of an Insane Family

Anonymous said...

Now that they can do this to us on the streets, it will only be a matter of time before they'll be doing it to us in our homes (in the name of public safety, of course.)

Right now, it's implied consent when we get a driver's license. Next, it will be implied consent when we pay our property taxes.

Rob Taylor said...


I live on the southern Oregon coast and many in the community are appalled by this sick display of authoritarian power.

Please allow me to repost your article on my website, so people will know there are those working to defend their rights. Even people living a state away....

William N. Grigg said...

Mr. Taylor, I would really appreciate it if you would re-publish this essay and use it as you see fit. Thank you!

Octavius Charles Honegro said...

While I applaud your willingness to exact justice, I would be remiss in not mentioning that the scumbags who do this to me will first and foremost see their family- their beautiful wives and innocent children- subjected to my revenge before they see its administration on their own persons. NO QUARTER.

William N. Grigg said...

I won't let the enemy I despise define the moral terms of my resistance.

Keith said...

I often wonder when I see comments calling for yet more violence,

whether the commenter genuinely believes that as an individual

or is merely a sock puppet, seeking to validate the ongoing violence.

Violence, theft and corruption are areas of activity in which the state excels. They are what the state is, what it exists to do.

Caring relationships, consensual activities and productivity, are areas where the state has next to zero ability. The information and calculation problems inherent in any and all monopolies ensure that will always be the result, every time. It doesn't matter who is in charge and how nice a person they might have been, the institution of monopoly can only exist through violence and can only result in violence. It cannot be reformed.

Increasing violence does not lead to a reduction in violence and an increase in consensual cooperation - any decrease in violence that results is only due to grudging compliance with coercion and threat.

Two wrongs do not make a right - even if the formerly oppressed side wins - what has it won? only the position as the new oppressor. As new monopolist, you're subject to the same information and calculation problems.

Monopoly and the violence needed to sustain it are expensive.

People with monopoly privilege almost never give that privilege up, they will go to almost any length to try to retain it.

However, find peaceful and hopefully productive ways to avoid funding it, or supporting it, and it will simply collapse, leaving all of the volountary associations unscathed.

In my opinion, one of Will's contributions to that process is to point to the abuses by the monopolists, and to thereby wake people from their complacent slumber.

Keith said...

What have wives, families and friends of these people done to deserve violence?

By all means quietly stop associating with them or having dealings with them, until they no longer associate with aggressive people, but they in no way share collective guilt for actions which they individually did not either direct or undertake.


Sippenhaft - a policy of punishment for "blood guilt" has a strong effect on normal people, who feel loyalty and compassion.

I suspect that you will find that the individuals undertaking the abuses which Will documents, have little and perhaps even no loyalty and compassion - at least nothing much beyond their own self interest.

Out of the whole of society, they are the group who would be least affected by wholly unjustifiable attacks on those who are unfortunate enough to be close to them.

Keith said...

On the subject of ostracism and shunning,

any medical staff undertaking these procedures, or training cops to undertake them are guilty of serious ethical and professional misconduct.

Carrying out an unconsented procedure is neither ethical nor proffesional conduct.

Carrying it out for a non theraputic reason adds another layer of misconduct.

Other staff should be refusing to work or associate with the culprits.

Employers should be refusing to continue their employment

Customers should be refusing to use the services and facilities of anywhere employing them.

Professional bodies should be disciplining and striking the offenders off.

Medical facilities, professional bodies, professionals and customers outside of the united state should be refusing all contact with American medics and medicine, until the matter is properly addressed.

Rob Taylor said...

The State of Oregon is implementing this Vampire Policy this Independence Day.

Below are the numbers to the OR State Police Department and the Governors Office. Please take a few minutes and call or email these "blood suckers" and tell them to keep their hands of your bodily fluids, unless you have given consent to be tested. It is INDEPENDENCE DAY after all, so why have they become a bunch of thug headed NAZI's?....Rob T.

State Capitol Building
900 Court Street NE, 160
Salem, OR 97301
Fax: (503) 378-6827
Web site:

Oregon State Police:
Lieutenant Gregg Hastings
Public Information Officer
(503) 731-3020 ext 247

Shelley Snow
ODOT Public Affairs
(503) 986-3438

State Office Headquarters
Phone: 503-378-3720
Fax: 503-378-8282
OSP Office Contact Info

Anonymous said...

The sad fact about all this is that you DO give your approval to be regulated at the whim of the state when you apply for and receive a driver's license.

I know the following information will seem esoteric to anyone who has not done his due diligence, preferring instead to believe only what he's been told rather than to investigate for himself.

But the truth is this: If your state is anything like California or Colorado (and I'm quite confident that it is), then exists is no legal authorization for your state to regulate private people and their private vehicles for use on the public roadways. None whatsoever. But you all believe there is, don't you?

In order for the state to legally impose a regulation upon you, it first must obtain permission from you in the form of a valid amendment to your state constitution. I say valid, because we know how much trickery is employed by the people who impose themselves as the god-state in their given locale, so one must be diligent and wary about whether amendments are real or whether they are the children of subterfuge.

When you read your state's constitution and discover that the people of your state never gave a mandate to be regulated in their private travel, you should then go to the statutes and look for the section that regulates "driving." Can you find any sentence at all that says anything to the effect that the application of the law is for private, non-commercial citizens? I'm sure you will find nothing of the kind. But it will seem so by mere implication, right? The way the statutes are written, it sure sounds like they're talking to you, commute-to-work boy and go-to-the-mall girl.

Behold, the sections regarding driving regulations are all about COMMERCIAL drivers and COMMERCIAL vehicles. The trickery involved is that somewhere deep inside the section, there will be language to the effect that "if anyone WISHES to receive a driver's license, the state will issue one according to the above-stated requirements (or below-stated requirements) and it will not be denied when the requirements are fulfilled." They make sure to insert this language somewhere in the middle of the driving statutes so that you will think that all the language that came before applies to private people. (The very opening paragraph of the driving section will probably make a mention of commercial driving, but will state it in such a way that you can very easily misunderstand the meaning. A grammarian, however, will be able to parse that sentence out for you and tell you what it really means according to the formal use of punctuation. Believe, then, that what it really means is what the god-state really meant.)

Then, they will quickly add the language that applies only to those special commercial drivers who actually drive statutorily-defined "motor vehicles," which is to say, big rigs and paid passenger coaches. The end result is that the state presents their commercial driver's licenses in two formats: One for you, commuter boy and take-the-kids-to-Chucky-Cheese girl. And another for you, Mr. Freight Hauler and Taxi Driver. But they are really the same thing. The only difference is that you won't be required to prove your ability to haul freight on your driver's test, because you are really a private guy/gal just wanting to not have to ride the bus.

See what happens here? The entire regulatory apparatus is for commercial activity, and, if your state is like mine, the terms "commercial diver" and "commercial vehicle" and "motor vehicle" are very narrowly defined. (Delivering flowers around town would not qualify as commercial driving.) However, if you want to volunteer to be regulated, you sure can! Understand, though, says the state, if you volunteer to be regulated, you have no standing to complain about how we regulate you and how we extract extra cash from you, suckah.

Lemuel Gulliver said...


Your morality is very fine. No, two wrongs do not make a right. However, we are not dealing with normal people here - we are dealing with psychopaths. I do not know if you have ever been the victim of a psychopath - I have - and it is useless to try to appeal to their conscience or arouse their feelings of compassion or guilt. They have none. Absolutely none.

To quote you: "I suspect that you will find that the individuals undertaking the abuses which Will documents, have little and perhaps even no loyalty and compassion - at least nothing much beyond their own self interest. Out of the whole of society, they are the group who would be least affected by wholly unjustifiable attacks on those who are unfortunate enough to be close to them."

This is true. They treat their children and families with astonishing cruelty and viciousness. Attacking their families would, if the person is a classic psychopath, only affect their mood inasmuch as one is defying them and breaking their iron control over you, their victim. There would be not one iota of compassion for their wives or children.

That said, the only way for the society of normal people to purge these insane animals and take away their ability to inflict more pain on us, is through violence. Psychopaths are capable of escalating violence to unimaginable (by normal people) heights - beheadings, torture, nuclear war, the extinction of all life on the planet.

The tools of killing are no longer limited to guns and bombs - they include the ability to target nuclear power stations with H-bombs and create 400 Fukushimas. They include the ability to set off H-bombs in the stratosphere and destroy all satellites and every device on the planet which runs on electricity. They include the ability to release diseases into the population which have a 90%+ kill rate and have no antidote. Psychopaths are perfectly capable - and willing - to do those things.

If the human race wants to survive the next few decades, the psychopaths ruling us MUST be killed. It is the only way to stop them and safeguard humanity. Exactly who, among normal human beings, is going to undertake this unpleasant task is unclear - nobody wants to do it, and nobody of a normal mindset would take any pleasure in the destruction of what appears to be human life.

But how else can we ensure the survival of humanity?

- Lemuel

Anonymous said...

Codrea, one of the two bloggers who broke the Fast and Furious story, reposted your story on abusive spouses as cops and got an extremely emotional angry response from some cop or cop sympathizer, ha ha!

Anonymous said...

You ask, " It is INDEPENDENCE DAY after all, so why have they become a bunch of thug headed NAZI's?....Rob T."

The answer is that our government sees it a bit differently. They are celebrating the government's independence from accountability to the people. That's why the government agencies are the ones who shoot off the fireworks on the night of July 4th. THEY are the ones who have something to celebrate! Meanwhile, the police are out there seizing fireworks and issuing fines to private citizens who are shooting off anything the government has banned for private use, which around here includes anything that explodes or shoots up in the air.
Happy July 4th!!!

Keith said...

Hi LG,
I too have been - probably not the direct target, but at least in the area of collateral damage from a couple of them.

I quit a job to get away from one of those.

It's interesting that since I started seeing posts about ponerology and psychopaths and started doing some background reading, I've come to realize how well camouflaged and subtle some of the people I've known have been. Given the circumstance, I can't see that they were anything other than psychopaths.

Now to your question - what to do? how to get from here (ruled by psychopaths) to a world where the NAP is central.

I think the idea of psychopath hunters has been explored by fiction writers, using the metaphors of vampires, zombies, shape shifting aliens and other "changelings".

I think anyone trying it will run up against unintended consequences worse than the initial psychopath was - look at what LBJ pushed through by dancing in JFK's blood, look at Gabby Gifford and her (IMO) excrable husband - we'd never have heard of either of them if some statist mutant hadn't adjusted her balance with lead.

I think the long term strategy needs to be to undermine support for political power/aggression. No monopoly can be reformed, any and all monopolies must be rendered impotent.

Spread the word about how to spot psychopaths - what they do, and that almost any position of "power" is going to be occupied by a psychopath, so anyone holding or seeking "power" should be viewed as being a psychopath

If psychopaths can be manipulated into neutralizing each other, so much the better; remember the video I posted the link to - allegations of thatcher cabinet ministers attending kiddy fiddling parties at the elm house guest house? That was headline news in Britain last night (wednesday second of July). The question of what happened to a dossier of evidence about that pedophile brothel, is now national news.

Psychopaths are exceptionally good at playing "prisoner's dilemna", but it is fun to watch them grass each other up when they are forced into playing it.

One of the safety strategies is to make it known that many ordinary people are looking out for reichstaag fire and false flag events, even on a mega scale, and if any are suspected, the result could easily be very different to what the psychopaths intended. I had a good laugh when I watched the film "V for Vendetta" and the blowing up of the Old Bailey court house was described as "a controlled demolition". For hollywood, it was a very good analysis of how states operate.

Rob Taylor said...


That is all nice, but make the call anyway and tell them what you wrote. Preaching to the choir is useless,put it into action....

Anonymous said...

Unless you were planning on organizing small squads of riflemen to shoot these traitors while they're stuck in their own checkpoints, the non-violent alternative is to stop participating in civil society altogether.

Sell your car. Work only so much as to provide for your basic needs. If you can work in a black market, do so. Pay as few taxes as you think you can get away with. Stop patronizing large business establishments. Turn off your television and leave it off.

The parasitic class feeds off of society. Kill society and you kill the parasite. The people will survive.

The parasites deserve to die.

Goodmenbetter said...

Here is an anonymous cop waxing about being part of a gang.

He doesn't realize he can't positively change the system, one he is a willing and active participant in, by being "good from within" any more than some good fella wanting to turn the mob into an entirely charitable organization. It doesn't work that way. Cops always will rationalize their employment, even as they "speak out" against how much they hate the damage they do to others while employed.

Keith said...

Goodmenbetter, You are right.

The problems are inherent in the assumptions which the institution is founded upon.

Rothbard, in "Man economy and state" (free here ), shows that monopoly can only exist for any length of time, by use of aggressive force.

Disutility of labour (work sucks)

and a preference for a greater rather than a lesser satisfaction of wants.

ensures that a monopoly will have a continuous tendency to provide ever poorer quality service, and ever less of it, for an ever increasing price.

What price and what quality should the services be? -

without a market to find those prices, and what people are willing to pay for what quality of service - no one can know.

The socialist calculation problem applies to monopolies just as surely as it did to the former Soviet empire.

In a normal market, the chance of above average returns on investment will attract new entrants to compete in a sector, until prices are competed down to give near enough the market rate of return. As an example, standard oil had found out that it didn't matter how many competitors it bought out, every time it tried to raise prices above market rate, more competitors sprang up, even people who'd been bought out several times before, came back for more.

Maintaining monopoly requires force.

aggressive use of force is unjust

Violence is always expensive.

Is it any wonder then that the state maintains a monopoly of dispute resolution (the courts)

and on counterfeiting and "legal" theft to pay for it.

The cops are the thugs who enforce those monopolies. they're where the rubber of monopoly meets the human faces.


Keith said...

Having nice people in an inherently bad place

Enforcing monopoly and theft, and providing the aggressive violence to enforce them, all the while living on the proceeds of theft.

does no good.

They may be confused, thinking that they are doing "the right thing", they may even confuse others, much to their detriment.

Meyer, in "they thought they were free" tells of the trusted town policeman taking male jews in the town into "protective custody" the day after kristallnacht.

He was a good man - what could possibly go wrong?

Germany had a written constitution, it's politicians were democratically elected...

Elsewhere in the book, an engineer tells Meyer of having to sign some sort of pledge of allegiance to Germany and her leader, as a condition of continuing his job. He was deeply regretting not having the courage to have refused.

If he had refused, others too would have had the strength to refuse. If say 50% had refused, the Hitler regime would have been crippled immediately. Wendy McElroy discusses that effect recognized six hundred years BC by Lau Tzu, and again in the Twentieth Century by playwrite and Frank Zappa fan, Vaclav Havel.

Anonymous said...

Good to see Mises and Rothbard quoted above. And it is true, monopoly can't exist even with force over the long run. Like all empires in the history of the planet, it will collapse.

Lemuel Gulliver said...


"If say 50% had refused, the Hitler regime would have been crippled immediately."

Did you ever get to read Etienne de la Boetie on "The Politics of Voluntary Servitude?" He says just that - tyrants can only oppress us because so many collude with them, to exploit others below them in the pyramid of power.

Also, are you aware of the White Rose Society? This was a small group of young German dissenters, who printed and distributed leaflets critical of the Nazi regime. When caught, they were duly tried and publicly beheaded. Was this a legal act? Of course. Everything the Nazi government did was legal - they made sure of it. Including the "deportation" of Jews and other "Untermenschen."

At this link you will find an article on the subject of "legality":


"In June 2014, a federal lawsuit forced the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to release a memo detailing the supposed legality of executing Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama Administration had been fighting to conceal the information, having denied a FOIA request and citing national security as a blanket excuse for secrecy.

"The DOJ memo, which begins on page 67 of the federal lawsuit, argues that a killing is only considered “murder” when it is done “unlawfully.”

So you see? The State makes the laws, and the State declares that since this is so, everything - without exception - that the State does is "lawful." Including all the atrocities Mr. Grigg tells us about.

And including the murder of 20,000,000 Native Americans whose land was coveted, 6,000,000 German civilians who lived under a regime that would kill them if they protested, 2 million North Vietnamese, 1.5 million Koreans, 2.5 million Iraqis, and Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, who went to Yemen to see his dad.

ALL perfectly legal.

Because THEY said so.

The very same USGOV did not accept this excuse at the sham trials in Nuremberg, and hung many Nazis who claimed they were only following "The Law."

Just like the police today in America are following The Law, as they have determined it to be in their heads, as they go about their daily tortures and murders of Mundanes. Read this article - keep a sick-bag handy as you do:

Do you want the answer? Spend 10 minutes and watch these 2 short videos. You absolutely MUST. They will give you the answer as to what and who is behind it all:

Those videos will let you see that there is a vicious cabal directing all of this to their own ends. Nothing we think we know is true. The corruption of morals and the degeneration of society, the civil wars, hatreds, violence, and brutality, all of it is following a carefully orchestrated plan. Spare 10 minutes and watch those videos.

- Lemuel

Keith said...


I'm reading Ettienne de la Boetie and also Gustav de Molinari, whom Frederic Bastiat described from his death bed as "The continuator of my works". Bastiat had almost certainly read "production of defence" so his claim of de Molinari as his "continuator" implies that at the end of his life Bastiat had gone the whole way and become an anarchist.

Regrettably, I'm sickeningly well aware of what happens along that interface where the boot rubber of legislative fiat meets the road of human faces.

I'm astonished that the late Rudy Rummel remained not only a statist, but a social democrat, after spending his career researching the 220,000,000 plus non war murders by states in the twentieth century.

As you say, those murders were likely all "legal" according to the legislative fiats of the murderers. It is likely that "departmental procedures and best practice were correctly followed".

Legislative fiats are just that - ipse dixit claims.

Fiat laws serve the same purpose as fiat money - they allow monopolists, and facilitate those monopolists to do what monopolists do; to pick pockets and break legs

or stamp on faces, if you prefer Orwell's turn of phrase to Jefferson's.

There is only one LAW from which all justice derives; the non aggression principal - don't initiate aggression - don't seek to pick pockets or break legs.

Will's latest podcast covers that really well.

Keith said...

LG the videos are absolutely consistent with the stuff Murray Rothbard uncovered about what was openly being said by statisticians and corporate interests in their grab for power as central planners (and state cartelization of industries in the name of "efficeincy") in the first couple of decades of the 20th century.

It is exactly that atmosphere which "Brave New World" was written as a critique of.

It is also interesting that there was absolutely no love for the czarist regime ammongst those financiers who were Jewish. Czarist Russia with its pogroms was THE antisemitic state.

The Balfour Declaration, promising then Ottoman territory to the zionists bought the support of some Jews.

I wonder whether the toppling of the Czar and creation of a testing ground for central plans and other social engineering, was the price for getting Wall Street's support for the united state's entry.

Based on the British and French performance in the trenches, it didn't look like Britain was going to deliver to the Zionists, or honour the war bonds bought by Wall Street, without help.

Many Thanks for the new leads.

Spook, RN said...

As an ER nurse, I am APPALLED that any nurse could do this to a patient. My duty and ethical responsibility to my patient is to first do no harm - and if I have to perform procedures (i.e. venipuncture, catheter etc.), it is to be done with the least amount of discomfort possible and ALWAYS for the benefit of the patient and to promote well being.

NOT to collect 'evidence' or whatever for whomever!

And the doctor who ordered this egregious violation of a person's dignity? Shame on them!

Mr. Lockard's case reminds me of the ugly story of Mr. David Eckert of New Mexico who was brutalised via forced colonoscopies.

How do some people manage to sleep at night with such vile actions on their conscience is beyond me!