Larken Rose

More About: Political Theory

The Giffords Shooting: Unpleasant Truth

(Let me start with a disclaimer: I say what I mean. If what I actually say offends you--and for a lot of people, it will--then you probably need offending. But don't bother being offended at things I didn't say, but which you imagine I meant. If I meant it, I would have said it. - Larken Rose)

The national news is full of reports of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Considering how inconsistent the reports have been, even from the beginning, I don't know what happened, or why. Maybe I never will. Whether the guy was simply a looney, whether there was some political motive, whether it was another false flag propaganda stunt (which wouldn't surprise me a bit), I could only guess. And since my guess would be essentially worthless, at least right now, I won't bother.

Instead, I want to quickly address several things about the way in which the story has been reported in the media. Be warned, when there has been bloodshed and death, people get emotional, and bluntly discussing literal realities upsets people. Tyrants specialize in manipulating emotions, in order to defeat reason and understanding. That's why stating the truth is most important when people don't want to hear it. So here goes.

The death of Mrs. Gifford was not a huge national tragedy, any more than the hundreds of other murders that happened the same day. Mrs. Gifford was not a great public servant. In fact, she was not a public servant at all. She was not serving you, or me, or anyone else, other than the elite ruling class. She did not "represent" the people. She was a member of the parasitic American ruling class. She was not working for the people.
 
What she did, along with her fellow political parasites, was use the threat of violence to subjugate, control and extort the general public. Like every other member of Congress, she produced nothing of value, neither product nor service. As a "legislator," her entire job consisted of coming up with new ways to use the coercion of "law" to forcibly control you and me, and use the products of our efforts to serve the agenda of the parasite class.

Did she mean well? How should I know? And frankly, I don't particularly care. As far as I can tell, Hitler meant well, and so did many of the thugs who carried out his megalomaniacal ideas. Did that make him good? Did that make it a "national tragedy" when he died? No. The tragedy was that a human being could ever imagine that forcibly subjugating the human race is the way to make a better society. Whatever her intentions, it was a bigger tragedy that Mrs. Gifford ever became a member of the professional criminal class, than it was that she was shot. (If I ever suddenly decide to embrace the love of dominion, and seek to use brute force to dominate and subjugate innocent people, I hope someone does me the favor of shooting me.)

Notwithstanding the fact that "legal" thuggery, extortion, aggression and violence is hidden under many layers of euphemisms, rhetoric and propaganda, the blunt truth is that Gabrielle Giffords is (or was) a professional bully and parasite. What "law-makers" do is enact "laws." And "laws" are neither suggestions nor requests. They are commands, backed by threats of violence. Obama's commie-care, for example, for all the fluff and B.S. that was used to promote it, was--like all "laws"--a threat of violence. However complicated and convoluted it was, essentially what it did was tell doctors, patients, insurance companies, and others, "You must do this, and you may not do that," and prescribed forceful retaliation against any who were caught disobeying. That's what every "law" is. (As a mental exercise, trying making up a "law" yourself that is not a threat of violence. You will fail.)

Politicians do not "serve" the public, or "represent" the public; they forcibly dominate, control, and extort the public. Despite all the patently inaccurate rhetoric about "public servants," "representative government," and other statist dogma (which will be the subject of upcoming videos), the relationship of every "government" to its subjects is a master-slave relationship. They tell you what to do, and they take your money, and if you resist, they send men with guns to hurt you. To think they're doing that for your benefit is insane.

With that in mind, perhaps the most telling statement in all the reports of the incident were the comments of another parasitic tyrant, John Boehner (R), who said that “[a]cts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." Wow. The hypocrisy is astounding. Everything--absolutely everything--that Boehner, Giffords, and every other member of the parasitic ruling class do, constitutes "threats of violence," often against you. (Try disobeying one of their "laws," if you don't believe me.) Yet they become outraged if one of their victims does to them what they do to millions of people on a daily basis.

(Incidentally, Boehner also said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve." That one sentence all by itself, with the lies it implies and the psychosis it exhibits, deserves its own article.)

Am I suggesting that people go out and shoot the politicians? No. Even if it were justified, it wouldn't result in freedom. If anything, it would only serve as an excuse for authoritarian control freaks to increase their power, and further infringe on the liberty of others. (You can already see the push towards this in the aftermath of the shooting of Giffords.) As much as I bash the god-complex parasites who infest DC, the individual politicians are not the real problem. The real problem is that the victims of tyranny continue to imagine it to be legitimate, when thuggery and aggression are cloaked in pseudo-religious political rituals. As long as the people bow down at the altar of "government," getting rid of one parasite--by vote or by bullet--will accomplish nothing, as a new parasite will step right in. On the other hand, when the people outgrow their superstitious addiction to "authority"-worship, no election or revolution will be needed to remove the parasite class. "Government" exists only because the people imagine that it exists. When the people rid themselves of their statist indoctrination, and see reality for what it is, the parasite class will be ignored out of existence.

On that note, I can't resist mentioning the release of "The Most Dangerous Superstition." If you think that the people in power are the real problem, and that another election, or even a revolution, is the solution, I implore you to read the book. You might find that your own beliefs and assumptions, and your own perceptions and actions, are feeding the beast that you fear, the beast that is eating you.


 

23 Comments in Response to

Comment by MaryHolloway Love
Entered on:

Thank you Mr. Rose for an article that expresses the truth of the situation that we find ourselves in, and the overbearing sympathizers who make the rest of us miserable. Yes it was a tragedy for a nine year old little girl to lose her life, but there are many nine year old children who die everyday.  There are more than that who die at the hands of the ones who should love them, their mothers, when they enter federally funded abortion clinics.  More than 50 Million babies have been slaughtered since Roe v Wade.

I applaud your honesty and your courage. 

 

 

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

I am a Libertarian. So is the author. But I need to write to just say that I am not of his kind … just to be clear about it!

First, in this printed outburst, it was important to him to tell the truth. But he is telling a lie. The lie he is telling is "The death of Mrs. Gifford [sic] was not a huge national tragedy." He is throwing out trash in the face of the reading public. Giffords was shot but did not die!

If he did not find out if Giffords was dead or alive before writing down his vitriol, then this ax wielder in print is a downright no good writer if not an irresponsible author. If it was an honest mistake on his part, then he should be man enough to admit it. Did he admit? Nada. He is a total embarrassment to all award-winning journalists.

This leads us to the "intention" of this author to commit an error by lying. There is a big difference between death and near-death errors in the reporting of a public figure that with his pen the writer is slashing to death. If the intention is to spike hatred against the fallen Congresswoman, the Congress she represents and an authoritarian government she is identified with, this politician’s "death" in the hands of a whacko would deliver a more shocking message … like death to the government [!] -- the battle cry of emotional Libertarian extremists waging a paper revolution, especially here at FP.com where "freedom" vibrates strongly but erratically if not embarrassingly.

In attacking the government, it is very unprofessional for a bullish Libertarian to go down the gutter by calling Giffords "a political parasite …a member of the professional criminal class [and other serious accusations aside from unprintable foul-mouthing]" unless there is proof that she is at least a member of a political Mafia that kills or assassinate people. Never before have I read so much dirt thrown to a public figure than what this author is doing -- from somewhat a delusional mind, he was discharging increment down the toilet bowl at full public view. And not an iota of truth of what he is saying …

We Libertarians may hate to admit it, but let’s not sacrifice the truth to mar our public image under the excuse of crusade for liberty and freedom that runs amuck. This overpowering passion for liberty pushes Libertarian extremists over the edge, like this author who really represents himself as a genuine tyrant that specializes "in manipulating emotions to defeat reason and understanding of what happened" in Tucson, Arizona.

Many emotional Libertarians may not like this comment, but I am sure Libertarians of reason will.

 
Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

What would have happened if all the people at the shooting had been armed and ready to use their weapons? 

The one nutcase among them would have been subdued, perhaps with little or no loss of life. 

What will probably happen (it is happening already)? 

Government will use this whole incident as an excuse to make more gun laws, take away more rights, punish us rather than protect us... just like usual. 

What is law-abiding? Isn't it obeying the basic laws over and above the more "convenient" laws? We need more guns among the citizens. Not fewer guns. 

:) 

 

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

This kind of off-the rock guy says "Tyrants specialize in manipulating emotions, in order to defeat reason and understanding. That's why stating the truth is most important when people don't want to hear it. So here goes."

Here’s the truth that this self-contradictory writer is telling the people: "The death of Mrs. Gifford was not a huge national tragedy …" Feeding the public lies, falsehood, trash … Giffords did not die!

He calls Giffords "a political parasite …a member of the professional criminal class … [and other unprintable foul-mouthing]" Never before have I read so much dirt thrown to a public figure than what this author is doing -- from a delusional mind, flashing increment down the toilet bowl at full public view. And not an iota of truth of what he is saying … Ask me not, but if you do, I couldn't help but say to you that this angry Libertarian author presents himself as a genuine tyrant that specializes "in manipulating emotions to defeat reason and understanding of what happened" in Tucson, Arizona. Caveat emptor if you buy what he is peddling.[and other unprintable foul-mouthingNever before have I read so much dirt thrown to a public figure than what this author is doing -- from a delusional mind, flashing increment down the toilet bowl at full public view. And not an iota of truth of what he is saying … Ask me not, but if you do, I couldn't help but say to you that this angry Libertarian author presents himself as a genuine tyrant that specializes "" in Tucson, Arizona. Caveat emptor if you buy what he is peddling.

Comment by Sons of Liberty
Entered on:

A lot of good points.

Just need to modify this: "The death of Mrs. Gifford was not a huge national tragedy..." to "The near death of Mrs. Gifford was not a ..."

Comment by Jane Leasman
Entered on:

Hugh G. Rexum....sounds like this crazy obcessed person who comments on the Az. Rep. threads...his favorite words, *unt, *itch, *ueer, trailer park, uneducated trash....you people who subscribe here and put up with him...not me, I report him on Az. Rep. and hopefully someday he will die from one of his drug induced states, which seem to be frequent. 

Comment by Aussie Dave
Entered on:

Well said Larken!  The comments have been interesting. I am sure politicians start out with the ideal of 'helping people' but soon get caught up in the 'system'. By definition they create laws to confine and control, not ever to increase freedoms and liberties. When have you ever seen a politician campaign for the dissolution of laws? When have you ever seen a law the benefited someone or a group that didnt have a datrimental effect on another group? When have you seen a government actively reduce its size in order to save taxpayer dollars? Every new law requires an increase in administration which in turn results in an increase in staff, further bloating. Why is it that over 60% of senators are lawyers. These are people who are expert at lying, manipulating and defrauding people. Why would they suddenly change their spots when being sworn in?

By defaul, while laws reduce freedoms, they also allow for the re-distribution of income, they take from what is productive and reallocate to that which is not. For if it was productive it would not need to be addressed. So pet projects, lobby groups all get the money at the expense of the tax payer, who has very little say.  So now, with a burgeoning government (on salaries way above those outside the Govt) make up a large portion of the voting public. This means that taking steps to reduce numbers is not going to be popular.

Regards to the value of life comment. There is no life worth any more than anyone elses. In fact who are we to say that our life is worth more than the ant that was just stepped on. As soon as we all realise that we are all one, including the birds and tigers and ants and trees and rocks even, the sooner we will come into harmonisation with planet, live and move with it, and surthrive as an ecosystem.

We sit here in Australia on the sidelines watching the US slowly implode, the pending US soverieghn debt default, the loss of reserve currency status, the hyperinflation that has already begun, and most people are concerned with the game in Friday night or sit zonked out infront of the TV absorbing all the manipulations presented to them.

Dont get me wrong, we will be deeply effected by your collapse, as will most of the worlds countries, but it is a necessary pain as these unsustainable, criminal, unjust practices must inevitably come to an end. And, this shooting is just another tool of the MSM to divide, separate and distract the populace away from the real issues.

Its time to wake up.

Comment by Michele Power
Entered on:

 Although somewhat harsh, I'd have to agree.  Thank you for saying out loud many of the thoughts flooding my head.  I feel similarly with regard to celeberties.  Who cares what the do? They are just people.

Comment by Jerry Alexander
Entered on:

Larken,

I know how to bring the "MSM" to their knees..without firing one shot.

I have a (win - win ) method of doing so.

 If interested! please reply.

Jerry Alexander

Comment by Doug Nusbaum
Entered on:

Name calling: The rhetorical technique used by those who have neither facts nor logic to support their position. The chances are that if they had facts or there was logic to support their beliefs, they would not have the brain power to make use of them.  

Having said that, I see a lot of comments that while not false, are not falsifiable. That is to say that they are not even wrong, and do not hint as to a specific course of action. Really does the phrase "Government" exists only because the people imagine that it exists. When the people rid themselves of their statist indoctrination, and see reality for what it is, the parasite class will be ignored out of existence. really even remotely hint at a course of action? Of course not. Because the problem has not been stated in any meaningful way. Anybody want to bet that Mr. Rose has not "Ignored" the IRS, but has either paid his taxes, or paid an accountant to follow the rules so that he could avoid taxes.? Anybody? Do a search on orwells boot. I am somewhere in the first 5 as either factotum666 or dnusbaum.com. Using this, I have some specific ideas to fix the problem, but not posted there. Add your ideas  

Comment by Don Duncan
Entered on:

Thank you Larken for your eloquent analysis or society and the monster it serves.

Some so-called "servants" have been uncomfortable of late with the label of "servant". They have made it clear that they prefer a new title. One suggestion was "official".  This shows two mindsets. One that knows they rule, and one that likes to see themselves as reluctant parent. I reject both.  I embrace self ownership, self responsibility, and individual sovereignty. 

Comment by Ned The Head
Entered on:

Larkin's points are consistent with his previous writing, that at least gives him a leg up on the pundits. Elsewhere I've heard that Justin is a Satanist heavy metal head skateboard riding poet outcast Goth patriot leftist pot smoker precious-metals-economist who came from a perfectly normal disfuctional family and so threatened everybody around him that nobody did a damn thing about it. Makes perfect sense so far don't it?

Now a good share of this I've heard from the Sheriff down there. Dupnik. In fact, he seemed to be first on the scene as a regular expert in Justin's past. And he's flinging blame at an impressive rate, as though he has a bottomless bucket of shit to dispense with. And ya know, I guess I'd be feeling a bit underconfident in the public's perception of my services if I was him, so a bit of deflection would be an attractive option.

Ordinarily it might be remotely possible that Justin get such competent evaluation and a subsequent treatment path to where we might one day in some objective sense find out what the hell is wrong with him (I refuse such indiscriminate slaughter of innocents any rational justification). In these circumstances I expect he'll be dissected down and mounted on a series of microscope slides to feed society's manic desire to put this in "context". And you know there's a hundred "journalists", maybe a thousand feverishly jockeying for book rights, movie rights, photo rights and whatever other rights the lefts can come up with.  So prepare yourselves for a good couple years of "context" and at some point, he'll be referenced as "context" like the last nutcase. And he'll inevitably be in the "same context" or a "different context" when so referenced.

The truth is some fucked up dude killed a bunch of people. But they can't sell you that. A "context" on the other hand can be sold indefinitely and in oh so many flavors. So the truth could just as easily be stated that we'll never know now.

 

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

(Publisher: Larken Rose has shared a great deal of truth with us. Thank you. Often truth is painful,... more to some than others.)

Comment by Bob Marks
Entered on:

Hugh Rectum wrote: "Here's another unpleasant truth...a coward like you can make statements like the garbage you spewed up about that shooting, but the reality is if you were faced with a gunman about to shoot you, you'd wet your pants...like most typical Americans, you're ignorant, lazy, poorly educated with a supersized ego and sense of entitlement...Miserable idiotic cunts, the lot of you...fuck off back to whatever trailer park and gaping twat you crawled out of, loser..."

*******************************************************************************************

Wow, what a narrow minded vitriolic jerk you express yourself to be. Maybe you should re-read what Rose wrote.  You have missed his point entirely and gone off on a wild ass derogatory tangent that fails to address the premise he presents.  

Comment by Hugh G. Rexun
Entered on:

Here's another unpleasant truth...a coward like you can make statements like the garbage you spewed up about that shooting, but the reality is if you were faced with a gunman about to shoot you, you'd wet your pants...like most typical Americans, you're ignorant, lazy, poorly educated with a supersized ego and sense of entitlement...Miserable idiotic cunts, the lot of you...fuck off back to whatever trailer park and gaping twat you crawled out of, loser...

Comment by Hugh G. Rexun
Entered on:

My what a brave bunch you are...just another bunch of pasty right wing closet cases confusing their pistols with their peters...you boys have mommy issues...best go sort them out.

Comment by Mike Pope
Entered on:

If that had been some crooked Republican you would be screaming it is the Democrats. The Tea Baggers advocate violence there is plenty of evidence to back it up on video. Then you add in a Gay loner with extreme far right beliefs egged on by loud mouthed morons like Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, & Oreily & this is what you end up with.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

;-D

I could comment, but I see it has already been said.

The tragedy is the deaths and injured who do not work for the government, but learned a painful lesson of taking care whom you hang with and hanging unarmed.

Comment by John Gannon
Entered on:

How could you defile a dead person?  A servant of the people.  These politicians went into this whole thing for OUR GOOD.  They get nothing from it!  Why Gabby did not even want to run.   What is this country coming to when we shoot the very people who are trying to save us.   Yes sir these congressman and women are some of God's favorites and we should pass a law to save them all above all others. Yes sir, I do believe that!  Now correct me if I am wrong but I think GOD would agree that when it comes to killing people, the last to be killed should be our servants. First let the low life(the poor) be killed followed by the middle class and then the upper class and only then the servants.  Because an attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Now if we could just find one of these servants we could order drinks.

Comment by Jim Nicol
Entered on:

THANK YOU!!! A voice of truth, reality and reason! I found your site and commentary from a link posted on The Daily Paul. I will be reading more of your stuff! Best to you!

Comment by Stupid Amerkin
Entered on:

As long as there are politicians, there will always be suffering, misery, death and wars!

Right on Larken.

Comment by Scott Rees
Entered on:

Boehner's comments help us to know that some lives are more valuable than others. Too bad the lesser worth lives can't see the place they are being told to stay in.  

Comment by C. Rakish Spagaletto
Entered on:

 That truth wasn't unpleasant.  It was refreshing.  Thank you Larken.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Attorney For Freedom