Tyranny of government




Health v medicine  


US History  

Guggenheim Foundation  

US is a corporation  

American Union  



Australian government  - legally invalid 

Constitution defunct 

What next? The issues  

United People Power  

  The Lima Declaration  

PM's powers 

Government tyranny 

"National security" 

Trial by jury 

One Nation 

Harold Holt's murder [external link] 

Port Arthur massacre  

  Port Arthur (v2) 

  Why not gun control? 


  Manchurian candidate

  Dr Peters / Dr Mullins 

Save Australia Alliance - Tony Pitt 


Foreign debt 

Bracket creep 

Stamp duty on houses  

Fascism in Australia (CEC)  

Illegal taxation  

The Hilton bombing - a case of political terrorism? 

Jean-Paul Turcaud / Telfer 

Andrew Wilkie  

Principality of Camside 

Principality of Rangeview  

Fortress Australia 








Australian govt ] Australian constitution ] United People Power ] [ Tyranny of government ] Trial by jury ] Port Arthur massacre ] Gunlaws ] Harold Holt ] One Nation ] PM's powers ] Save Australia Alliance ] Hilton bombing ] CEC ] Taxation ] Bracket creep ] Foreign debt ] Jean-Paul Turcaud ] Andrew Wilke ] Rangeview ] Fortress Australia ] Omega ]


"Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny." 

"It can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny."

The sole purpose of guns is to protect the people from a tyrannical government 


The right to bear arms
Phoenix Journal 90, Taking off the Blindfold- Chapter 15, p.182
Constitution prohibits Federal interference
By Peter D. Lepiscopo

A reprint of an article that appeared in the San Diego Mirror Tribune
2/2/94 entitled: 

Is its [guns] purpose for hunting ...or collecting ...for sport ...or for self-defense against criminals? 

No, although these have been offered as justification for its existence. Its sole purpose is to secure an individual's right for self-defense against government. "It" is the Second Amendment.

In order to understand the Second Amendment's constitutional purpose, one first must recognise the distinction between the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers; thus it deals exclusively with power. Conversely, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) was adopted to secure individual rights against government's intrusion; thus it deals exclusively with individual rights. 

The importance of this distinction is indispensable when one attempts to discern the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. For example, if the Second Amendment is designed to secure a right against government's intrusion, then the question is raised: How can one argue that the amendment's purpose is for self-defense against criminals? 

The answer of course, is that one cannot because the Bill of Rights dies not secure an individual's rights against other individuals but against government. Accordingly, present-day opponents and proponents of gun control are engaged in a debate that does not address the principle of government vs. individual but individual vs. individual.

This misinformed and illogical debate would offend the Founding Fathers.

Another misconception about the Second Amendment is the unfounded assertion that the amendment's language is ambiguous. The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This language is not ambiguous but clear if one properly analyses the amendment according to Thomas Jefferson's instructions, "On every question of constructions of the Constitution let US carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and recollect the spirit manifested in the debates".

In order to find the purpose behind the Second Amendment, one need only recall the Founders' fear of government's abuse of power.

Specifically, the Founders feared a standing army, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as an army of professional soldiers kept permanently on foot. For example, it was Britain's standing army as assembled in 1770 that caused the Boston Massacre. 

The universally understood view of the Founders was articulated by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention: "The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies". In this regard, after the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution (adopted 1777) provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms ... as standing armies are dangerous to liberty".

Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies". In addition, Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from keeping troops, without the consent of Congress.

These two provisions clearly placed the exclusive power to establish a standing army with the federal government, which had the effect of disarming the states and their inhabitants. This situation sounded the alarm that caused the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment.
Militias vs. standing armies Present-day opponents of the Second Amendment argue that the word "militia" means an army designed to provide for the common defense of
our nation. These opponents, therefore, argue that because we have the greatest military that ever existed, a militia is not necessary; and, therefore, there is no need for the right to keep and bear arms. This assertion is incorrect and contrary to history surrounding and debates concerning the Second Amendment.

The word "militia" is not synonymous with the term "standing Army". A "militia" is a non-professional citizen army which is not assembled on a permanent basis. Conversely, standing armies are permanently assembled and are comprised of professional soldiers. 
The Founders were not confusing the standing armies that could be established by Congress with those comprised of common inhabitants of the states. The latter were not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state.

Accordingly, present day opponents' arguments that the right to keep and bear arms is not necessarily because "militia" is synonymous with "standing armies" is false.

"Shall not be infringed"

The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe", as it relates to rights, means "to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually. Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly. This includes indirect interference, such as oppressive taxation or regulation.

Furthermore, the use of the command "shall not" was used to eliminate any argument that the right was subject to the government's discretion. The Founders did not use the term "shall not be infringed" by accident but by design. They intended to preclude the government from implementing sophisticated means by which to encroach upon this right. After all, the amendment was designed to be a check against government's abuse of power, and it would be in the government's best interest to encroach upon or eliminate this right. Virginia delegate George Mason stated it most succinctly, "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them".

Accordingly, the Founders used specific language in order to obtain a specific result, to secure our right to keep and bear arms for our protection against government. Those who actually believe that the Founders were not deliberate in their drafting of the Second Amendment are either naive or misinformed.

An amendment under attack 

In the last several years there has been a torrent of gun-control legislation that calls for severe infringements or all-out repeal of the Second Amendment. The opponents and proponents of gun control focus their debate on the impact, or lack thereof, it would have on gun-related deaths.

On the other hand, the proponents of gun control insist that removal of all guns from society will stem the rising tide of gun violence. On the other hand, gun-control opponents insist that the Second Amendment guarantees them a right to self-defense against criminals, to collect guns, to hunt and/or to use guns for sport.

I believe both arguments are historically and constitutionally incorrect.

It is quite clear from history and the debates surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment that the present-day debate does not focus on the proper principle underlying that amendment - protection against governmental tyranny.

Accordingly, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment will be betrayed regardless of who wins the debate.

To be sure, the argument can be made that we are entering the 21st century and the fears of men who existed in the late 18th century no longer exist. This argument quickly disappears, however, once one realises that although time has passed, human nature remains unchanged. 

Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny. 

Moreover, it can be observed that governments throughout the world are oppressive to their people. What do these governments have in common? 

They have the guns and their subjects do not. More importantly, it can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny. Accordingly, there can never be any constitutional justification for government infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. 

Finally, to those of you who advocate gun control at the expense of the Second Amendment, I leave you with Benjamin Franklin's insight, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety".


National Security 

Too much information is withheld from the public on the basis of "national security" - which really goes against the concept of democracy, and amounts more to dictatorial oversight. The people have a right and a need to know what is going on in the government that supposedly is set up to serve, yet every pretext is used to keep information hidden. 

These days when corporations are setting the agendas for much of what goes on in government, and with the new world order pulling the strings from behind the scenes, the restriction of information from the people is obscene and immoral.

Secrecy and Accountability in U.S. Intelligence
Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
by Steven Aftergood
Director, Project on Government Secrecy, 
October 9, 1996

Through research, advocacy, and public education, the FAS Project on Government Secrecy works to challenge excessive government secrecy and to promote public oversight.

Questions of secrecy and accountability have figured prominently in the most important intelligence controversies of the last several years. While U.S. intelligence agencies have done an astonishingly poor job of protecting the nation's secrets from foreign adversaries, they have been more successful in blocking access by American citizens to the most basic categories of intelligence information.

Classification practices adopted decades ago to thwart a seemingly omnipotent Soviet threat remain in effect, despite epochal changes in the global security environment. Congressional oversight has often limited itself to expressions of indignation after the scandal du jour, while reinforcing obsolete security practices that would help make the next scandal more likely. Unexamined secrecy policies have even inhibited communication of intelligence within the government itself. Meanwhile, public tolerance for government secrecy is diminishing, and inherited classification practices are being challenged by an erosion in security discipline and by increasingly capable information technologies in the public domain.

There has always been a degree of secrecy in U.S. government, particularly in intelligence matters, and it has always presented a conflict with American ideals that remains unresolved.

But today, the level of secrecy in U.S. intelligence is a symptom of increasing obsolescence as well as an obstacle to reform. This paper provides an overview of the structure of government secrecy, examines current intelligence secrecy policies, critiques congressional oversight of intelligence, and proposes some corrective steps for the future.

Three Categories of Secrecy

"There have been some 'bad secrets' concerning intelligence; their exposure by our academic, journalist, and political critics certainly is an essential part of the workings of our Constitution. There have been some 'non-secrets' which did not need to be secret; I have undertaken a program of bringing these into the open. But I think that responsible Americans realize that our country must protect some 'good secrets'." --DCI William Colby, 19741
Among the many types of information that are classified by the government in the name of national security, it is possible to distinguish three general categories: genuine national security secrecy, political secrecy, and bureaucratic secrecy.

Genuine national security secrecy pertains to that body of information which, if disclosed, could actually damage national security in some identifiable way. Of course, this begs the crucial questions of what "national security" is, what constitutes "damage" and how the meaning of these terms may change over time. Without attempting to conclusively define national security-- a worthy subject for a separate examination-- common sense suggests that this category would include things like design details for weapons of mass destruction and other advanced military technologies, as well as those types of information that must remain secret in order for authorized diplomatic and intelligence functions to be performed. The sensitivity of this kind of information is the reason we have a secrecy system in the first place, and when it is working properly this system positively serves the public interest.

The second category is political secrecy, which refers to the deliberate and conscious abuse of classification authority for political advantage, irrespective of any threat to the national security. This is the smallest of the three categories but it is also the most dangerous to the political health of the nation. Perhaps the most extreme example of political secrecy in intelligence historically was the classification of CIA behavior modification experiments on unknowing human subjects, as in the MKULTRA program. To guarantee the permanent secrecy of this activity, most MKULTRA records were destroyed in the early 1970s, although the CIA continues to classify many such records today.2 But this category also includes more petty abuses like the classification of the intelligence budget, which serves to limit official public discussion of intelligence priorities and performance, but does nothing to enhance the security of Americans.

The third category is what may be called bureaucratic secrecy. This has to do with the tendency of all organizations to limit the information that they release to outsiders so as to control perceptions of the organization, as classically described by Max Weber. Bureaucratic secrecy appears to be the predominant factor in current classification practice, accounting for the majority of the billions of pages of classified records throughout the government.

See http://www.fas.org/sgp/cipsecr.html for full article.

Project on Government Secrecy
The FAS Project on Government Secrecy works to challenge unwarranted secrecy and to promote reform of national security information policy and practice. For a quick update, see current news. To subscribe to our email newsletter Secrecy News or to view past issues, click here.

See http://www.fas.org/sgp/secrecy.html for other secrecy related websites.

Occult Science Dictatorship, the official state science religion and how to get excommunicated, p.12
by William Lyne

Most government secrecy is actually protectionism, for the benefit of private corporations, executed through abuse of the government's exclusive legal right to the use of force, to protect powerful, mega-corporate interests. The government cloaks these illegal actions beneath a veil of "national security", which gives the corporate protectionism a false aura of "the rule of law", patriotism, and legal force and effect, which equate "corporate security interests" with "national security interests".

Powerful economic interests are conservative in nature, in the sense that a large percent of corporate holdings are tied up in archaic fuels - like oil, natural gas and coal - in archaic technology - like cars, ships, planes and trains - and in other archaic and "conservative resources. This conservatism "conserves" the resources of old, powerful families, old powerful corporations, old powerful financial institutions, old powerful political traditions, old powerful manufacturing interests, and old vested mineral interests, investments in "conventional industry and technology, chemical cartels, and other things controlled by the few - threatened by new technology in the hands of the man - particularly that involving energy and transportation. 

These conservative interests - usually portrayed as "liberals" - have resisted and fought tooth and nail to prevent free energy technology from taking hold for over a hundred years.

Of all the secrets being protected by the government on behalf of the coercive-monopolists who control it, none is more important than the flying saucer electrodynamic propulsion technology of Nikola Tesla, which is why there is still such a big hullabaloo over it, over 56 years after the US government acquired it from Nazi Germany. This book explains the workings of this dictatorship, and points out why and how we should end it.


Port Arthur massacre - all information about the case is locked up for 30 years under "national security" pretext. Why is this? What is so secret about the affair and why shouldn't the public have access to the information? What is being kept hidden?

A Treatise on Law, Constitutions and Democracy in twelve points explaining Why the D'Estaing Constitution is the Antithesis of Democracy

If you are an American, Canadian, Australian, Chinese, Russian or African, what, you might ask, does the European Constitution have to do with me ? The answer is that to understand whether one’s own constitution is as protective of your inherent citizen’s legal rights as it should be, it is helpful to compare it with others. This book shows the difference between the phoney, illegal antidemocratic ‘constitution’ which installs despotism (absolute government control over the people), and the real constitution which will establish Justice, Liberty, Rights and Democracy if it installs particular definitive tenets, and these are strictly upheld.

Constitutions can only be maintained by an active mass of the common people strictly monitoring, maintaining and protectively enforcing their constitution, the populace needing always to be educated to the fact that governments (i.e. the executive, the politicians and the judiciary) at all times and in all places trend towards despotism.

The pernicious calumny that England (or Britain) has "no constitution," is promulgated today by individuals of parliament and judiciary, to obscure their routine violation of the 35 times ratified Constitution. From this vile seed despotism is now visibly extant and growing.

The Author’s related works are endorsed by a Nobel laureate professor emeritus Official Adviser to U.S. government; a Professor of Physiology Fellow of the Royal Society, by eminent authors, academics, doctors of jurisprudence, medicine, psychiatry, homeopathy, and by ecologists and judges (U.S. and U.K.).

This Treatise is an inspiring erudite work of incontrovertible argument, with quotations in support by U.S. presidents, U.K. prime ministers, chief justices, judges, learned authors and lawyers.

The book presents the subject from a heretofore entirely unconsidered standpoint. The knowledge it contains empowers citizens with constitutional facts recondite even to the legal profession.

The exemplary U.S. and U.K. constitutional laws are the standard by which any proposed new legislation is measured. This book exposes the deceit by which d’Estaing and committee (who claim to protect rights and democracy) duplicitously word a ‘constitution’ which actually installs the identical Stalinist and fascist method of population-control, to form the statist régime of the new Europe.

The constitutional information contained in this work is essential to the protection, well-being and happiness of citizens.

This Treatise is that rare phenomenon: a book on law which is gripping and stimulating for the everyday reader. After perusing this book, readers are enabled to perceive the ignorance or degenerate motivations of every person who advocates measures which erode the U.S. or U.K. constitutions.

by Kenn d’Oudney, ALAM(Hons) Dip. GSA
HARDBACK 41 pages. Large A4-size (297 x 210 mm.)
ISBN 1902848748. Current 1st Edition.
SCORPIO dispenses with fragile dust covers and presents these academic texts as quality large Hardback books with full-colour tableaux cover images.