The Southwestern

Missouri Libertarian

Issue #16
July 1996

Copyright 1996. People are at liberty to copy this newsletter in whole or in part for non-profit purposes provided they properly attribute copied portions to The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian.

Newsletter Purpose & Intent: This is an unusual newsletter. It is intended to be the voice of the militant Libertarian and the reasonable militia member.

200 years ago, this political newsletter would have been considered left of center. 100 years ago, the things stated herein would have been belaboring the obvious. Today, the concepts of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility make this newsletter seem radical. But since there are few other places available for the dissemination of these opinions, this newsletter is proud to make do.

The views expressed in this newsletter are not those of the Missouri Libertarian party or of various militia groups. But they damn well should be.

Editor: Martin Lindstedt



Shots Heard Around the Immediate Vicinity

Practical Issues & Answers -- Rabid Party Animals
or Why the Libertarian Party (and elsewhere) Won't Grow

UnCommon Sense -- The Tool Which Always Works & The Myth of Non-Violence

Ride The Tiger! -- A Speech

*** Monologue ***


While your editor does not consider himself much of a desperado, I really got off lucky with 30 days because I did not get punished fully for one-tenth of one percent of the contempt which I hold for the corrupt and dependent judiciary of the Granby municipal, Newton and Jasper County circuit, Missouri western and southern appeals, and Missouri supreme courts.

During closing arguments, defense attorneys argued that the case came down to the word of a crooked banker (and ex-judge David Hale) against the President of the United States.

Exactly. Best go with the crooked banker.

This supposedly tough whitewash of the First Crook is already dated, with the truth coming out from each scandal of the week since: The Whitewater convictions of the McDougalls and Tucker, the "lost" billing files with Hillary's fingerprints on them, the FBI files on political opponents, the selling of political offices in Arkansas to campaign contributors, the trial of said bankers for money laundering, the resignations and trial of the First Crook's friends -- them not Arkancided.

Whitewashing the First Crook is a fruitless activity, much like painting chalkwater on sheetmetal during a downpour.

"My time to leave this office has [at long-last] come," said the Dildo. "I will seek the presidency with nothing to fall back on but the judgment of the people, and nowhere to go but the White House or home."

Several weeks later, the Great Compromised wrung a few more tears from his fellow thieves in the Senate. He called his 35 years in Con-gress, still "a work in progress." Now let's look at what 35 years of his "progress" did to this country.

When he arrived in January 1961, the country was relatively sound. Since then, BoobDolt has given us NAFTA and GATT, and gun laws and the drug war, TEFRA, assorted budget deals and a whole raft of poisonous legislation part and parcel with his sell-out of America. His pride and joy of legislation: food stamps, school lunches, welfare for single mothers, and Martin Luther King Day.

For 35 years, the DealDoltster sold himself -- and this country -- down the river for his personal political advantage. Bob Dole's political history parallels the decay of this country. Now he wants to be President. He thinks it is a suitable gift for his years of compromise, thievery, and dishonor.

The people are wising up. They won't `invest' what little they have left for a mere change of First Thieves, First Liars, or First Bloodsuckers.

Meanwhile, sides are chosen, plans made, and operations tested. The fittest are learning -- and surviving. After the election, watch all hell break loose.

No hope = nothing left to lose.

The Freemen were accused of setting up kangaroo courts where they wrote up bogus liens and cashed bogus paper banknotes. In short, they were acting like a government unto themselves, and the feds don't like competition.

This third stand-off was unlike the Ruby Ridge and Waco in that the Freemen were less religious and in that having withdrawn their consent, they set up a new country of THIS world. Consequently, having less faith in the next world, they did not hang onto hope for as long or as militantly.

The FBI was making plans to use force under color of humanitarianism by calling armored cars and helicopter gunships 'rescue vehicles.' But the FBI gave its word and promptly broke it by promising one woman she could keep her children -- then handing her over to the Utah authorities who broke the agreement for the FBI. The FBI also promised the Freemen they could keep custody of their documentation by leaving them in a Ryder truck in the custody of Montana legislator Karl Ohs. After the Freemen surrendered, the FBI got a 'general' warrant of the type forbidden by the 4th Amendment, and seized the truck without demur from politician Ohs.

There will be no more negotiations in future conflicts with the government. There can be no negotiations possible when it is commonly understood that one side, the government, will NEVER honor its word.

The Freemen will not be given a fair trial. The Freemen will not be allowed to defend themselves properly. They will be sentenced to life sentences and killed by the government -- one day at a time.

And there will be no more surrenders.

These are good people, Christian people, who have been pushed so far and are not going to put up with being pushed further.

The only difference between militia people and the common-law lien filers is one of age. The common-law bunch is usually in their 50s on up. They are too old to run around in the woods and they know it. Militia leaders are in their 30s to 40s. The gun toters are in their 20s.

The frightening thing for government to realize is that between 10 to 2 years ago, these quality people were the government's natural allies. Now they are the government's most implacable foes.

So how exactly did 10 or 20 soldiers exposed to chemical weapons manage to infect 9,000 troops, their wives and their children?

This is of course a throwaway lie put out by the military to escape providing for the troops. Pentagon bureaucrats learned a lot from their commander-in-chief.

Another generation of soldiers drawn from the ranks of the lower and working class get to learn the age-old lesson that cannon-fodder which survives cannon-fire must be disposed of somehow by rich cowards whose property they protected.

The Weavers, Branch Davidians, and Freemen have taken their test. Most of them have not survived it.

Currently being tested are Bob Starr and his friends from Macon Georgia. They stepped into the testing room when they found out that BATF agents provocateurs were infiltrating their Georgia militia and talking about, making and burying pipe bombs on their property and decided to pull a `reverse sting' on the owners of a chain of perjury parlors commonly referred to as courtrooms. Now they are on trial accused of doing what government secret informants were planning to do -- blow up the Olympics and blame it on the militias, like they did at Oklahoma City. Mr. Starr's test results will be determined by trial and error.

On the pathetic side, a dozen wanna-bes-but-never-wases-or-ever-will- ever-bes known as the Viper Militia were arrested along with their Judas for planning to blow up federal buildings with fertilizer bombs. Six of them were promptly released because they lacked mental capacity to form criminal intent. The rest will be screwed and receive their sentences for stupidity.

The end result of this propaganda kulturkampf will be the formation of political-action militias which will bait and goad a fascist corporate state into revealing its true face or five-man-or-less cells of resistance formed up of people who truly know themselves. Neither type of militia organization will be easily infiltrated or destroyed. They will pass their tests and devise new survival test questions to render upon the federal tyrannosaurus.

Now the taxpayers get stuck with a tax increase of $50 million dollars this year and who knows what else next year. They won't get to vote on it either. Such are the realities of tax-limitation written by politicians.

Of course, skinning fools is largely bi-partisan. Margaret "I'll-fight- like-a-spayed-watchdog-for-you" Kelly, the Republican candidate for governor opined as how Taxman-Carnahan-lite wasn't all that bad. Which is to be expected. Give a smooth-talking Democrat five minutes with a Republican politician and you can count on that Republican to spread her legs on any tax-increase, saying, "It is just a little one and it feels so good."

Nor does Margaret Kelly's proposal to refund some taxes do much good. The working poor don't know how or care to file for a refund of under $50. The only people who will make out like bandits will be the corporations or rich people with tax lawyers, all of which will be duly noted by the Democrats.

By betraying her Republican principles, if any, Margaret Kelly pulled a BoobDolt deal on herself and ensured the re-election of Taxman Carnahan as Governor of Missouri.

Now these 'use' taxes have been ruled unconstitutional and refunds were supposed to take place, but the local governments have a use for the illegally collected taxes and don't want to refund the money to the taxpayers. So they are placing new proposals for 'use' taxes on the ballot to collect new money and keep the old stolen funds. They are assuring people that they won't have to report on their out-of-state catalogue sales unless they spend over $2,000 and how "the purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the current sales tax advantages that non-Missouri venders have over Missouri venders." Yeah, right.

No one benefits from voting in higher taxes for someone else because sooner or later we are all caught in the tax net. If enough voters vote in a 'use' tax, pretty soon you will not be able to recoup the money spent in shipping by not having to pay sales tax, since the out-of-state merchant will add a line saying "Missouri residents -- add 6.25% sales tax."

But as has been written: In vain is the net set in sight of the birds. Still, vote "NO" on the 'use' tax.

I consider the other "libertarian" running against me a shallow, vain mediocrity, however since this world is full of mediocrities, I really could use the vote of the way above average reader of this newsletter. Thank you.

* End of Monologue *

Liberty's Calender

In the Joplin Area contact:

Martin Lindstedt, Editor Southwestern Missouri Libertarian
Rt. 2, Box 2008
Granby, MO 64844
(417) 472-6901

Joplin Meeting: 1st Friday of the month at PraisePlace church, 602 South Moffett, Joplin Missouri at 7:30 p.m.

Wish to contact this editor by Computer?
The editor has the following e-mail address:
Patrick Henry On-Line World Wide Web page; Your One-Stop Shopping for Sedition at URL:

*** Shots Heard 'Round the Immediate Vicinity ***


** The Significance of April 19th **

There is a propaganda war afoot as April 19th arrives -- a day of honor among Patriots and a day of fear and hatred of, by, and for government forces.

On this sacred day 221 years ago, men like us conceived a great nation, answering tyranny in the only tongue it comprehends. Well we know what happened three and one years ago and those responsible. We sense this year we shall see Free Men enslaved or killed and despise profane sacrifices which this, "our" Beast, will make of its slaves, defiling this, our sacred day.

Let us not argue the tenants of our fighting faith for we know the truth and our enemy fears it. If we can, let us go beyond hatred to an iron determination to calmly do that which must be done to ensure Liberty and Justice for and upon all.

Like Judgement Day, April 19th is either a day of honor and dedication or a day of fear and trembling. It all depends on just which side you are on.

-- Early morning, April 18, 1996
Martin Lindstedt, militiaman & Candidate for Governor
c/o Jasper County Jail,
405 East Fifth Street Carthage, Missouri 64836
Editor's Note: This letter was submitted to several newspapers but not printed by any of them.

~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~ .

** Doing devil's bidding **


How do you make the New World Order a campaign issue when Christian conservatives are being advised on every side to vote for the "lesser of two evils," a man who apparently supports this vehicle of one-world rule?

Even if America escapes four more years of the Clinton's social engineering, the alternative, they are told, is Robert Dole, a puppet of Wall Street and international bankers who has brazenly backed international trade agreements and a World Trade Organization that jeopardizes America's industrial base, sacrifices the future of blue-collar workers and betrays America's sovereignty.

Dole backs the adventurist policies of a United Nations army, advocates a national identity card for gun owners and courts the most liberal thinkers and running mate and appointees.

That Christians are thinking of voting for such a man is appalling! With a well-organized WTO, UN army, national ID and one-world currency, what will Americans be left to vote for in the year 2000?

The 1996 election already has been reduced to a giant compromise of every voter's integrity. That should tell every Christian something: we are being forced to do the devil's bidding. Such things ought not to be.

Richard McClure
Pittsburg, Kansas

Printed in The Joplin Globe, June 20, 1996.
Scratch another normal would-be BoobDolt supporter. It is letters like this which inform the discerning that Klinton will be elected a two-termer.

~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~ .

** How can this happen? **


A four-hour movie about the Ruby Ridge tragedy was recently shown by CBS. You may remember the Randy Weaver family from watching the trial on television.

Their former neighbors from Iowa described them as a close-knit family, loving and deeply religious. Their interpretation of the Bible caused them to feel end-times were near, so they moved to Idaho and built their home on Ruby Ridge. They home-schooled their children and that included learning to be good marksmen with guns.

The trial brought out that key evidence was withheld and there was tampering with evidence and fabricating of photographs by the government agents.

A private detective admitted that he worked four years as an undercover informant to gain the confidence of Randy Weaver. The result was that Weaver finally agreed to sell several shotguns he had sawed off one-quarter inch shorter than legal limits.

The final irony of this whole tragedy was that on March 1 of this year, five deputy marshals involved were given the U.S. Marshals Service's highest award for valor. They were cited for exceptional courage, sound judgment in the face of attack and for their high degree of professional competence during the incident. They were all called heroes.

This is America. How can federal agents get away with shooting a mother between the eyes while she held her baby, or with shooting a 14-year-old boy in the back four times with a sub-machine gun? No one was ever charged with murder.

Evelyn Sims
Carthage, Missouri
This letter printed in The Joplin Globe on June 11, 1996

~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~ .

** A pig in a poke? **


Missourians are about to be sold a pig in the bush -- or is that two birds in a poke? If I seem to be confused it's only because I am. Amendment 4 is what has me so confused.

Like the majority of Missourians, I really like the idea of a tax limitation amendment. The $310-million-per-year Senate Bill 380 has proven that our state legislature lacks self-control when it comes to spending our money. Requiring a vote of the people "footing the bill" before significantly raising taxes is a good idea. Amendment 4 seems to do just that.

The thing that has me so confused, though, is the fact that Gov. Mel Carnahan is the driving force behind it. This doesn't seem to add up in light of the way he so viciously opposed the Hancock II Amendment a couple of years ago. Has the governor had a change of heart, or could it be that Amendment 4 is not what it appears? Something about the fox guarding the chicken coop comes to mind.

Perhaps Amendment 4 really does give some control back to the taxpayers. After all, it is an election year.

At this point in time I have yet to decide how I will vote on Amendment 4. One thing I do know, however, is that it is a poor substitute for the Hancock II amendment. Hancock II was designed to patch up the loopholes that the governor and the liberal courts had bored in the original Hancock Amendment, and the original amendment was designed to not only limit our tax burden but also limit the size of our state government. There exists an inverse relationship between the size of government and individual freedom. The Hancock amendments were about freedom and Amendment 4 does a poor job of securing our freedom.

Among the shortcomings of the proposed amendment is the fact that it does permit a whopping $50-million-per-year increase in new taxes each year without approval. What's more, only the projected receipts from a proposed tax in the first year are used to determine if it makes it under the $50 million wire. Once law, the new tax could impose a much larger burden in subsequent years -- without a vote of the people. In other words, this year's $49 million tax might cost us $200 million next year -- with no vote. Another shortcoming is Amendment 4's allowance of the reinstatement of existing taxes as they expire without voter approval.

I may vote for Amendment 4; I may vote against it -- I just don't know yet. One thing I do know, though, is that I will continue to hope for a change that really will secure our rights.

Ron Calzone,
Dixon, Missouri
The above letter was printed in The Joplin Globe, on April 1, 1996 and reprinted here as an example of what an intelligent taxpayer should consider before entering a polling booth.

*** Practical Issues & Answers ***


Part Thirteen of a continuing series. This column intends to give Libertarians running for office a practical guide on issues to bring up and exploit to the dismay of Demo-Publicans, who have no idea of how to solve the problems they have created.




This is the answer: The people heading the State and National Libertarian Parties don't want it to grow beyond their control.

The rest of this article will be devoted to proving above assertion, then showing how to combat above problem. Identifying, then eliminating from positions of power and influence these petty liber-fascists is of utmost importance if the Libertarian Party is to take its rightful place in the political van of restoring liberty and justice to our American civilization.

". . . as tyrannical as the dem or reps but without the wherewithall to get things done." Kay Sheil, e-mail to Martin Lindstedt, July 24, 1995, 8 days after her resignation as MoLP Chairwoman.

The Political Combatants

The Libertarian Party is itself an uneasy amalgamation of the social-freedom, intellectual, dope-smoking, democrat, man-of-letters Left and the make-a-buck, practical, likker-drinking, republican, man-of-action Right. These are not natural allies, as they fear and/or despise one another. The only thing that keeps them together is progress to their mutual goal of less government and thus more freedom to pursue their individual interests. When this goal is halted, due to policy differences arising from personality conflicts, just watch both sides of this oil-and-water mixture have at each other as the mutual goals are forgotten and the alliance dissolved!

Their modes of thought are totally different. A man of the Left judges others by the subjective criterion of what they might "think" or "feel"; that spiritual guide of utmost importance to them. A man of the Right judges others by the objective criterion of actions performed, as no other measure is deemed relevant.

In the Missouri Libertarian Party, both sides have nicknames for each other. The leftists call the rightists "Shooters," as they correctly deduce that the right is quite willing and naturally able to use violence in order to secure first their freedoms, then achieve and maintain an area of political dominance. The rightists call the leftists "Pud-Pullers" as they observe that nothing practical gets accomplished by them, only mutual and individual political masturbations gratifying the ego -- the natural, but nasty, results of little jerks.

Understanding oneself thoroughly in a first criterion for effective empathy -- the ability to understand another. Empathy, however, does not command sympathy, because once you understand someone else, if they are no good, then you have a duty to forestall the evil they will commit. So in this age of iron and clay, The Age of Silliness, let me proclaim my credentials: I am a Shooter. I understand Pud-Pullers. Pud-Pullers must be stopped before their scruffy onanisms further defile the Libertarian Party.

Deriving Motivation

Hannah Arendt, in her book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism," noted how the intelligencia would absolve the crimes of the National Socialists and Communists by ignoring the facts of the atrocities committed and instead focus on the "motives" of the accusers of left-wing despots. This dark side of human nature is no stranger to the Libertarian Party and is a natural law of social behavior among its ruling leftists.

Most right-wing Libertarians or Ayn-Rand-Objectivists usually don't even bother with deriving motivation, as it is deemed irrelevant. This is a foolish error. While judging a person's or groups' actions and then taking steps to counter them is indeed paramount, an understanding of an opponent's thought process, however flawed, is vital. It wastes time to merely combat the effects of a flow of evil actions. Far better to understand the source and cut off the flow at its heart.

Looking at those actions committed, and taking the time to derive motivation from those actions, it becomes clear that the current "leadership" of the Missouri Libertarian Party want nothing more than a small, easily-controlled, perpetual minor political party that they can play with for their own personal amusement. Lacking the courage, capacity, and character to remain on top of a larger organization, they will fight any Party growth tooth and nail because a larger Party holds nothing for them except the emergence of talented rivals. This holds true for other state Libertarian parties and the National Libertarian Party as well. This is why the next third major political party will not be Libertarian. We are and will be held back, down and out by the lowest-common-denominator insisting upon rulership.

Looking at events the past year or so will prove that the MoLP isn't interested in liberty of freedom or justice or whatever else is the buzzword of the moment. All they want is power and control over others; their practice the exact opposite of what preached.

A Bill of Particulars

No Independent Paper Candidates Allowed:

The very essence of a political party is the running of candidates. The more candidates running under a party ticket, the stronger that party is perceived. When there are no candidates running under that party banner, that party is understood to be either too weak or non-existent in that area. The Republicans have problems running in the inner-city, the Democrats in rural areas, therefore they don't run candidates. We Libertarians have very few people running as state representatives, 163 positions open every two years, or state senators, 17 positions open every two years. Therefore, in order to get our presence noted on the ballot, it is imperative that our party get candidates to file, even when there is small chance for electoral success at first.

Now of course, some candidates are better than others. However, there are so many openings available that our party is ahead by simply finding some warm bodies to fill those slots. When we get more candidates than slots, we let the voters choose the "better" candidate.

When I announced my intention to run for governor instead of 7th District Congressman at the February 18, 1996 Expediting Committee meeting, the reaction from my fellow "Libertarians" was less than friendly. They were all scared of the possibilities of what I might say on the campaign trail. No big deal, as I was not impressed by their capacity for effective resistance. But the fat was really in the fire when I proposed refunding the filing fees for all candidates who would need to spend the money on their campaign. The hostility intensified when I proposed to drag along 4 or 5 scruffy militia-types and others beholden to me up to Jefferson City to file as state reps. I wanted the filing fees returned for them. I didn't have $200 to file as governor and they didn't want to pay $50 just to do me and the MoLP a favor.

My motion didn't even get a second. The ExpCom's justification? That a refund of filing fees would be a "gift" and thus a violation of the DemoPublican Incumbent's Protection Act against anyone running for state office in Missouri getting campaign contributions while the legislature is in session between Jan-May 1996. Never mind that there was a temporary injunction against enforcement of the law in effect then and that the injunction was made permanent and the law voided in April by a federal judge. These LiberFascists love to hide behind DemoPublican laws when it helps maintain their control over other Libertarians.

So at the March 17, 1996 ExpCom, I tried a different tack. Since state laws required a filing fee, all I would do was to turn in checks for my candidacy and those of others, and ask for a guarantee that the checks would be returned uncashed after the legislature adjourned in May. Thus no law would be violated, and we could fill ballot positions. I found out that there was a long history of doing exactly this in 1994 for certain selected candidates.

This proposal immediately got bogged down by my allies on the ExpCom, who proposed "allowing" prospective candidates to appear and present their credentials before the ExpCom, even though filing season would be over before the next meeting. Said proposal was outvoted by 8-3, and the main proposal, the return of filing fees to candidates, was outvoted by 7-4. I left early to research a lawsuit against the MoLP and the judicial review of RSMO 115.357 which says that an indigent candidate must get petition signatures or pay filing fees to his political party in order to file. The next day I filed the lawsuit (a copy of which is on my WWW page) before the Missouri supreme court and on March 20 I came up with two $100 checks from my brother and a friend and filed for office. The Missouri supreme court, in defending the status quo, unConstitutionally refused to do their duty and hear the case, so the next stop is federal district court.

The leaders of the MoLP hold notions that fellow citizens must come before them and beg for the right to run as a candidate for office, notions conflicting with their professed blatherings about being for liberty and freedom. All they really want is control over petty political mechanics. A strong candidate needs not to seek their permission to do anything. A weak or new candidate abasing himself by begging for freedom to run for office gains nothing. Most people won't bother. Therefore the ballot will never be filled, Pud-Puller protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Disenfranchising the Majority.

At the May 25 Party Convention in Columbia this year, by a vote of 22-2, those present voted to eliminate proxy voting in favor of only allowing those members present to vote. After a little bit of procedural struggle, the 7 proxies collected got to vote in favor of their political relevancy, raising the vote to 22-9. The Party constitution was amended to favor this disenfranchisement of the remainder of MoLP members too busy or distant to attend. In short, 22 power-maddened corrupt fascist fools voted away the rights of 225 people who couldn't be bothered to show up to listen to yammering drivel about us being 'the party of principle.' Mobocracy in action.

By far the most amusing part of it was watching the "Libertarian" politicians justify disenfranchising their paying electorate. "We need to punish voter apathy," was my favorite. Thankfully, the idiot running against me for governor was one of the more incoherently vocal. Now all I have to do is sick one of my five 7th District proxy voters on him at one of his campaign rallies or at a debate and have her say, "Hello. Remember me? I'm one of the Libertarian Party members that you disenfranchised, you Fascist! Hey everybody, if he did it to me, he'll do it to you. Don't vote for this swine."

It wasn't just a matter of denying proxy voting either. A proposal raised was to place the Platform in ballot form in the official party newsletter, "Show Me Freedom" and let the paid membership vote on it. This proposal was denied. "Showed Me Fascism" is to remain nothing more than an organ to relay the decrees of the MoLP ExpCom or Pud-Puller Politburo. Rather than go over the Platform piece by piece, the convention was quickly adjourned and the old Platform was kept by default.

What these dishonest and corrupt fools did was not only hypocritical, it was politically stupid as well. Listen to the following exchange via e-mail:

   >. . . . It was one person, one vote. As for proxies, initially I
   >viewed them as a sort of absentee ballot. But after consideration,
   >I realized how dangerous and undemocratic they actually are.
   >  Now take a "pauper" who is the only one who can drive (once a
   >friggin year) to the convention and he/she collects proxies from
   >other "paupers" (who also can't somehow manage a trip once a year)
   >and shows up to vote. Okay, no prob right? We've just empowered
   >the "poor" of the party right.....?
   >  Wrong. I have plastic, I have checks, I have cash, I am rich. I
   >use my greater wealth to purchase memberships for 50 or so of my
   >friends (less than $1,000) and get their proxies. Guess who now
   >controls the MOLP? It is the same as Howard Stern packing the NY
   >convention with his cronies and taking control from the Libertarians.
   >Stern is no Libertarian. Herein lies the danger of proxies. They
   >allow shadow voting and destroy the ideal of one person one vote.
   >Those with the bucks  win and disenfranchise the "poor."

       The problem that I've had with you over the past year is your
   determination to keep the Party under the "control" of you and your
   friends. This "control" is illusionary. Nothing keeps anyone from
   buying a bunch of memberships and then taking control of the MoLP now.
     If Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh or the Birchers or the militia
   decide to do it, under your principles of "democracy" they can and
   eventually they will.
     Looking at the number of members throughout the states throughout
   the country, if Mr. Perot wants to get on the ballot, the cheapest
   and most effective way to do this is to simply let the LP do the
   ballot accessing and all the hard work, then simply get his United
   We Stand People to buy memberships, vote to change the name to the
   "Reform-Libertarian" or just "Reform" Party, run their own candidates
   under the new ticket and do unto you exactly what you all voted to do
   unto us, the far-off members of the MoLP.
     Such is democracy when practiced to its eventual logic. Just as
   the principal of one man = one vote is practiced, majority rule without
   provision for minority rights, you have the spectacle of 22 people
   from Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield showing up to
   disenfranchise 225 of their fellow Libertarians who were not as "good"
   as those who showed up. Using that logic, by what means will you
   protest Perobots, Buchananites, and LaRouchites using their numbers
   and money to do the same unto you?
     The 30 days notice will avail you naught. All it does is let you
   see the avalanche before it strikes. Let's say you do see 50, 60,
   70, 200 new memberships coming in. Do you have enough money or
   membership to combat that situation? Doubtful. Will you appeal to
   the 225 who didn't show up and were disenfranchised, saying, "You
   must show up and vote! We are under attack as a Party! We are about to
   lose to people who have no Libertarian principles. At the very least,
   give us your proxies so that we can defend ourselves!"
     The answers you may get are: "We?" "Who cares?" "What Libertarian
   Principles did YOU uphold?" "You didn't honor my proxy before."
   "Let it be done unto you as you have done onto us."
      Some of the people who you voted to disenfranchise asked me,
   "Why don't we all go up there and vote them out, disenfranchise them?"
   I tell them that we can make what happened, rule from top-down,
   irrelevant by counter-attacking via county committees from the
   grass-roots up. . . .
      Now that we have disposed of the practical and moral ramifications
   of disenfranchising 88 percent of the MoLP, let me inform you of how
   to protect and grow our Party, even at the expense of you and your
   friends' "control" over it.

      The key is to grow the Party from the grass-roots up via precinct,
   county, senatorial, and congressional committee. The lone libertarians
   in that area will elect their representatives to serve at their
   pleasure, make their own constitutions, grow their own Party treasuries,
   field their own candidates, write their own newsletters, and interact
   with state higher-ups only for state-wide business. There will not be
   any more of this 22 people from nearby urban areas voting away the
   rights of nine people scattered around the state. The fact that these
   22 people will no longer have the power or "control" over 225 others
   is a plus in my book. Clever outside DemoPublican-lite politicians
   will be beholden to the local district Party's control and not
   disenfranchising members from their local Congressional district. And
   last, but certainly not least, that is how you take care of "checkbook"
   takeovers from outsiders. Their bought memberships will avail them
   nothing unless they submit to the discipline of building grass-roots at
   the local level.
     Now that is exactly what I have tried to do over the past year or
   ON THE EXPEDITING COMMITTEE. They realize that a bigger political
   party and success will attract people like Bill Johnson and eclipse
   them. They wish to keep our Party small and weak so that they can
   "control" it. A larger Missouri Libertarian Party has NOTHING in
   it for them. These are the FACTS of the situation. Can you deal with

Effective Counterattacks:

"They talk about liberty and freedom, but when it comes down to it they act like a bunch of fascists." Martin Lindstedt, "The Columbian Missourian," May 26, 1996.
The first thing to realize is this sort of conduct does not come about by accident. Such actions are the basic animal instincts of undisciplined and morally obtuse people coming into play. It is a waste of time appealing to a higher nature they do not possess. They are slugs. They are trainable only through use of negative behavioral modification techniques. When they get enough sensory punishment for bad behavior, then a strict negotiation for reparations is possible, but not until then.

The best counterattack to government from the top down is to diligently water and grow the grass-roots, then lead them in revolt. Of the 227 paid MoLP membership, many of them will quit in disgust now that they have no say in Party business. Many will just continue paying dues, but that is all. Some of the 227 will have enough gumption to challenge the actions of 20-30 control freaks. If there is not such a active freedom minority, further Party decay is ensured.

Once this minority has been located in the area of operations, get them appointed or elected to county committees. The county committees elect pro-freedom Libertarians as delegates from the state senatorial districts to form the state committee. These county committees also select the congressional delegates, thus the MoLP Expediting Committee. Selection of pro-freedom Libertarians from regional and county districts can ensure the writing of local party constitutions amenable to proxy voting and district representation at the state level, thus foiling domination by State Party LiberFascists.

For example, counting counties and membership in the 7th Congressional district, a glance at the Missouri blue book shows 15 counties and four senatorial districts. It was urban Greene county and the senatorial Springfield district that provided 7 Liberfascists (2 votes fraudulent) to disenfranchise five proxies from the overall district. I have control of five counties and the 32nd and 29th senatorial districts with two counties and the 28th senatorial district neutral and only Greene county and the 30th district hostile. A well-planned revolt could enable the nullification of past party evils and fairer representation for the people far away from Columbia. If the Southwestern 7th Congressional District has in its constitution the provision that proxy voting cannot be denied, the interests of representation will ensure that the effectively non-represented Southeastern 8th, then the rest will follow suit. Thus big-city LiberFascists from Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia and Springfield will find they cannot dominate rural and small town pro-freedom Missouri Libertarians as they used to -- not and claim to represent the entire state. Since the LiberFascists are lazy, cowardly and corrupt, a determined show of political and legal force, then execution should work the trick.

Summary: There is a reason why organizations refuse to grow or actually decline and die. The most important reason for the current ills of the Missouri Libertarian is internal, not external. The people presently in charge, the Pud-Pullers, do not really want this Party to grow. They say otherwise, but what they really mean is that the only permissible way for the Party to grow is under their continued domination and with the connivance of ideological clones. If those conditions are not met, they will throw tantrums, make and remake new rules to ensue their dominance and pull other Fascist tricks.

Rabid Party Animals. Either put 'em out of their misery or pen 'em up where they can only bite one another.

*** UnCommon Sense ***

Between the Revolutionary War's opening shots fired at Concord & Lexington on April 19, 1775 and the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers and the citizenry had to make a decision as to whether they would negotiate with King George to restore their rights as Englishmen or seek to found a new nation. A man called Thomas Paine published on January 10, 1776 a small pamphlet called Common Sense. Colonists up and down the seaboard read his stirring call to action. George Washington himself said it turned doubt into decision -- for independence.

This is the fifth part of a series. Its goal is to also turn doubt into decision -- to restore a Constitutional Republic -- by all and any means necessary.


Always Use a Tool Which Works


The Myth of Non-Violence


VIOLENCE, LIKE GUNS, IS A NEUTRAL TOOL USED BY GOOD AND EVIL MEN ALIKE to carry out their goals. Arguing about "good" violence as opposed to "bad" violence is an act of futility. Successful violence is defined as "good" by the victors while violence used by those who lose, be it for purposes of aggression or defense, whatever, is always defined as being "bad." That is simply the way it is. No amount of argument ever changes this fact, although it does try to disguise it.

Violence was used to form this country. George III just wouldn't step down from being king just because the Declaration of Independence asserted that the colonies had decided that they didn't consent to his further rule and he was now an illegitimate despot. Violence kept this country united when the South decided to go her own way. Violence maintains the current government. George Washington said that the essence of government was force. Force is useless unless it contains the threat of violence or fails to deliver upon that threat. And now that this country is decaying, the social order is falling apart, and no justice is to be found, expect a Golden Age of Violence to come about.

Count on it.

NON-VIOLENCE WOULD BE PREFERABLE. Sane people should be able to work out their differences without the need for bloodshed, express or implied. However, a policy of non-violence seldom, if ever, works.

The two times within this century when a supposed policy of "non-violence" worked were in Mohandas Gandhi's kicking the British out of India and the supposed triumph of Martin Luther King and desegregation. Neither policy was entirely successful and they only worked in their limited fashion because the following two prerequisites were present:

1.) The status quo is able to be reasoned with and retains some sense of decency.

Gandhi used his techniques against an English government which had promised to leave India if she helped England fight. While Gandhi was imprisoned a number of times by the British government, eventually Gandhi's demand that the Indians be master in their own house was met.

Let's say the Germans had won WWII and by conquest succeeded the English as rulers of India. Would there have been talk of non-violence if they had done with Hindus as they did with Jews? Of course not!

Now let's take Martin Luther King and his struggles with Southern whites for integration of the Negro into white society. Martin Luther King succeeded only because the early 1960's was a time when this country was willing to make some accommodation with allowing blacks to vote, desegregate educational facilities and public offices, and spend some political muscle into seeing that by dint of "interstate commerce" laws that private institutions were forced to integrate. The Southern political establishment and some of the white middle class were "soft" on the notion that it was time for the Negro to get some of his rights. They went along, although they complained aloud for public consumption.

One of the phrases in King's "I have a Dream" speech concerned how blacks had a "blank check" to cash in reparations due to white injustice against them. Such a phrase today would be laughed away today by rich and middle-class white Republicans tired of paying taxes for welfare programs. The time for such as Martin Luther King has long passed.

No, the South of the early and middle '60's was ripe for de jure Negro integration, as whites and blacks had been working and living close together for a hundred years and it was sensed that it was time to change the artificial, government-imposed conditions which held the blacks down. True integration proceeded farther and faster in the South than it did in Northern cities. Martin Luther King tried to help out Northern city blacks but failed. Chicago was not interested because Chicago was not ready to listen.

2.) There is a credible threat of violence to back up the protestations of non-violence.

White Englishmen were outnumbered by thousands to one by Indians. They realized that if the Indians decided to rise up and kill them all, the English were toast. The English remembered the Great Mutiny of 1857 and recognized that unless nuclear weapons were used, ten thousand trigger-fingers to one were hopeless odds. In addition to being too tired to maintain their Empire, the English no longer had enough of a technological edge to maintain it in the face of open hostility from the natives.

Martin Luther King and his bunch of black "Reverends" were quite adept at using militants like Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers to play games of "good nigger -- bad nigger" against rich, soft, white authorities in the South. "Unless there is social justice NOW, them 'bad niggers' will riot, burn down and loot your stores and rape white wimmin!"

( I hear the same thing today from white folks about what "them niggers" are going to do if welfare checks are stopped. )

While some of the poor rednecks and Ku Kluckers would have loved to fight a race war, the Southern white establishment had far more to lose, including positions of influence over white and black alike. In the South, the blacks lived cheek and jowl with whites. In the North, blacks lived in discernible ghettoes or districts, and thus in case of racial war would be easier to contain. Southerners knew they were far more vulnerable, hence they had to come to some sort of accommodation.

So unless there are present in the current social situation the above two factors of open-minded decency on the part of the ruling status-quo and a credible threat of violence from the agitating change faction, any hope of accomplishing peaceful change through "civil disobedience" or "non-violent protest" is sheer fantasy. Idiotic, dangerous fantasy. Remember, violence is a tool, and tools are meant to be used.

IN FACT, VIOLENCE IS AT ITS MOST UNCONTROLLABLE whenever dishonorable people have a relative monopoly on violence and their victims believe in pacifism. Hence the slaughter of Jews by National Socialist Germans, wherein an orgy of bloodshed was engaged in by masochists and sadists feeding each other's sickness.

Violence is only able to understand Violence and usually only by methods of counting, be it the number of trigger-fingers aiming rifle barrels, or tanks, nuclear missiles, biological weapons, or whatever is the latest and greatest weapon of violence. The neutral tool of Violence has no good nature towards which to make moral appeal. Violence is only deterred by the presence of greater Violence.

So understanding these facts of life concerning both human nature and the uses of violence, for good people to eschew Violence merely assures that evil people will seek, then gain, an unobstructed monopoly on Violence. Once these evil people have a monopoly of violence they will use it to enslave more docile human beings and kill anyone who threatens to get in their way. This is the nature of government and it explains why slavery, in its many forms, always exists.

God himself will eventually have to use force, or the threat of it, in order to forever imprison Satan. In the ongoing struggle of good vs. evil, it will not be by means of gentle persuasion that evil desists, but through the use of force. All foolish pacifists wish to do is convince the credulous that they are better than God.

IT IS AN ITEM OF TACIT AGREEMENT among the natural leaders of the militia movement that eventually it will come down to violence. Some of us might file lawsuits or run for political office or pursue other "non-violent" means of change, even though we know there is no justice to be found in government courts and there is no chance to be elected in a society determined to cannibalize itself until there is nothing left to loot. Why do we engage in activity hopeless in its own right?

It is no longer so much a matter of de-legitimizing government. Most people realize the government is corrupt and unjust since the government was the greatest devourer of its former right to rule.

Right now we are in the middle of the choosing of sides for the Great Violence ahead. An array of the New Elite, with their allies of Constitutionalists, Militant Libertarians, Birchers, home-schoolers, Radicalized Christians, Militias, Common-Law Sovereigns and other tired producers prepare to do battle with the tired, corrupt Old Elite and their rabble of government workers, army-of-occupation police thugs, politicians, lawyers, corporations, bankers, and other assorted parasitic looters. In between both camps are the great mass of Homer Simpsons, uneasily sitting on the fence, waiting for one side to win. The entire country holds its breath for the election of 1996, after which this country will implode when some trifling incident sparks a Second American Civil War.

Our side must present Justice- and Freedom-based alternatives to violence, if for no other reason than to increase the poignancy due to good-faith efforts shattered upon the greed-carapace of evil.

Right now, the very best and brightest militia people are beginning to measure the new foundations of government for after we win this war. Will we have a loose confederation of states banded together for mutual protection? Small republics of like-minded people? An overall Cromwellian military dictatorship for 40 years until the people are worthy to reassume a whole American Republic? Petty monarchies or despotism? Complete anarchy?

We will probably win this upcoming war, although some of us won't be around to celebrate the victory. Good usually triumphs over evil for no other reason than because good can survive on its own, but evil must live off of good. But what happens if all the good is completely destroyed because it did not use the tool of Violence? Granted, evil devours itself upon its lusts. How does this benefit good?

Non-violence is a mirage dreamed up by pacifists -- cowards demanding halos. Far better to use a tool which works.

Ride the Tiger

We live in a time of change, almost Revolutionary change. Change is like a tiger, which we dare not run away from lest it overtake, then devour us. What we must do is to fearlessly look it in the eye, then jump aboard its back and ride it fearlessly to where it takes us.

The mother of violent revolution is an inability to change. The father of revolution is injustice. As a revolutionary and as a militiaman, I know full well the conditions necessary for me to flourish, and then make my activity inevitable. Heed well my words!

To be able to cope with change, we must first be able to think our way to a solution towards less government and less taxation. The vast majority of the mischief caused has a governmental source. And we are creating our own barbarians to destroy our civilization via the government-run indoctrination program called the public school system.

Its failings are well known. Its appetite eats out over 50% of the state budget. It is the moral equivalent of a state religion with the government as the new Baal. It is a jealous state-god, wanting not Christ put before it. Like Elijah, we must put an end to it!

The first method of attack is through the elimination of educational bureaucracies. Then the issuance of vouchers not controlled by the terminated education bureaucrats. Then the exclusion of state taxes for education and the allowance of higher local taxes, and then finally the complete absence of all forms of government control and the complete privatization of education. This will lead to a golden age for true education, as opposed to mere indoctrination of the next generation. There are religious, computer, Internet, and home school alternatives available like never before -- if we have the courage to use them. When we are able to think, we will be able to change.

I have been kidnapped under color of law, and know injustice acts as a lash to spur vengeance. Here are my proposals to end the injustices created by an injustice system:

The current system benefits only lawyers; people who have knowingly sold themselves to the government for a monopoly license to steal. So why do we wonder at the rapacity of lawyers appointed to the bench by politicians? Or why policemen perjure themselves when they are increasingly nothing more than bullies needing a to wear a gun with a badge for legal cover and concealment?

So let us now pardon those who are imprisoned merely because their weaknesses caused them to engage in habits harmful only to themselves, and stop imprisoning those who have not transgressed against the life, liberty, person or property of another human being. Let only God judge them, and let us reserve jail space only for those who have maliciously harmed another. Let us open the courts to the election of local honest men and women who are not lawyers and let fully informed jurors of good character who are acquainted with the law of the commons keep an eye on the judges. Let us seek justice so that it may be found, and before injustice quickens the cause of violence and revolution.

Change is like a tiger. We dare not run. We cannot hide. We have not the strength to hold onto its tail forever. Who will volunteer to sacrifice themselves to assuage its hunger? Are there no volunteers? But yet we must do something!

So let us bravely, and with resolve, climb aboard the back of the tiger and ride it together to where it does go and make sure that no one, but no one, is eaten!

Martin Lindstedt, militiaman
Libertarian Candidate for Governor

The above was from a speech to be read at a Meet the Candidates forum at the Madison Christian Church 200 West Broadway, Madison, Missouri 65263 on Sunday, July 14, 1996 at 6:00 p.m.


The Libertarian Party is the third-largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. Over 100 Libertarians hold elective office or appointive public office. Libertarian Party members participate in a variety of educational and political activities aimed at restoring America's commitment to enterprise and civil liberties. The Libertarian Party is proud of the progress it has made during its short history, against what many saw as insurmountable odds.

State WATS # -- (800) 838 - 1776

Missouri Libertarian Party membership costs $15 annually. Along with your membership fee you get the official newsletter, "Showed Me Fascism." SMF dishonestly covers statewide Libertarian news, issues and candidates. So to keep an eye on them and listen to dishonest left-wing chaotic foolishness send 15 bucks to MoLP, PO Box 32731, Kansas City, MO 64171.


Want an original paper copy with graphics? Then send $1.00 per back issue to defray postage and handling to:

Martin Lindstedt,
Editor, The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian
Rt. 2 Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844.

Current subscriptions are $1.00 per issue.

For those of you who receive it by e-mail, I hereby place you on Libertarian obligation to either do something in the Editor's best interests or to send him 50 cents cash money for each issue enjoyed.

New! Improved!! Not Sold In Any Stores!!!

The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian is now on 3 1/2" IBM compatible floppy disks. You now can enjoy all 16 mean-spirited issues in ASCII text for $4.00, $3.00 if you're a subscriber. So send your dollars today to the back-page address.

Also included are two chapters of an Anglo-Saxon novel, "The Stallion & The Dragon," a novel concerning the A.D. 449 invasion of Roman Britannia.

Also included is the first chapter of "The Revolt Against Civilization." Seventy-two years before "The Bell-Shaped Curve," Lothrup Stoddard, MA, PhD, (Harvard) predicted the future of our civilization. Perfect gift and antidote for leftist fools with socialism-softened heads.

So send your dollars today to:
Editor Martin Lindstedt,
The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian
Rt. 2 Box 2008
Granby Missouri 64844

End --     The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian
	   Issue 16,                   July 1996

Back to Patrick Henry On-Line?