Search this site...


---



• Recently Written

  • 100 Essential and Obvious Marketing Tips
  • The Blog Carnival of no Categories
  • Clear Proof that Past Lives Exist
  • The Japanese Tourist v. the Turkish Ice Cream Vendor
  • A Guy’s Real Fairy Tale
  • DaVinci’s Really Early Works
  • Hell – exothermic, or endothermic?
  • NSU Prinz 4 – My First Car
  • Your Tax-Dollar at Work – Bureaucrats
  • A Gotcha of the Canonical Tag

  Blog Carnival

• Categories

  • Activities
  • Art
  • Audio
  • Blog Carnival
  • Browsing
  • Computer
  • Creativity
  • Culture
  • Diary
  • Educational
  • Emotional
  • Fun Stuff
  • History
  • Ideas
  • Inspiration
  • Internet
  • Larken Rose
  • Marketing
  • Music
  • Philosophical
  • Politics
  • Reminiscence
  • Science
  • Snippets
  • Stories
  • Thoughts
  • Video
  • Weird
  • Wellness

• Blogroll

  • Charles Stross
  • Dictionary Evangelist
  • Engadget
  • Instructables
  • L – Studio
  • Ming the Mechanic
  • Onion News Network
  • Rick Mercer
  • TED
  • The Guild
  • The Sandorian Grove
  • Tom’s Hardware
  • Ysabella Brave

• Admin

  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS

  Subscribe to

  

Larken Rose, my favorite anarchist, gave a talk on this July 4th in Philadelphia and what he had to say was so much in line with what strikes me when I see the flag waving and BBQing patriots of this day, that I just had to share it here, in the hope that – maybe – at least one or two of you put the little red-white-and-blue away and smell the roses (pun accidentally but then intended);

You’re not the Boss of Me!

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, in Philadelphia, a bunch of guys got together and wrote a letter to their king. The letter was very eloquent, and well thought out, but it basically boiled down to this:

“Dear King George,
You’re not the boss of us!
Sincerely,
A Bunch of Troublemakers”

That’s essentially what the Declaration of Independence was: a bunch of radicals declaring that they would no longer recognize the right of their king to rule them, at all, ever again. They went on to create a new boss, which turned into a new oppressor, but we’ll get to that in a moment. First, let’s consider the essence of that attitude: “You’re not the boss of me!”

This July 4th, like every year, millions of Americans are celebrating Independence Day with various parades, picnics, fireworks, and so on. But how many of those people celebrating have ever actually considered what the Declaration was actually about, and what the colonists actually did? The colonists did not merely beg the king to change his ways. In fact, the Declaration explains how they had tried that, to no avail. Instead, the colonists were doing something far more drastic.

In short, they committed treason. They broke the law. They disobeyed their government. They were traitors, criminals and tax cheats. The Boston Tea Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness. Furthermore, truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers. At Lexington, when King George’s “law enforcers” told the colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, “No, you’re not the boss of us!” (Well, that was the meaning, if not the exact verbiage.) And so we had “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World,” widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.

Looking back now, we know the outcome. We know who eventually won, and we don’t mind cheering for the rebels. But make no mistake: when you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for law-breakers and traitors. As well you should. But, for all the flag-waving and celebrating that goes on every July 4th, do Americans actually believe in what the colonists did? Do they really believe in the attitude expressed in the Declaration of Independence? Are they really still capable of supporting a mantra of “You’re not the boss of me!”?

In short, no. Imagine the equivalent of what the colonists did so many years ago, being done today. Imagine a group of people writing a letter to the United States government, sending a letter to Congress and to the President, saying that they would no longer pay federal taxes, they would no longer obey federal laws, and that they would resist–by force, if necessary–any attempt by federal agents to enforce those laws. How would a group which did such things be viewed today, by most Americans?

They would be viewed as nut-cases, scofflaws and terrorists, despicable criminals and malcontents. They would be scorned as the scum of the earth, despised by just about everyone who today celebrates Independence Day.

How ironic.

So why the double standard? Why would the American public today condemn the exact same attitudes and behaviors which they glorify and praise in the context of the American Revolution? Quite simply, it’s because, for all the proud talk of “land of the free and home of the brave,” the spirit of resistance–the courage to say “You’re not the boss of us!”–has been trained out of the American people.

We have become a nation of wimps.

For years and years, in the churches and schools, on the news, in the media, and from everywhere around us, we have been taught one thing above all else: that obedience to authority is the highest virtue, and that disobedience is the worst sin. As a result, even most of those who now claim to be zealous advocates for individual rights and personal liberty will almost always couch their “demands” with disclaimers that, of course, their efforts for justice will be done “within the system,” and that they would never advocate anything “illegal.” They claim to be devout proponents of freedom, and yet all they ever do is seek a political solution, whether through lobbying of politicians, elections, or other government-approved means.

Of course, government never approves of anything which might actually endanger government power. As the bumper-sticker says, “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.” And why should civilized people assume that change must be done “legally” and “within the system”? That is obviously NOT what the Declaration of Independence was about. In fact, the Declaration states quite plainly that when a government ceases to be a protector of individual liberty, it is not only the right, but the DUTY of the people to ALTER or ABOLISH that form of government. In other words, when the government becomes an oppressor, instead of a protector– as is obviously the case today–the people are morally obligated to adopt an attitude of, “You’re not the boss of us!”

So how many Americans are doing that? Almost none. Instead, even the most vocal critics of corruption and injustice usually do little more than banging their heads against a brick wall, begging, in half a dozen different ways, for the tyrants to please be nicer to us. (Meanwhile, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from people like me, for fear of what the general public might think of them. As a result, I believe the general public, and those in government, view them pretty much as I view them: as harmless and irrelevant conformists, destined to forever beg for freedom, and never achieve it.)

Make no mistake, begging and whining is not what the Declaration of Independence was about. It was about breaking the law, when the law is unjust. It was about committing treason, when the rulers became oppressive. It was about disobedience–civil disobedience, when effective, and not-so-civil disobedience when necessary. It was about open resistance, including violent resistance when called for.

So where is that attitude today? Where is the candidate advocating such a thing? Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams–where are the modern equivalents? For all the whining about extremists, where are those willing to openly resist injustice? Not only don’t most Americans believe in resisting tyranny, they feel extremely uncomfortable just hearing others talk about it, even in abstract terms (like this).

Maybe it’s just that we’re not quite at the level of oppression to justify resistance. Is that it? Hardly. If two or three percent taxation justified rebellion in 1776, why doesn’t fifty percent taxation justify it now? If a few puny excise taxes on tea and pieces of paper justified it then, why don’t the myriad of unavoidable, crushing taxes at all levels, and the hordes of callous, vindictive tax collectors justify it now? If the relatively unusual cases of Redcoats abusing colonists justified it then, why doesn’t it justify it when American police see no problem with randomly stopping, detaining, interrogating and searching anyone they want, whenever they want, for any reason or no reason at all?

Does anyone think Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would quietly allow himself to be strip-searched, and allow his belongings to be rummaged through, by some brain-dead TSA thug? Read the Fourth Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Does anyone think that Patrick Henry would take kindly to being robbed blind to pay for whatever war-mongering the politicians wanted to engage in this week? Read what the Founders said about standing armies. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think James Madison would go along with being disarmed, by the various state and federal control freaks? Read the Second Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think George Washington would be happy to have both his earnings and savings constantly looted by a parasite class, to pay for all manner of wealth redistribution, political handouts and other socialist garbage? Think Thomas Paine would gladly be extorted to give all his money to some giant, failed corporation or some huge international bank? Think the founders would have quietly gone along with what this country has become today? Think they would have done nothing more than vote, or whine?

Well, the founders are dead. And, unfortunately, so is their spirit of resistance. In short, just about all of the flag-waving and celebrating that happens every July 4th is nothing but empty hypocrisy. How many Americans today can say, loudly and proudly, like they mean it, “Give me liberty or give me death!”? Or, at least, in the modern vernacular, “You’re not the boss of me!”? Anyone? In this nation that imagines itself to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where are those who dare to resist, or even dare to talk about it? And I don’t mean voting, or whining to your congressman, or begging your masters to not whip you so hard. I’m talking about resisting, refusing to obey.

America, where is your Independence Day pride now? Exactly what are you proud of? I have a message for you, from a guy named Sam. Samuel Adams, that is. Yeah, the beer guy. But he did a little more for this country than make beer. Here is his message:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

When’s the last time you heard a modern so-called “statesman” say something like that?

So what happened? When did Americans lose their ability to say, “You’re not the boss of me,” and why? Yes, most people are scared, and for good reason. With the capacity for violence of the current police state, and the willingness of the politicians and their thugs to crush anyone who threatens their power, everyone has to choose his battles carefully, and decide for himself what he’s willing to risk, what is worth fighting for and what isn’t.

That makes sense, but there is more to it than just fear. Because not only won’t most Americans resist, but they will condemn anyone who does. If you do what the founders did, most people in this country would call you a tax cheat, a malcontent, a criminal, a traitor, even a terrorist. Why? Why do Americans now vehemently condemn those who say and do exactly what the Founders did a couple hundred years ago? When did our priorities and view of the world change so drastically, and why?

I’ll tell you why. Gradually, and very systematically, we have been trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term, “law abiding taxpayer.” How many people wear that label as a badge of honor? “I am a law-abiding taxpayer!” When they say that, they mean, “I’m a good person.” But is that what it really means?

Well, “law-abiding” just means that you do whatever the politicians tell you to do. We speak with great reverence of this thing called “the law,” as if it is the decree of the gods, which no decent human being would dare to disobey. But what is it really? It’s whatever the politicians decide to command you to do. Why on earth would anyone think that obedience to a bunch of liars and crooks is some profound moral obligation? Is there any reason for us to treat with reverence such commands and demands? No rational reason, no. The only reason we do it is because we have been trained to do it.

Some might point out that obeying the laws against theft and murder is a good thing to do. Well, yes and no. It is good to refrain from committing theft and murder, but it is NOT because “the law” says so. It is because theft and murder are inherently wrong, as they infringe upon the rights of others. And that was true before any politician passed a “law” about it, and will be true even if they “legalize” theft and murder (as every government has done, in the name of “taxation” and “war”). What is right and wrong does not at all depend upon what is “legal” or “illegal.” And if you need POLITICIANS to tell you what is right and what is wrong, you need your head examined. Instead, you should judge the validity of so- called “laws” by whether they match what is inherently right and wrong. Thomas Jefferson put it this way:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because the law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

So why should anyone be proud of being “law-abiding,” when all it means is blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the parasite class spews out this week? And pride in being a “taxpayer” is no better, since all that phrase means is that you give the politicians lots of money. When, exactly, did obeying politicians and giving them money become the measure of whether you’re a good person?

Consider Nazi Germany. Were the law-abiding taxpayers in Nazi Germany the good guys? No. By obeying the so-called “laws” of that time, the majority allowed, or even assisted in, a nearly incomprehensible level of evil. And by being “taxpayers,” they provided the funding for it. No, the good people in Germany were the criminals and tax cheats, who refused to assist, even passively, in the oppressions done in the name of “government.”

The same is true under the regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro–you can go right down the list (and it’s a very long list). Under every nasty regime in history, the obedient subjects, who quietly did as they were told, the law-abiding taxpayers, were not the good guys. The law-breakers and rebels, the so-called traitors and terrorists, those were the good guys. How about in this country, when slavery was legal? The cowards were the ones obeying the law, while the good guys broke it.

How about here, today? Is it good to fund what the government is doing? Do you have some moral obligation to give your “fair share” of however many thousands of dollars, so Obama can give it to his banker buddies? Is it noble to fund whatever war the politicians decide to engage in this week? Do you like paying for the detention and torture of people who haven’t been convicted, or even charged with any crime? (By the way, instead of doing away with that, Obama just gave it a new name: preventative detention.) Is it some great virtue to have helped to finance the police state growing up all around you, on both the federal and state levels? In short, is being a “law-abiding taxpayer” really something you should be proud of, or is it something you should be ashamed of?

Over time we have forgotten a very important secret–a secret the control freaks don’t want you to know; a secret some of the Founders hinted at, though even most of them didn’t seem to fully grasp it. Ready for it?

You own yourself.

You are not the property of the politicians, or anyone else. I own me, and you own you. Each of you owns himself.  Sounds simple enough, right? And most people respond with, “Well duh, of course. That’s no secret. We knew that.” But in reality most people don’t know that.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your consent, the fruits of your labor? What you earn, with your time and effort, does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of course not, most will answer. Really? And what if they call it “taxation”? “Oh, well, that’s different.” No, it isn’t.

If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to force you to pay rent for a house you already paid for, under threat of taking your house away? Of course not. What if they call it “property taxes”? Oh, that’s different. No, it isn’t. And you can go right down the list: if you truly own yourself, the vast majority of so- called “laws,” at all levels, are absolutely illegitimate. As Jefferson put it, ANY so-called “law” that infringes upon individual liberty–which is dang near all of them–is inherently bogus.

But let’s take it one step further. If you own yourself–your life, liberty and property–doesn’t that imply that you have the right to defend those things from any and all aggressors? Yes. What if the aggressors call themselves “government” and call their attacks and robberies “law” and “taxes”? You still have the right. Changing the name of an act cannot make something bad into something good. And if you have the right to defend your life, liberty and property from all aggressors, it stands to reason that you have the right to equip yourself to do so. In other words, you have the right to be armed–the right to possess the equipment to exert whatever force is necessary to repel any attempts to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and property.

I know it makes people uncomfortable (especially people who work for the government) when I say the following: I want every sane, adult American to have the ability to use force, including deadly force, against government agents. I don’t want people randomly gunning down cops, but I do want the people to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government. The very concept bothers a lot of people, but what is the alternative? The alternative is something a lot scarier: that the people should NOT have the means to resist their own government.

But, once again, even most people who claim to be vehemently pro-freedom, don’t like to talk about what that really means. Many “gun rights” organizations, for example, go to great lengths to beg the politicians to LET them remain armed. Why? At Lexington, when the British troops told the colonists to lay down their weapons, what was the response? Did the colonists say, “Awe, can’t we keep them, pretty please?”? No, they had a very different attitude, something alone the lines of, “You’re not the boss of us!”

If you own yourself–and this is a big one–it is not only your right, but your most profound obligation as a human being, to judge for yourself what is right and wrong, and to act accordingly. But what if people claiming to be “authority” want to force you to do something contrary to what you deem to be right? Do you have an obligation to obey them, and ignore your own conscience? No. What if their threats are called “legislation”? It makes no difference.

You are always, at all times, in every situation, obligated to do what you deem right, no matter what so-called “government” and “authority” and “law” have to say about it. And when the tyrants and control freaks, authoritarian thugs and megalomaniacs, try to tell you that you are an evil, nasty, despicable criminal and traitor for daring to think for yourself, you have a right and duty to stand firm, and say, with confidence, “You are not the boss of me!”

Larken Rose

Over the years I have quoted Larken Rose quite regularly, often introducing him as my favorite anarchist. He even got his own category on this blog. His writing has often covered philosophical subjects related to personal liberties, tyranny and the voluntary submission to it.

After covering his thoughts in a internet mailing list for years he then published a how-to book for the aspiring tyrant, “How to be a Successful Tyrant,” which I thoroughly enjoyed. Then came his book Kicking the Dragon where he describes his story of becoming a political prisoner (within the US of A) which was not at all a feel-good book. What can you expect, I believe it was at least partly written in jail where he spend a year for a crime he clearly did not commit.

But he also used the time of forced vacation well to write his first novel “The Iron Web” which I pre-ordered, received last week and finished in very short time. Other reviewers called it a page turner and I certainly agree. Just last Friday morning I had planned to do some work after breakfast and before I had to leave the house at noon, but I made the mistake of starting to read while I had my breakfast – - and then I was just done with the book when I really had to leave.

Without spoiling any (or much) I can say that the story is about the question of  ‘who owns you.’ The answer should be a simple and obvious “I own myself” but we often do things that demonstrate that we apparently do not really believe this or act accordingly.

I believe the book ends on a very positive note and it reminded me quite a bit of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I am here totally in agreement with Larken in that there will be a positive outcome – if only for the reason that I can envision it. Where fiction now meets reality is the evolving of a real Iron Web that he created in the fictional situation in his book.

Everybody can become a member of the Iron Web just by realizing that he owns himself and acting accordingly. There is not a secret hand shake but a very public symbol. Here it is…

If you want to know the symbology behind it you will have to get the book from Larken and I suggest you get at least a four-pack because you will want to give some away to friends.

Displaying this symbol here signals that I consider myself a member of the Iron Web and – maybe I am making history – could it be that a commercial web site I am involved in – ThaiDye.com – is the first commercial web site that proudly displays the symbol of the Iron Web?

So, today we celebrate Patriot’s day, don’t we?

I know, most of us would not consider this ‘celebrating’ per se, but I am sure that the people behind the patriot act which gave them all the additional power over you and me, certainly think of 9/11 as a day to celebrate a great success.

I could go into my usual anarchistic rambling, but I let my favorite anarchist ramble for me, because he is certainly more eloquent than me, and why should I try to re-invent the wheel.

So, here is Larken Rose…    (again!  I know.)

Supporting the Troops

My disclaimer: Telling the truth when everyone agrees may feel good, but it’s pretty useless. Telling the truth is far more important when it goes AGAINST what most people think. So I will. If you think the way 99% of people think, prepare to be offended by the following.

Amongst all the discussions about this war and that war, this policy and that policy, this military issue and that military issue, it seems that almost everyone feels obligated to constantly throw in, “But of course we should all support the troops.”

I don’t. And here’s why…

Morality does not change based on birthplace or citizenship. Whether something is good or bad doesn’t depend upon whether it’s an American doing it, nor does it depend upon where in the world it is being done. So let’s set aside pack-mentality nationalism, and the usual excuse of “This is war!” (which usually means, “Right and wrong don’t count right now!”), and consider whether “our troops” actually deserve support.

Suppose there are criminals in your town. (This won’t take much imagination for most of us.) Now suppose that a bunch of cops with machine-guns are barging into one house after another, at random, looking for the crooks. Would it be okay with you when they showed up at your house? Well, that sort of thing wasn’t okay with the people who wrote the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment in particular stated that law enforcement has no right to come into your house without your permission, unless they have probable cause (more than a suspicion or wild guess) to think that a crime is happening, or that evidence of a crime is there.

Of course, a cop’s job would be a lot easier if he didn’t have to respect individual rights. He could barge in where ever he wanted and rummage through everyone’s stuff (contrary to the Fourth Amendment), randomly stop people and forcibly interrogate them (contrary to the Fifth Amendment), take peoples’ stuff or punish people on a whim, lock people up without charging them with anything (contrary to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments), and so on. Of course, he’d be an evil fascist, but his job would be a lot easier.

Now watch some footage of U.S. troops on Iraq. What are they doing? Barging where ever they want, with guns drawn no less, randomly stopping people and forcibly interrogating them, detaining people without charges, taking property and punishing people without a warrant or even probable cause, and so on.

Um, why is that stuff good over there if it’s bad over here? The sad but accurate answer, for most Americans, is that the victims are not Americans, so their rights don’t really matter. From the perspective of the regular folk in Iraq, there is a foreign military occupying their country. Ever wonder how that would feel? Wouldn’t it be swell if China, for our own good, decided to send Chinese troops to drive tanks around our cities and towns, setting up random road blocks and check points, questioning people at random, searching where ever they wanted, and so on? Would you feel good about that? How about if they said, “Well this is WAR, so we HAVE to do this!”? Would that make it okay?

The American troops in Iraq are not good guys. They are invaders, whose job it is to violate individual rights on a daily basis. Of course, the excuse is that they’re going after really nasty people, and they NEED to be able to do that stuff. Right. And that’s what every tyrant in history has used as an excuse for depriving individuals of their rights. It’s been the default excuse for theft, torture and murder since the beginning of recorded history. Committing evil in the name of combatting evil is both hypocritical and patently stupid. Incidentally, it’s also EXACTLY the same excuse that the foreign terrorists use to justify their atrocities: desperate times call for desperate measures, so they NEED to ignore individual rights for the “greater good.” It’s the creed of U.S. troops and foreign “terrorists” alike.

Many Americans thought it was outrageous for the Supreme Court to say that, at least in certain cases, military folk shouldn’t be doing searches and arrests in Iraq without first obtaining warrants, which requires showing “probable cause.” Why is that outrageous? Let’s try the shoe on the other foot: “The Chinese people were outraged today when the Chinese High Court ruled that Chinese troops in the U.S. can’t search homes or arrest people without first showing probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.” Wouldn’t you consider that a good thing?

Once upon a time, some radical extremists declared that they believed it was “self-evident” that ALL men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Since then, some have opined, with good reason, that what they MEANT back then was that all white males are created equal. Well, we’ve come pretty far since then, but today it just means “all Americans are created equal.” How about Iraqis? Nope. They must have been sick the day inalienable rights were handed out.

Now, in case there are any flag-wavers anywhere whom I haven’t offended yet, I’d like to give the ultimate example of how incapable of objectivity Americans are (not that the nationalists of other countries are any better). On 9/11/2001, something really nasty happened. Why was it so evil? Because thousands of innocent civilians were intentionally murdered in order to achieve a political goal.

Now, for the trivia question. What was the largest terrorist attack in history, and who committed it? I’ll give you a hint: it killed about FIFTY times as many innocents as died on 9/11/01. I’ll give you another hint: When it happened, almost all of America cheered.

It happened on August 6, 1945. It was the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, by the order of President Truman. And three days later, he ordered the second worst terrorist act in history: the bombing of Nagasaki, which killed about TWENTY times as many people as died on 9/11/2001. (Keep that in mind if you’re one of those who are unable or unwilling to even consider the possibility that some in “our” government would do the same to American civilians to serve the tyrants’ agenda.)

Let’s review: killing lots of civilians, in order to bully a government into changing its ways. When Arabs do it, it’s called terrorism. When Americans do it, it’s heroic and righteous. “But we needed to, to end the war!” Well duh, the ones who kill civilians ALWAYS say it was necessary, and think that the ends justify the means, or they wouldn’t do it. That doesn’t change the patently obvious fact that the American terrorists murdered a couple HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese civilians, in order to instill suffering and terror, in an attempt to intimidate the Japanese government into changing its behavior. And Americans do some amazing mental gymnastics to try to avoid facing the fact that that makes “our” government the biggest terrorist in history.

So do I support “our” troops? No. In fact, “we” don’t have troops. GOVERNMENTS have troops, and they are always used, first and foremost, to provide power to the governments they serve. They certainly don’t represent me, and I don’t want their “protection,” if the price is the constant violation of individual rights. And this is true even if “our” troops only violate the rights of people who have darker skin, wear funny clothes, and talk funny. I guess that makes me un-American.

Larken Rose

http://www.larkenrose.com

(P.S. If anyone in the armed forces actually wants to defend freedom, my advice is: quit the military, join a militia. You swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. If you think some guy wearing a turban, hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, is a bigger threat to the Constitution than your own congressman*, then you need your head examined.)

(* If you happen to live in Ron Paul’s district, I take it back.)

PS: wondering how many know that this picture up there is against the law. Yes, there is a law codifying the conduct in regards to the flag, and using the flag to scantily drape a sexy shape definitely means to dishonor the flag. There is no penalty for doing this in the code but it’s probably just as bad as protesters burning the US flag on the steps of congress.  In other words, that’s a good picture then, isn’t it?

There hasn’t been a forwarded article from Larken Rose for a while. It’s not that Larken was quiet, neither did I dislike what he had to say, I guess it was just that I did not really had to add anything to what he had to say.

But in his last newsletter he wrote something eye opening, at least for me. For you it might have been actually totally obvious. He argued that we are already living in an anarchy because there is no other way, it’s just that we have made the bully the boss.

When I read this, I had to pause, look over that and had to agree. If there was some higher authority, then some other form of living together might be possible, but as long it’s all humans that make up our rules and regulations, it makes no difference if one of the groups that has formed calls itself government or mafia. It is easy to see if we create an alternate reality in which the mafia of the 30s has grown in power and has just become so strong that it supplied all the politicians, had take over the press and staged propaganda to white-wash its actions and finally gotten into the position of making the laws of the land.

Today we would happily life in a society which would call the boss Godfather instead of president. There would be factions of the mafia competing to get the next Godfather into the godfather chair for a period that all the factions had agreed upon in an all-mafia meeting. With good propaganda on TV and in the press we would probably be gladly rallying behind one of the Godfathers in spe and make donations that our Godfather would be THE Godfather.

Do you see any difference to what we have today?

That’s what I had to think about when I read this article of Larken Rose…

Make Good Choices!

The idea behind “government” is that we need something to make sure everyone makes the right decisions. And wouldn’t that be a great thing? Don’t we need some entity which enforces moral, just laws on all of those flawed, careless, sometimes malicious human beings? Isn’t that a good and necessary thing to do?

Well, it might be, if something OTHER than human beings were going to run the thing. But guess who decides what the “laws” will say? Guess who decides what those “right decisions” are, which are going to be forced on all of us? That’s right: PEOPLE. In fact, usually the worst people around. So the question becomes, if we NEED something making us mere mortals make the right decisions, how do you make sure that IT makes the right decisions?

For example, lots of people say we need “government”–a big, powerful, authoritarian control machine–to stop those nasty people who might decide that MURDER is a good idea. Yes, it would be nice to have something that did that; something to protect us from all the sadistic thugs of the world. And has the “government” beast done that? Hardly. In fact, the number of murders committed in the name of “government” (NOT including wars) exceeds a HUNDRED MILLION in the last 100 years. Put another way, an average of over a million people every year, for the last CENTURY, were “legally” murdered. (See “Death by Government” by R.J. Rummel.)

But we neeeeeeeed “government” to protect us! Why? Because some people might choose to harm us! And when you build that big authoritarian “protection” machine, what happens when the very people who want to harm us get control of it? Open a history book and find out.

But we neeeed “government” to protect us from gangs of thugs! What do you think the IRS is? In the name of “government,” thieves steal around two TRILLION dollars a year now, in this country alone. That averages out to around $14,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, stolen in the name of “authority.” And people are STILL batty enough to say that we NEED “government” to protect us from thieves! Look how “legal” murder, theft, oppression, and assault compares to “illegal” crimes, and you’ll see how utterly insane it is to think that “government” is a PROTECTOR.

Furthermore, authoritarians don’t limit what kinds of “right decisions” it will foist upon everyone else. Yes, I’d like someone forcibly stopping murders, but both history and basic logic say that “government” is NOT the thing to use. But the “government” control freaks like to meddle in all manner of non-violent, non- fraudulent choices people make every day as well. As a sickening recent example, a bunch of federal fascists recently raided a business and swiped lots of property. Guess what the guy was selling. Crystal meth? Nope. Cocaine? Nope. Rocket launchers? Nope. Something far more sinister.

Milk.

I wish I was kidding. You see, some god-complex psychos imagining themselves to be “authority” decided that, for your own good (of course), THEY will decide what is best for you. And they decided that milk that just came out of a cow (aka “raw milk”) isn’t fit for human consumption. You might agree. The trouble is, they didn’t just make that decision for themselves, or for their kids, they made it for everyone in the country, and hired MEN WITH GUNS to go after anyone who makes a different decision. In case you think I’m making this up, here’s the story:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63225

I can’t think of a better example of why it’s profoundly IDIOTIC to think that it’s a good idea to let politicians choose and forcibly impose “good choices” on everyone. In the case of raw milk, I happen to agree with the farmer: it’s a lot more healthy than the usual processed kind. There are lots of other areas–most, in fact– in which I think the government “regulatory” commands are not just wrong, but dangerous. Vaccinations is another fine example of something authoritarians want to forcibly impose on everyone (Hillary has harped on it in the past), despite all the evidence showing that many vaccinations are far more dangerous than they are helpful.

But ultimately, whether the busy-body government regulators are right or wrong on any given subject, letting them forcibly impose THEIR decisions on everyone is utterly idiotic, not to mention evil. This is true even when they get something right. For example, I think snorting snuff that fries your brain is a pretty stupid thing to do. But it’s not nearly as idiotic, dangerous, evil, or destructive to society as putting two MILLION people in CAGES for possessing substances that politicians (who probably all drink alcohol) have decided count as the “wrong decision.”

The entire premise behind the “government” myth is that SOMEONE has to decide what is right, and then impose it on the rest of us. Otherwise, there will be chaos! Well, if you could find someone INCAPABLE of ever making the wrong decision, such logic might make sense (though it would still violate the right of every person to be free). But if you don’t trust your neighbor to make the right decisions, why on earth would you trust some crooked windbag in D.C. to make the decision, and then FORCE it on your neighbor? Where is there the slightest indication that those in “government” make better choices than anyone else?

And if your neighbor commits the unspeakable sin of drinking raw milk, or makes some equally heinous decision, and it ends up being unhealthy, he harms himself. He doesn’t harm you. But the “government” myth dictates that the politicians get to MAKE you comply with THEIR decisions, even if you know darn well that their decision is WRONG (as I believe it is in the case of the milk issue).

Individuals make decisions. Some of them are bad decisions. That’s called life. Deal with it. The idea that creating a big, powerful authoritarian machine–RUN BY PEOPLE–can eliminate, or even reduce wrong decisions, has no basis in logic or history. With every issue from murder to what kind of milk you can drink, “government” has shown time and time again that it will come down on the WRONG side of the issue, and then violently impose its stupidity on millions of people who would have made the right decision.

People say that anarchy “will never work” in the real world. So, in the real world, see for yourself whether the myth of “government” works, by taking the following quiz.

1. Which occurs more, “illegal” murder, or “legal” murder? (Don’t forget that little thing called “war.”)
2. Which occurs more, “illegal” theft, or “legal” theft? (Don’t forget the IRS, and state tax collectors.)
3. Which occurs more, “illegal” fraud, or “legal” fraud? (Don’t forget the IRS and the Federal Reserve.)
4. Which occurs more, “illegal” assault, or “legal” assault? (Don’t forget the military, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the INS, beat cops–no pun intended, etc.)

As a bonus question, name ONE person in Congress who you think would make BETTER decisions about your safety, your health, your future, your finances, and your life than YOU would. Good luck.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

(P.S. The one guy in Congress who might be almost on par with you is Ron Paul, who would also agree that YOU should be the one making such decisions, not “government”–not even himself. In other words, the one guy in Congress who is smart enough to make decisions worth respecting is the one guy who–with very rare exceptions–does NOT want to impose his decisions on you.)

(P.P.S. It would be the right decision for you to go buy and read my book, “How To Be a Successful Tyrant” (www.tyrantbook.com). Therefore, I intend to come to your house and make you do the right thing at gunpoint. Oh, I forgot, I believe in freedom, so I can’t do that. I guess I’ll just have to let you decide for yourself whether that’s the right thing to do. Darn.)

With the battle for the presidential nomination raging it is interesting to gather some opinions about those who strive to be our rulers, those who want us to vote for them so that they then may tell us what to do and think.

Yoko Ono, late John Lennon’s wife has a great website Imagine Peace. On it I found the following video…

It struck me as fascinating how John Lennon assessed the situation with government and politicians – The people are the government, they have the power.

And isn’t he right?!

I might have mentioned once or twice on this blog (yeah, right – once or twice!) that I am working on the understanding of “The World IS as I see it.” Thus John Lennon’s statment was right on the money for me. He described the only one little thing that needs to happen to change the world, and that is seeing it differently – namely realizing that we do have the power. A requirement for this realization would be to stop blaming others for non-optimal situations.

A nice exercise on the way to reach that goal is to play ‘pretend.’ Thanks to Larken Rose I have a nice example for that. If we take back all the power we think we have given to the government, we can easily imagine what he describes in one of his latest letters to his mailing list.

Dear Subscriber,

This message needs a very prominent disclaimer. This is because the federal control freaks and their hired thugs, who don’t hesitate to resort to overt oppression and violence themselves, are scared to death that one day their victims will decide to do a little “enforcement” of their own. You see, “government” folk can kick down doors, taser people, drag people away, shoot people, imprison people, steal property, and otherwise harass and intimidate the peasantry as often as they like, but if you happen to make some comment about the purpose of the Second Amendment, well then, you’re a TERRORIST! (The feds accusing someone of being a “terrorist” is a little like Hitler calling someone an anti-semite.) So I want to make this perfectly clear, so that even a hired federal goon or a judge can understand it: I am NOT advocating the following scenario. Far from it. I am pointing out how irrational and thug-minded the feds’ method of “debate” is, by seeing what their rationale would look like in the other direction. So, with that being said, imagine the following story appearing in “Domestic Terrorist Weekly”:

---

TAX EXTREMIST APPREHENDED
April 15, 2010
(c)2010 Associated Militant Press – Washington, DC

This week the Militia Department of Justice announced the arrest of another in a long line of “freedom protestors” who have been thumbing their noses at the American public, duping people into handing over money they didn’t owe. “This should send a strong message to any other freedom protestors that their lawlessness will not be tolerated,” said Militia Attorney General Trooth D. Fender, after the arrest of so-called “district judge” Powe R. Happee, adding that “These scam artists are duping the public and defrauding innocent people, and must be held accountable.

Last month Common Law Court Justice B. Dunn issued an injunction, barring an extremist cult publication called “The New York Times” from printing any more tax-related articles. “This abusive extortion scheme is an affront to all law-abiding citizens,” said Judge Dunn in his ruling, before imposing a ten-year prison sentence on David Cay Johnston, the leader and head guru of the “freedom deniers” sect at the “New York Times” cult.

“If you tell Americans that they owe the tax, you can expect to be forcibly silenced,” said tax expert Ikan Reed. “Even the few judges and IRS agents who have been found not guilty of fraud have had all their money stolen and their houses burned to the ground, as a warning to others who might be considering taking their advice.” Mr. Reed also added, “I mean, if we all owe the tax like they claim, why do these guys keep getting captured and locked up?”

Commissioner of Liberty, Propper T. Wrights, said that he is asking the Militia Congress for more powers to fight against the freedom protestors, including the ability to impose more severe fines and penalties against the promoters of the “61 fraud scheme”–a frivolous argument in which proponents claim that Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code means that all income is taxable for all Americans. “These frivolous scams must be stopped at all costs, to protect the innocent,” said Mr. Wrights.

---

Aside from a little pointless “turnabout-is-fair-play” daydreaming, what’s the point here? It is this:

Would kidnapping a few dozen IRS bureaucrats prove that we don’t owe the tax? No. Would hanging a judge or two prove us right? No. Would forcibly silencing opposing views show the validity of our position? No. What proves someone right is EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Any bozo should be able to understand that.

So why is it that the government, and its lapdog media, constantly harp on how much the feds have HURT people who say “861″? (And they’re hoping to do the same to Wesley Snipes.) What kind of moron thinks that THAT is proof that the 861 evidence is invalid? “Hey, we locked some people up, stole lots of money and property, and silenced a bunch of web sites. See? We told you they were wrong!” Nice mentality.

Luckily, most of us outgrew this outlook on life at about age three, when we realized that smacking our sibling in the head didn’t actually prove that we were in the right. Trouble is, neither federal judges nor IRS and DOJ thugs have figured that out yet. They still think locking people up, issuing injunctions and swiping property is an adequate substitute for rational discussion. Or rather, they think it’s okay for THEM to use violence instead of words; but if they even suspect for a second that WE might resort to violence, they run crying to the nearest armed federal thug. What a bunch of hypocritical, spineless cowards.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

What I want for Larken is that he will take more John Lennon’s viewpoint. I can understand his grudge against the government that put him in jail for a year, but I think once he succeeds in owning this fact as his own creation, all this will go away. We might lose his sharp pen, which I enjoy a lot, but this will be worth the price to pay for his peace and happiness.

Thanks, Kathie, for forwarding this video.
I guess we have to spread it wide, don’t we?

It is amazing to me how much momentum Dr. Paul is gaining, so much in fact that even my favorite anarchist is pitching in with an idea for a great front yard sign. Here is is email messag…

Dear Subscriber,

I’m sending this message out because I’m lazy. I’ve been almost tempted to put a Ron Paul yard sign on my lawn, but the standard ones… well, they look too much like political campaign signs. (I have to hold my nose to support a “limited statist” at all, but I’ll save that rant for later.) So I designed my own yard sign, with a little more substance to it. You can see the design here:

In short, my lazy proposal is this: If anyone else wants to use that design to make some signs, send me an e-mail, and I’ll send you the full-sized image… and then I’ll ask you to send me one of the signs when they’re actually produced. (In other words, I’m too lazy–and too broke–to go to the trouble of getting a sign company to make them.)

My other idea is that, if someone else wants to have them made and sell them, giving all the profits to Ron Paul’s campaign, I’ll let my list know where to order them. And if more than one person wants to do it, that’s fine too. I’m just too lazy to do it myself.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

 

I suppose there are still plenty of Americans that have not heard of Ron Paul yet, but I guess the latest publicity stunt will change that at least to a degree. They will have a blimp advertising Ron Paul for President.

So far the media has ignored or down-played Ron Paul even though in the non-controlled media, the internet, he is the big runner and there was a post in one of the very relevant blogs, that if statistics on the internet are any indication, Ron Paul will be president.

But I guess without the big press that will be very difficult because still a big part of the population gets its news feed from the mainstream media. Even if they are on the internet, they are probably getting their dose of news from CNN or ABC – and they apparently don’t like the idea of a government that is not that easily guided by them.

This is why I like the idea of the blimp so much – there will be many people who actually see it in the sky and they might be wondering why they haven’t heard about this in their trusted news sources.

A few days ago I got another news letter from Larken Rose, my favorite anarchist, and his thoughts fit in nicely.

Dear Subscriber,

Watching the mainstream talking heads “interview” Ron Paul is a combination of hilarious and infuriating. Every “question” is a thinly-veiled accusation or insult. “So, Dr. Paul, some people–not ME, mind you–say you’re an extremist, wacko, fringe nutcase. What do you say to that?” Just how stupid is the general public? Can they not see that every such “interview” is designed to demean and insult Dr. Paul? The most recent example (of many) was Dr. Paul’s “interview” with Howard Fineman (whose no fine man in my book). It was nothing more than an inquisition, trying to find fault with one point of Dr. Paul’s position after another.

But what’s really amazing is that, though time and time again he is subjected to such biased, malicious interrogations, every inquisition ends up making Dr. Paul look GOOD. (That’s got to annoy the status quo mouthpieces.) Still, if the general public has a brain cell or two, it should be patently obvious that there is no such thing as mainstream “reporters” anymore. The pro-establishment agenda is so obvious that even the dullest spectator shouldn’t be able to miss it. (But then, I’ve underestimated the stupidity of the American public before.)

Mind you, I’m not even in agreement with everything Dr. Paul says. (I’m in the 0.00001% of the country who wants MORE freedom than Dr. Paul advocates, such as NO “taxes,” ever, for anything.) But to watch the verbal combat between a man who has principles and believes in something (Dr. Paul), and the unthinking conformist automatons that pass as “reporters” these days, is truly amazing.

What does EVERY politician say he advocates? “Change.” But when’s the last time any politician OTHER than Dr. Paul was actually suggesting any change that would be even slightly significant? Well, there was the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” which consisted of lots and lots of “limited government” rhetoric, followed by a Republican House and Senate which did exactly NOTHING to reduce the size or power of “government.”

The establishment tyrants and their lapdog pundits use the “change” term constantly, because they know that the American people are fed up with the system as it is today. But do they actually want a bit of change? Hell, no. They want to pontificate, posture and preach, and then do what they’ve always done, because the system as it is gives them all of their power and prestige.

For example, various congresscritturs and presidential hopefuls have, for years, talked about doing away with the IRS. Did ANY of them mean it? Other than Ron Paul, of course not. Just watch the total panic the establishment goes into when someone says it AND MEANS IT. The talking heads knew full well that every other politician promising real “change” and “reform” never had any intention of doing anything of the sort. The only “change” they wanted was for THEM to be the one with the power and prestige. But the dead giveaway that the mainstream media KNOWS that Ron Paul is the genuine article is the blatant panic they display when HE talks about “change.”

Because they know he means it.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

 

In my last post I recommended that you don’t vote for Ron Paul – OK, in case you didn’t notice – that was satirical.

Obviously the only presidential candidate that makes any sense is him. And now even my favorite anarchist – Larken Rose – pitches in – see the article below.

But before I let you go with Larken my recommendation that you do as he did and also I I just did – send in at least $100. Today there was already a huge impact he made the record in most contributions collected in one day. Over three million dollars by some 35000 people.

So far Ron Paul has been depicted by the press as some outsider without a chance, but if the trend continues we might end up next year without an IRS, with all the troops back home and (let me dream here a bit) no victimless crimes.

I guess then we will have to get used to the fact that we will have nobody to protect us. Oh wait, maybe there is somebody to protect me – - – I myself – what a novel concept!

But now to Larken Rose’s take on voling for Ron Paul…

Dear Subscriber,

remember, remember, the fifth of November… (For those of you who haven’t yet seen “V for Vendetta,” do.) Well, today is the Fifth of November, and after much internal debating, I decided to send this message out.

As most of you know by now, I am not a Constitutionalist. The Constitution pretended to delegate to politicians the right to rule the rest of us. Yes, it was supposed to be a rather limited form of dominion, but it still pretended to give politicians the right to initiate violence (via “taxation” and “regulation”) against people who have committed neither force nor fraud. As such, the document is absolutely bogus and illegitimate, as is the “authority” it pretended to create. (See “The Constitution of No Authority,” by Lysander Spooner, for a more thorough explanation.)

Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. As a result, he believes that those in Congress have the right to forcibly take money from people to whom it rightfully belongs. He does, however, think that such robberies should be done within the rules of the Constitution (e.g., via limited “excise taxes”). But while he is appropriately offended by the very concept of an “income tax,” for example, he accepts the legitimacy of smaller, more avoidable types of authoritarian robbery. I don’t.

That is my disclaimer, so no one misunderstands the REST of this message as actually condoning “limited” injustice.

---

 There are many reasons why the cult of “democracy” is an insane farce. One is that it is used by tyrants to create the illusion that the people WANT the tyranny which is imposed upon them. The old rhetoric that in a democracy, the people are the government, and thus are ruling themselves, is as popularly accepted as it is insane. What kind of a self-destructive schizo would even WANT to forcibly boss himself around, and how delusional is it to think that when Congress bosses you around, YOU are really in charge?

Anyway, the power of the democracy myth comes from the illusion that somehow the tyrants “represent” us, and so it’s okay for them to do what they do. There are many reasons why such a belief is silly, but the one I want to mention today is the goofy idea that public opinion dictates the “government” we have, instead of the other way around.

The current political circus is a fine example. The establishment–both of its faces (Republican and Democrat)–gives us ONE choice, with two names, and pretends that it’s what the people want. The people are offered a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B, and when they choose one, that is painted as the CONSENT of the governed.

Ask yourself, who in this country would, in the privacy of his own thoughts, without the influence of media propaganda, think, “Gee, I really want my life to be run by Mitt Romney”? Who would, on his own, think “I really want that guy Rudy Giulliani running my life”? What is there about ANY of the Republican candidates that would make anyone actually WANT them to become President? There is only ONE reason we have heard their names: because the tyrant club has advertised them to us. They have accomplished NOTHING, aside from fabricating their own importance, in the hopes of obtaining the power to control others.

But, as I know many of you are now internally screaming as you read this, there is an exception. His name is Ron Paul. Lots of people REALLY want him to win, because they REALLY believe in what Dr. Paul believes in. He doesn’t have to put on a show, or keep up an act. Unlike every other candidate in either party, he really IS what his supporters WANT. He is who he says he is, and believes what he says he believes–and a LOT of people like that.

And that’s why the tyrant machine has been doing its scam of fabricating popular opinion for months now. The Republican establishment, not to mention the statist media, are doing everything they can to give the impression that Ron Paul doesn’t matter: he can’t win, he’s only supported by a few kooks on the internet, he’s not worth talking about, etc. In short, they are doing everything they can to convince the public that what YOU want is the tyrants THEY want you to support.
Who in their right mind would be even slightly enthusiastic about the prospect of having Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or Barrack Obama in the Whitehouse? What do those lying thieves even believe in? Well, it changes week to week, depending upon what they think will get them votes. The reason that BOTH faces of the authoritarian ruling class really want to belittle and marginalize Ron Paul is that: 1) he actually believes what he says; 2) he believes in a lot more freedom than we have now, and; 3) lots of people like that.

The tyrants must keep up the facade of public-supported tyranny, to keep their perceived legitimacy intact, and Ron Paul is the biggest threat to that to come along in a very long time. While it is true that constant collectivist propaganda from the media and “government” have pushed a lot of people into believing that freedom is bad and authoritarianism is good, far fewer people believe that than you would think from watching the mainstream media. And the powers that be are scared to death that the massive support Ron Paul is receiving will mess up their little charade.

And it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that today–this Fifth of November–I invite all of you to financially support the campaign of Ron Paul. No, I don’t think he’ll win, and if he does, I don’t think he’d be able to accomplish much (if anything) in the way of “legal” reform. However, having the American people hear from someone who actually believes in the Constitution, which hasn’t happened in a very long time, would be a very refreshing change from the constant collectivist authoritarian tripe which spews out of the radio and TV day in and day out. Who knows, maybe a few Americans might even start THINKING about such things.

In the daily statist propaganda (usually disguised as “reporting”), you can just hear the underlying message dripping from the rhetoric of both “wings” of the ruling class: “No, no, THIS is the respectable spectrum of discussion! THESE are the beliefs and ideas you’re allowed to consider! THESE are the kings you’re allowed to choose from! THIS is what you’re allowed to think!” And Ron Paul is way outside that usual, accepted realm of discussion. And that’s what I love about him, and why I want to see his message rip through the bland, predictable totalitarian propaganda of EVERY other “candidate” currently being forced onto the American public under the guise of “democracy.”

In conclusion, though I remain an anarchist, knowing that the superstition of “authority” is inherently insane and horribly destructive, today I’m going to be giving my $100 to Dr. Paul’s campaign, for the simple reason that I really want to watch the tyrant propaganda machine choke on its own rhetoric, as just a dash of truth pollutes its persist collectivist indoctrination message. I encourage all of you to do the same, and to do it today.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

Let’s be civilized about this, shall we? I have to admit that I don’t quite agree with you on this – but we as civilized people should be able to agree to disagree, shouldn’t we?

Or something like…

“I would like to kill you!” – “OK, Sir, don’t let’s be too harsh about this. As I kind of disagree with this, can we talk about this for a moment?”

Today’s anarchistic message from Larken Rose…

Dear Subscriber,

People often lament the lack of “civil discourse” when it comes to political matters, and suggest that we should all just “agree to disagree,” and respect each other’s opinions.

For most topics of discussion, I would whole-heartedly agree. For example, people ought to be able to disagree on who the best NFL quarterback is without getting into fist-fights, or debate the zoological classification of the panda bear without having a shootout.

However, there are actually times when “civility” is a BAD thing. For example, if someone said to you, “In my humble opinion, your family should be murdered,” would you merely “agree to disagree”? Perhaps, if he was only opining what he thought SHOULD happen, you could just politely ignore him. But if he actually advocated your family’s extermination, and set about trying to make it happen, should you deal with him “civilly”? Hell, no. When he decided to advocate the initiation of violence, HE ended any hope of civility.

And so it is with almost ALL modern political discussions. For example, almost everyone in the country advocates that I be forcibly robbed to pay for things THEY want. (The Democrats and Republicans differ somewhat on WHICH things they want my stolen money to fund, but they are completely in agreement that I should be coerced into funding things that I don’t want to fund.) While that’s not as bad as advocating the murder of my family, it’s still pretty darn bad. To treat their “opinion” civilly is to give it a level of respect that it doesn’t deserve, which is an indirect way of CONDONING the evil they suggest.

Their “opinion” is not equally valid. It doesn’t deserve respect. Their “opinion” is the advocacy of VIOLENCE, and to treat it as anything else is an affront to justice. I’m constantly amazed how many people suggest that I should be robbed, controlled, extorted, harassed, insulted, and possibly imprisoned or killed, only to then get offended when I call them NAMES (like “fascist”). So I’ll make this offer to everyone: if you don’t advocate the initiation of violence against me (and against lots of other people), I won’t call you a fascist, or a statist, or a collectivist, or a Nazi. (In other words, if you stop BEING those things, I’ll stop CALLING you those things.)

Amazingly, people treat “political” opinions as if they are of no more consequence than a personal preference: whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla, or whether you prefer classic music to rock. But a “political” opinion, by definition, is about what VIOLENCE you believe “government” should use against everyone, including me. Don’t advocate my enslavement or oppression, and then get offended if I call you names as a result.

Again, it would be an insult to justice NOT to react with condemnation and castigation to those who advocate unjustified violence. (Would you tell a Nazi who is advocating mass murder, “Well, your opinion is equally valid”?) I have no intention of letting anyone feel like it’s OKAY for him to hold the “opinion” that innocent people should be terrorized, robbed and harassed. But since pro-tyranny, anti-freedom sentiments are so popular these days, people get shocked when I verbally “attack” them for holding such views.

Well, get used to it. I believe that anyone who actually values freedom OUGHT to condemn evil, no matter how popular or mainstream the evil may be. The only other option is to treat anti-human, unjust, pro-violence, statist tripe as if it’s an okay view to hold. It’s not.

So before you whine about the lack of civility in my messages, check to see if the ones I’m being “uncivil” to are advocating my forced enslavement. If so, I couldn’t care less if I offend them.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

Reality is a funny thing.

It is something that you are supposed to share with others. And for the most part it does work. We all agree that if we walk into that table we’ll hurt and will develop that nice and colorful bruise. OK, admittedly, there might be some that don’t get stopped by a table and walk right through it, but then we have probably so little reality in common with them, that we will not even see them. As a matter of fact, as we probably can’t see them they might be more numerous than we are.

But I digress – this is not really the level of reality I want to scrutinize today. I want to look at that reality where we are perceiving each other still very well, but where one displays a behavior that the other just can not imagine to be possible.

For me that would be a person with ambitions to tell others what to do. I have a little son and I would really like him to make his own decisions. Only out of pure self-preservation do I have to tell him what to do or not do – like NOT watching TV all weekend. But I don’t like it.

But then there is this group of people who just can’t help telling others what to do and not to do – and not only that, also punishing them if they disobey. You already know, what’s coming, right – it’s the P-word – - Politicians – my favorite people. Favorite, because there is something for me to learn. Not necessarily to practice myself, but something to wrap my mind around, to fully ‘get’ it.

My favorite anarchist, Larken Rose, has an interesting take on this and helped me to ‘get’ it better.

Being evil has its advantages, one of which is that good people, who don’t think like deranged psychos, can be taken off guard because they imagine others to be like them. For example, consider the ever-popular plot for a horror movie: the kind-hearted soul who, out of pity, picks up the rain-soaked hitchhiker (who also happens to be an axe murderer). Us good folk don’t WANT to suspect everyone of being a villain, and we don’t EXPECT them to be, either. And when you’re talking about “respected” people in positions of great power, then we REALLY don’t want to consider the possibility that they may just be well-dressed axe murderers. But if we are incapable of considering the possibilities of what evil people might do, what kinds of things they are capable of, then we allow ourselves to be vulnerable.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” [J. Edgar Hoover]

As a result, when someone brings up some “conspiracy theory,” suggesting that people in “our” government have committed theft, torture, murder, etc., part of us doesn’t WANT it to be true. We WANT to be able to dismiss it as nonsense, rather than face the possibility that there are some people with a LOT of power who don’t at all mind torturing and killing other people.

Recently a story broke – though not very loudly in the mainstream media – that six nuclear warheads had been “accidentally” flown from North Dakota to Louisiana. (“Oops, how did that get in my suitcase?”) Some have argued that that simply can’t happen “accidentally,” and have gone on to suggest that the nukes may have been intended to be part of a surprise nuke-attack on Iran. (The feds say the nukes were about to be “decommissioned.”) Well, someone in the Air Force spilled the beans, and the military higher – ups feigned shock and outrage, and said the matter would be “investigated.”

By itself, that story could be a toss-up: was it something devious or was it incompetence–each of which the government has plenty of? However, several air force folks from the two involved bases (Minot in North Dakota and Barksdale in Louisiana) have since turned up dead. Oh, and that was all “accidental” too. The following link lists those who have died, with links to the “mainstream” stories about the deaths.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=1299

Now, there are two ways people can react to all this:

1. Um, it must just be coincidence–are you alleging some sort of conspiracy!? Are you saying OUR government would kill Air Force people!?!!?!
2. There is no way that’s a coincidence, but what does it mean?

The second is the rational response, while the first is wishful thinking bordering on insanity–and it’s probably how most Americans would react. If those in power can kill off several people with obvious ties to a recent, serious “incident” WITHOUT causing widespread public suspicion and outrage, well, then this country deserves to be enslaved.

If people won’t LET the rational part of their brain function, because of what it might conclude, we’re in really bad shape. I’ll give an example, which is pure speculation. I’m not pretending to have a shred of proof or evidence that the following happened; my purpose is merely to suggest the possibility, so you can see how YOU instinctively respond.

PURE SPECULATION:

In an unheard-of “mistake,” several nukes–warhead and trigger together (though not “armed”)–get flown across the country. Shortly thereafter, several Air Force personnel from the two bases involved then die in different “accidents.” If they were killed – which seems pretty likely–WHY were they killed? Well, it could be that it was for exposing a blunder – moving the nukes improperly – but that seems pretty unlikely. What’s the point of killing people AFTER they spill the beans, especially if they can be identified as the ones who did the bean-spilling?

It seems more likely that folk would be killed to STOP them from saying something. But saying what? It can’t just be the “accident,” because someone already exposed that. Might it be that the Air Force folk were about to publicly complain about the U.S. planning to nuke Iran? It’s possible, but really darn unlikely. First of all, the possibility of an attack on Iran is being widely discussed already. Exposing such a plan wouldn’t surprise anybody. Second, it would be a huge “breach of national security” for a soldier to release such information, and he would be locked up for a very long time (or possibly executed for treason). Third, folks in the military believe in chain of command, and pride themselves on their loyalty to “authority”–it takes a LOT to have them disobey orders. Would they do it to expose a possible strike on Iran, which would probably just happen anyway?

So what would make several Air Force folk say something the powers that be REALLY didn’t want said–something serious enough that the “government” would murder its own to keep it quiet? And remember, it wasn’t just ONE guy, and to make a bunch of different military folk publicly “squeal” would take something pretty darn bad.

How about plans to nuke a U.S. city? That’s pretty bad.

Like I said, I’m making a wild guess here, for the purpose of testing what YOU are willing to consider, and what you dare to think about. So I’ll leave you with two questions:

1. On a scale of one to ten, how likely is it that U.S. officials would be willing to nuke a U.S. city to get public support for another war, declaring martial law, or something of that nature?
2. What is the basis for your answer to the first question?

Too many people throughout history have naively declared, “That can’t be happening in MY country! MY government – my countrymen – wouldn’t do THAT!” And so they chose to remain blind to the horrors of “authority” in action. And, in all likelihood, the American public will do the same.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

keep looking »