Larken Rose

More About: Revolutions, Rebellions & Uprisings

Killing Politicians

A story is now circulating around about a Massachusetts blogger who, regarding the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, said "one down, 534 to go" (referring to the total number of federal congress-critturs in the House and Senate). He also added that it is "absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately," and suggested that people "Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

Of course, the average citizen, who worships the ruling class as if they're a bunch of infallible deities, will think the blogger to be the lowest scum in the world. How dare he even discuss killing the High Priests of the cult of "government"? What blasphemy! Well, I want to take issue with the guy's comments, but for a very different reason.

(As an aside, what the guy said was protected speech under the First Amendment. Not that what any "court" says is actually legitimate, but the U.S. dress-wearing, god-complex "judges" have admitted that even advocating revolution or violence is protected, unless it constitutes either an actual threat, or a direct, specific incitement for someone to commit violence. Look up the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, for an example of just how nasty speech can get before it can be considered "criminal"--again, within the definitions of the control freaks. The fact that the Massachusetts jackboots decided to steal the blogger's guns because of his comments is an obvious attempt to create a "chilling effect" on his political expressions.)

Many people like the mantra, "Violence is never the answer." But they're wrong. If an armed thug breaks into your house, and tries to kill your family, violence is the answer. If you were a Jew living in 1940's Germany, and the SS came knocking, violence would be about the best answer available.

Ironically, most of those who say "violence is never the answer" nonetheless advocate constant, widespread violence via "government." They don't recognize it as such, because in their minds, when "government" uses the initiation of violence, it is inherently legitimate, and doesn't count as violence. Meanwhile, defending against such "legal" aggression is, in the eyes of the indoctrinated statist, the most horrible sin imaginable. When the superstition of "authority" is involved, the attacker with a badge is the good guy, and the defender without a badge is the bad guy. Gack.

So why do I disagree with the blogger? Let me put it this way: if killing 535 god-complex politicians would result in an end to the many thousands of casualties caused by their war-mongering, it would be just fine with me if someone killed them. But it wouldn't. If knocking off Congress would end the draconian, fascist, heinously evil "war on drugs," and free the millions of non-violent people now living in cages, I would be all for it. But it wouldn't. Every year, a whole lot more than 500 innocent people die as a direct result of what the politicians do, so I think such a trade would be well worth it. In short, if killing the tyrants du jour would lead to freedom, I'd be all for it.

But it wouldn't.

Why not? Because the gang of thieves and murderers that infests Washington is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The underlying problem resides between a couple hundred million pairs of ears. If the general public desperately believes that a coercive ruling class is necessary and essential to civilization, as they have been brainwashed to believe, then knocking one narcissistic megalomaniac off the throne will only result in a new one taking his place. It's like the mythical Hydra: chopping the heads off doesn't do anything, because it will grow new ones; you need to hit the heart of the beast. And the heart of this problem is not a person, or a group of people, but a belief.

I'm not saying it's never justified to hack off a tentacle here and there, if you're being attacked. I can think of lots of situations in which "law enforcers" deserve to be shot, and "criminals" deserve to escape (when the "law," not the "criminal," is the aggressor). That might save one person now and then, but hacking at the branches will never solve the problem; only yanking the root out can do that.

And even among many of the most ardent pro-freedom advocates, the root of the problems is still firmly planted inside their own heads. Those who continue to campaign, and vote, and petition "government" to change its evil ways, are completely missing the real problem. To get slightly mystical, let me put it this way: Chances are, you are the one feeding the horrible beast you see before you, the monster you seek to destroy; you helped bring him into being, and you are the source of his power.

Hmmm … I think rather than explaining what I mean, I'll leave people hanging, and tell them to buy my new book, "The Most Dangerous Superstition." (Yes, that was a cheap trick, but I'm not sorry.)



 

8 Comments in Response to

Comment by David Forty
Entered on:

I came across a small book titled "The Secret Freedom Fighter". If you search the net it can be downloaded free on most P2P networks. In times such as these it's a must read. 

Comment by Scott McGuire
Entered on:

Our leaders are going to rob us of everything we have, make us attempt to grow our own food, starve us, poison us, herd us into death camps, enslave and work us to death. Period. They pass the laws and have a national police force to back it up with. We have no resources with which to take them on and defeat them. 

Comment by Danny Terill
Entered on:

I wouldnt just kill the politicians who are involved in coruption.I would lock them to a seat and let them shit their pants for a couple of days while also making them give up their ill gotten gains before I burnt them alive. I dont know how long they would hold out before they gave up their money but my guess is not long.Once the first fudge was out and after giving them a taste of a blow torch I think I would come out pretty wealthy in no time.If you can prove you know of one that has been on the take let me know who and see what happens.I will bet they wont feel so high and mighty with shit in their pants.A judge would be even better as I could call him by his real name and that would be "YOUR MOST ASS HOLYNESS"

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

To some, definition of Freedom they love to death is plain narcissism. It is egotism exemplar with dangerous repercussions. They hardly know that the freedom to kill anyone anytime they want is in fact the ultimate abuse of Freedom itself. It is prevalent among abusers of freedom of speech who are hopelessly color-blind – the color of the Government is Red, this provoke them to attack like raging bulls in the arena of public opinion.

Killing politicians and innocent bystanders in a corked rage is the worst definition of Freedom that an angry misguided narcissist author is prone to advocate. It has neither legal nor moral support whatsoever regardless of any reason propounded that it is necessary … that is if we are talking of free normal people outside of the white straitjacket they wear who do not live on sedative drugs alone as they navigate the rough terrain of life from day to day.

I quote the symptom of his mental condition as follows: "[Y]ou need to hit the heart of the beast. And [this lost author believes] the heart of this problem [in his freaking mind this problem is a fascist society we live in] is not a person, or a group of people, but a belief …"

Who can kill "belief" of the people? Not even Armageddon where thereafter you shall be judged by what you believed … ah, unless the author himself believes he can, in his world of barbiturates. But we will not even start killing his own "belief" … we are setting him free with whatever he thinks when we shouldn’t … free of his narcissist’s or egoist thoughts that murdering politicians and innocent people is the right thing to do. That should fry him in his own lard, the only way to take care of his own infamy.

  

Comment by Justen Robertson
Entered on:

If only there was a gun that shot and killed memes instead of people, huh. Need some WMDs - weapons of meme disruption.

Comment by mello mel
Entered on:

I rarely read blogs all the way through. Most of them seem to  be trying to set records at how many pages they can fill. Larken does not do that. He is to the point, and challenging. I sometimes  wonder what it would be like to hook up with him and have a few beers. The conversation would be amazing I'm sure. I'd like to put him across the table from some of my favorite Constitution Scholars, and sell tickets,

Comment by Mama Liberty
Entered on:

Yes, Larken, you are a stinker. But that's ok. :)   You hit one out of the ballpark again today with this one.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

From a nation of wolves America has become a nation of groveling, hands-out-for-a-dole sheep - who will follow any shepard promising the easiest road to salvation - even if that road be tyranny and enslavement.  The blogger comitted not crime, but the government proved itself the criminal, and that our 'rights' are only dreams of gossamer - unless we are ready to draw blood to give them substance.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

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

Attorney For Freedom