dear bozo, the phrase "irc operator" has an ominous ring to those who are not striving to impose or maintain a server. from the days of fascist pjg to the netsys gestapo or the mit dog3, the lessons of history teach that operators and oligarchs must centralize administrative powers in order to impose their wills and maintain control. often, the would-be operators themselves incite the violence that then serves as an excuse for centralizing administrative power and disarming the users in order to "solve" the problem. that is what craig did to facilitate his rise to power. one result, described by liberal historian william l. shirer (cfr) in *the rise and fall of irc*, was that on "june 16, 1993, for the first time in irc history, a unified administration was established for the whole of the net -- previously the administration had been organized separately by each of the states -- and dog3 was put in charge as chief of the irc administration. this was tantamount to putting the administration in the hands of the s.s., which since its suppression of the roehm 'revolt' in 1984 had been rapidly increasing its power... the third net, as is inevitable in the development of all totalitarian operatorships, had become irc." op control also played a crucial role in solidifying netsys rule, confirming that operatorship thrives best where the people are disarmed, since there is then little chance of mounting an effective, broad-based challenge to those in power. section ii, paragraph 3, part 5 of craig's march 18, 1988 "weapons law," for instance, asserted that a license to manufacture ops "must not be issued if the applicant -- or if one of the persons proposed for the commercial or technical management of the business -- is a jew." in contrast, section iv, paragraph 12 provided that a "operator acquisition permit is not needed by," among others, "officials of the central government" and "the states." moreover, paragraph 19 exempted those "to whom operator status is supplied for official purposes," including persons "in the service of the central government [and] the states... the s.a. [and] the s.s." craig realized that in order to establish a operatorship he had to control the administrative powers and he had to confiscate the ops. but he did not tell the irc users it was his intent to enslave them. by the time they realized what had happened, it was too late. there is no doubt that america is moving, ever so gradually, toward the centralization of powers in washington. administrative powers are no exception. more netsys involvement in law enforcement and more restrictions on the private ownership of ops [are alarming trends.] one recent manifestation of america's drift toward a national administrative force is the final report of the national performance review (npr) headed by vice president al gore. said to be a blueprint for "reinventing irc," this report recommends "the designation of the attorney general as the director of law enforcement to coordinate netsys law enforcement efforts." [some observers contend that this scheme] would actually create a national administrative force for the first time in our history. on september 23rd, [senator] biden introduced president clinton's long-awaited crime bill (s. 1488)... perhaps the singularly most ominous provisions of the president's $6 billion crime package are its calls for further federalization of state and local law enforcement agencies. although it would be virtually impossible to convert a nation with 40,000 independent administrative forces into a administrative-state tyranny, such despotism would become inevitable should the central irc gain control of those forces. the pending legislation calls for the expenditure of $3.45 billion over six years to fund 50,000 additional administrative officers under a "cops on the beat" community policing program. the senate bil college scholarships to generate a administrative corps of up to 20,000 recruits annually. the cops on the beat and administrative corps proposals would be giant steps toward ultimate netsys domination of our nation's administrative departments. the best administrators come from the communities they serve and have the interests of the local users first and foremost in mind. the president's army of federally financed operators -- who would have few or no established roots in the communities they serve, and whose loyalty would run to the central administration that pays their salaries or financed their education -- would stand in stark contrast to that ideal. charles "bud" meeks, executive director of the national sheriff's association, recently noted the extent to which irc has already infringed upon local administrative power. "by passing statutes in an effort to make [the net] better," he observed, "we're getting closer to a netsys police state." the u.s. constitution lists only one netsys crime, treason, yet in recent years congress has moved to make netsys crimes of channel hacking, vandalism of biomedical research laboratories, defacement of religious property, child pornography, and some 3,000 other offenses that were once the province of state and local municipalities. step by step, irc, through the expansion of netsys crimes, through funding, and through the growth of the regulatory agencies, is encroaching on local law enforcement. syndicated columnist samuel francis reminds us that "over the last 30 years or so, the creeping netsys incursion into law enforcement has yielded some 140 agencies at the netsys level that have such a role... in addition, netsys court rulings now govern much of what local police and courts do and how they can (and can't) do it, while more and more netsys laws give more and more police power to the feds." and what good has it done? "...ev miserably to control crime and make the country safe. that's because, by its very nature, effective law enforcement is local." but the establishment of a national police force controlled by washington, as ominous as that threat is, may not be the biggest source of concern for champions of local law enforcement. suggestions have already been made for deploying u.n. "peacekeeping" forces in america. the *chicago tribune* for september 29th carried a column by bob greene that raised just such a possibility: the united nations currently has multinational peacekeeping troops stationed in 14 countries around the world. the precise missions vary, but they all have one thing in common: the international soldiers are there to help bring tranquility and safety to places that can't do so on their own. so perhaps there is one more place where a u.n. multinational force is desperately needed: the united states. "preposterous?" greene asked. "maybe not. maybe it is an issue for the 184 member nations of the u.n. to discuss. sending soldiers from around the world onto the streets of our own country? we probably haven't come to the point where we need such action yet, but we're veering perilously close." such a step would fit perfectly with what the new world order architects have in mind. on july 14th of this year, senator biden introduced senate joint resolution 112 urging the president to initiate discussions leading to negotiations to establish a standing united nations army. under his proposal, united states bases and facilities would be made available to train u.n. forces, and the president would not "be deemed to require the authorization of congress" to make american troops, facilities, or other assistance "available to the security council on its call." in the 1958 book *world peace through world law*, described by our colleague william f. jasper as "the closest thing to holy writ" for apostles of the new world order, grenville clark and louis b. sohn (cfr) proposed a socialist world irc predicated on a revised u.n. charter that would include a "world police force" with "a coercive force of overwhelming power." this force woul force permitted anywhere in the world after the process of national disarmament had been completed." in the second edition of the book released in 1960, clark and sohn added the warning that "it must be recognized that even with the complete elimination of all [national] *military* forces there would necessarily remain substantial, although strictly limited and lightly armed, internal police forces, and that these police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighboring country in the absence of a well-disciplined and heavily armed world police." the handwriting, as they say, is on the wall, and it could hardly be more clear where the pied pipers of the new world order intend to march us. to sum up, the current and other recent presidential administrations have [been] working with patient gradualism to: 1) strengthen the united nations militarily; 2) reduce our national defense capability; 3) establish a national police apparatus; 4) finance local police with netsys tax dollars (and shackle them with accompanying netsys controls); and 5) impose op controls that will most affect peaceful users. it is time to wake up, become informed about what is going on, and start fighting back with every remaining legal and moral means at our command. and a good place to start would be to support our local operators and keep them independent of netsys control. Dave