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?

Posted by Merlin - September 11th, 2008

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.)

Posted by Merlin Silk - May 6th, 2008

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.

Posted by Merlin Silk - January 24th, 2008

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

 

Posted by Merlin Silk - December 19th, 2007

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

 

Posted by Merlin Silk - December 16th, 2007

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

Posted by Merlin Silk - November 5th, 2007

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

Posted by Merlin Silk - October 8th, 2007

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

Posted by Merlin Silk - September 25th, 2007

Six years after the twin towers came down (whoever might be behind this) it is time again to remember and reminisce. Six years have passed and I still do not understand what happened to the American people directly following this incident.

Let’s see, nobody in his right mind before this event would have put any trust in a bureaucrat. We all made fun of their efficiency and competence - I mean - give me a break - they are BUREAUCRATS. They did not manage to get a real job!

Then a perceived true crisis comes along and suddenly everybody is putting all the trust in those bureaucrats to handle that crisis. What happened there - did everybody - except me obviously - forget what we think of pencil pushers?

We give them power beyond the wildest dreams of the founding fathers. Not surprisingly they do not handle that vey well.

I don’t get it - what happened here - we have a bunch of people we do not hold in very high esteem (to say it mildly), an apparently big problem comes along and we think that those individuals suddenly develop super-powers to handle that emergency…

huh?

My favorite anarchist - Larken Rose - has some interesting thoughts along those lines.

“There have to be rules!”

Okay, here they are:

Rule #1: People with red hair get to take whatever they want from anyone who doesn’t have red hair.

Rule #2: No one is allowed to listen to music which doesn’t have at least three instruments and more than four chords in it.

Rule #3: People who wear falling-down pants will be shot on sight.

Rule #4: No one is allowed to say anything bad about me.

There, now we have rules, so we can all feel safe now and live in peace.

What’s the matter, you don’t like my rules? Oh, so you didn’t just mean you wanted any old rules; you mean you want CERTAIN rules. Maybe something along the lines of “Don’t go around robbing or murdering people.” (I kind of like that one myself.)

But wait a second. Who are YOU to say that my rules aren’t good enough? I’m the (self-appointed) rule-maker around here; who are YOU to decide that my rules are stupid? You think YOU can decide for yourself which rules you have to follow?! What are you, some sort of ANARCHIST?!?!

Of course, you (and all people on earth) DO have not only the right, but the moral obligation to decide which “rules” you should and shouldn’t obey. (Or, as the radical extremist Thomas Jefferson put it, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is OBLIGATED to do so.”) We don’t look kindly on the people who just followed the rules of people like Stalin, Mao and Hitler, do we? No, we insist that as human beings, it was their obligation to DISOBEY the rules, when the rules went contrary to humanity and justice.

“The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.” [Henry David Thoreau]

But how does that fit the idea that “There have to be rules!”? The statement obviously implies a centralized rule-maker, to which we all must be subservient, in order to avoid the supposed chaos and mayhem which would otherwise ensue. But if each of us has not only the right, but the DUTY, to judge right and wrong for himself, and to do what we believe to be right, what’s the point of having someone else making up “rules”?

And WHO should make these “rules”? If we’re so scared that, without a centralized rule-maker, our neighbors would be assaulting, robbing, and murdering us, why do we think that those same neighbors–actually, the WORST among them–should be put into positions of power where they can make up “rules,” and impose them on the rest of us by force? If people are evil, why on earth would you expect them to make good “rules”? And since it’s pretty darn obvious that politicians are MORE malicious, devious, corrupt, and evil than the general public, how silly is it to insist that society depends upon THEM making up and imposing rules on the rest of us? “There will be chaos unless the biggest crook in town tells us all what to do!” Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

Frankly, it’s a self-contradictory, insane “solution” that EVERY statist–everyone who believes in “government,” however limited– MUST believe in: that as mere mortal individuals, human beings will be selfish, violent and vicious, but when put into positions of great power, will suddenly be benign, wise, and just.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?” [Frederic Bastiat]

“If man is not fit to govern himself, how can he be fit to govern someone else?” [James Madison]

What makes such a notion even more looney is how obviously and constantly history shows the exact opposite: people who are imagined to have the right to rule (i.e., those in “government”) commit assault, robbery, and murder on a scale far beyond what “private” crooks and thugs every have, or ever could. (And, incidentally, they usually commit their atrocities “by the rules”– rules which they made up.)

“But we neeeeeeeeeeeed rules!” People who say that desperately want an absolutely impossible magic trick: for an imperfect, often careless, sometimes malicious human race to create a perfect, compassionate, benign system of controlling everyone. They want something ABOVE all of us imperfect humans, to keep us in line. But what is that “something” made up of? Aliens? A giant pink armadillo? The tooth fairy? No, it’s made up of a bunch of imperfect humans–in fact, about the LEAST perfect humans around.

The truth, though it should be painfully obvious to anyone who opens his mind and thinks about it for two seconds, scares the heck out of most people: on this planet, imperfect people is all we have. And since you’re a person, NOTHING (on this planet, at least) is above you–no “authority,” no “rule,” no Constitution, no legislation, NOTHING. You don’t know everything, and your judgment won’t ever be perfect, but it’s ALL YOU HAVE to distinguish right from wrong. It is both insane and horribly destructive to try to surrender your own, personal judgment, in favor of obedience to some “authority.”

“But someone has to be in charge!”

Yes, and it’s you. You’re in charge. It’s up to YOU to decide what is right, and to decide what to do about it. No one is above you. Attempting to surrender your own moral judgment over to some “authority” is not only the ultimate act of cowardice, it is a sign of insanity–it is an attempt to rid yourself of that which makes you human: your free will. It is an attempt to shirk your responsibility to think, to judge, and to act; it is an attempt to reduce yourself to an unthinking slave, a mere tool of someone else (usually someone really nasty).

Sadly, people by the billions do it–choosing obedience over thought–and they do it with pride. And then they wonder why the outcome is so horrible. Yes, there are “rules” humans should live by, and most of the time they are in direct conflict with the “rules” which come from politicians and other pretended “authorities.” If you shirk your personal duty to discover and judge for YOURSELF what the true, legitimate “rules” are, then you are a coward of the highest order, and a traitor to humanity.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.tyrantbook.com

Posted by Merlin Silk - September 11th, 2007

By now it is probably difficult to not have heard about that Teen USA beauty pageant in which Miss South Carolina answered the question why one fifth of the US population can’t locate the US on a world map in the most amazing and embarrassing fashion.

This fact alone in itself is not necessarily news-worthy - even though some might think so - but then by comes Larken Rose and compares this pretty girls dribble with the dribble that is usually called political speech.

And that was news for me!

I probably could paraphrase Larken’s words but I just love his writing style and as he has given permission to do with his newsletters as I please - - I just post it here.

My Fellow Americans,

Much amusement has been had over the recent incoherent, air-headed ramblings of Miss South Carolina during the recent Miss Teen USA pageant. (Actually, I feel a little sorry for her, since I highly doubt that her profound cluelessness was entirely her own doing. Usually it takes a lot of co-conspirators — teachers, parents, friends, etc. — to result in such extreme bimbo-ness.) For those who haven’t witnessed the gruesome event, when asked why a fifth of Americans couldn’t find the U.S. on a world map, Miss South Carolina responded with what sounded like the output of a random- word generator. (…[Ed.: here it is...])

Normally, words are used to convey thoughts between people. In her case, the words seemed designed to convey the ILLUSION of thought, but without much success. She was, no doubt, trained to include certain catch words and phrases: “I personally believe,” “such as,” “our future,” “Iraq,” “Africa,” etc. And she did. She just didn’t bother including anything in between, which might have formed an actual concept or idea.

But what disturbs me a lot more than that one display of ignorance - - - which is hardly unusual in modern America — is the fact that when people do EXACTLY what Miss South Carolina did, only with more confidence and steadiness, we Americans usually grant them unlimited power over us. These days the megalomaniacs — those who desire personal power and dominion over others — dupe most people without even having to make a half-decent effort. Consider, as a randomly-chosen example, the following clip of Barrack Obama:

Looking sincere and confident, he spends several minutes throwing out catch phrases which, taken as a whole, mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If I have to watch someone spewing out words which convey no shred of thought, I’d much rather watch Miss South Carolina do it. Frankly, I’d also rather have her be the all-powerful ruler of the world than have what we have now, because no amount of good old-fashioned stupidity could ever do the damage which the love-of-dominion crowd does every day through its supposedly well- intentioned “solutions.”

In his sales pitch for himself, Mr. Obama spoke of wanting a “different kind of politics,” and wanting to see the “change and progress that we so desperately need.” He pretended to sympathize with the common folk who face concerns about health care costs, pensions and college bills, and said that partisanship was preventing people from “working together in a practical, common sense way.” (Actually, “GOVERNMENT” is what prevents that.) He said he wanted us to “come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.” He said that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things, and that he has great hope for the future, because he believes in you. Isn’t that sweet?

So what did we learn from all that? We learned that Mr. Obama knows how to echo the same meaningless rhetoric that all politicians in all countries throughout all of history have used. When’s the last time you heard a politician say, “Ya know, I don’t much care about your stupid concerns. You’re a bunch of worthless twits who couldn’t wipe your noses if not for government. I have no intention of changing the system at all, I just want to be the one in charge of it for as long as it lasts, before the poop really hits the fan and this whole silly charade comes crashing down”? (Come to think of it, I might vote for someone who said that.)

And I picked Mr. Obama’s stupid ramblings at random. The same could be said about the rhetoric of anyone else in government: Hillary, McCain, Giuliani, Bush, Kerry, Gore, Cheney, and so on, ad infinitum. EVERY politician in Washington (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) spews the same meaningless drivel, and it WORKS–as demonstrated by the fact that they’re STILL THERE.

So before you laugh too loudly at poor Miss South Carolina, who merely sought to win a pageant, look how many of your fellow Americans are eager to give unbridled power, over everyone and everything in the country, to people who do nothing more than parrot the same old meaningless catch-phrases that tyrants have used forever. The ignorance of Miss South Carolina doesn’t hurt anyone but herself. The ignorance of the American voters, on the other hand, results in the robbery, extortion, harassment, terrorization, assault, wrongful imprisonment, and/or murder of MILLIONS of innocent human beings. And those same voters have the gall and hypocrisy to laugh at Miss South Carolina. Amazing.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose

Maybe I’m allowed to expound on one of Larken’s thoughts. If - just IF - we would become able to recognize dribble as dribble whatever the form, we also might be able to see that instead of Hillary Clinton we elect Lauren Caitlin Upton for president and have at least something nice to look at during the speeches.

Posted by Merlin Silk - August 31st, 2007

keep looking »

Search

Recently Written

• Campaigning all together
• Mating of the common water shrew
• Seinfeld/Gates v. Hodgman/Long
• Soon my Pretties You Will be Mine
• Supporting our troops on Patriot’s Day
• Must read - if you have a son…
• Hsi Lai Temple - Buddhist Culture in Hacienda Heights
• What a difference BigMac makes - 500 little calories
• Calvin and Hobbes and the IRS
• Happiness - real or synthetic

Categories

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

Archives

• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007

Blogroll

• Charles Stross
• Don to Earth
• Engadget
• Instructables
• Ming the Mechanic
• Onion News Network
• Rick Mercer
• TED
• The Sandorian Grove
• Tom’s Hardware
• Ysabella Brave

Admin

• Log in
• RSS
• Comments RSS
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Subscribe to