Preventative Violence Larken Rose is at his best here. Our world has changed. Wake up freedom lovers because you can't talk a fascist into freedom. You can only show him what the natural consequences will be unless he stops. You can only do that if you ...
Larken Rose is at his best here. Our world has changed. Wake up freedom lovers because you can't talk a fascist into freedom. You can only show him what the natural consequences will be unless he stops. You can only do that if you have the way (ability to hurt, distress, defend) and the will (reasoned rational moral philosophical belief) that the fascist believes that you are willing to use. Bluffing doesn't work long. The only moral issue question here is; What about the non-involved innocent bystanders? Rational reasoned retributive justice believers only judge those who have caused injury. Nemo me impune lacessitt!
Can Violence Solve Violence?
Rarely do I hear anything from Stefan Molyneux that I can substantively disagree with, so allow me to jump on this rare opportunity to take issue with something he said. (I'm hoping this rant finds its way to him, and I'm betting one of you forwarding it to him will work better and faster than me trying to find his e- mail address in my infinite, messy pile of stuff.) In a recent podcast, where he gave his thoughts on the Joe Stack incident, Stefan asserted that violence cannot be solved with violence. Partly true, partly false. Here is the link for that clip:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1588_true_news_joe_stack_irs.mp3 I think Stefan would agree that the initiation of violence is a symptom of something not being right in the head of the aggressor. And it is absolutely true that the root CAUSE of the aggression cannot be fixed via more violence. However, the EFFECT (or symptom) of that problem CAN be. As a very simple example, if someone breaks into my house at night, my 12-gauge is not going to repair whatever mental damage led the guy to want to do such a thing. However, it has a good chance of stopping the EFFECT of his psychosis. In such an instance, my goal would not be to "fix" what is wrong with the invader, but to prevent the potential SYMPTOMS of his psychological problems.
Likewise, the irrational belief in the myth of "authority" is the direct cause of the vast majority of theft, assault and murder in the world. The people at the IRS, for example, routinely commit harassment, terrorism, extortion and robbery, because they truly believe that when something evil is "legalized," it ceases to be evil. They (and their victims) have been indoctrinated to believe that theft is bad, UNLESS "authority" does it, in which case theft ("tax collection" / "law enforcement") is GOOD, and RESISTING it is bad.
So the root cause of the problem is their indoctrination into the cult of authoritarianism, and all the propaganda and rhetoric they were fed about "law," "taxation," "government," and all the other bunk which is designed to paint theft as a GOOD thing when the slave-masters do it, and only bad when us peasants do it. And the SOLUTION to that problem is, quite literally, "deprogramming" people out of the most dangerous superstition: the belief in "authority" (the notion that some people have the right to rule others). So no, cursing at, punching, shooting, or blowing up IRS employees cannot fix that underlying problem.
HOWEVER--and this is a big however--while delusions remain, violence can sometimes deter the EFFECTS of those delusions. No matter how much an IRS employee has bought into the state propaganda, if he thinks he might die if he keeps on robbing people ("collecting taxes," as he would call it), he might choose a new career. The underlying problem would remain, but the symptom, in that case, would disappear, as would some of the potential resulting damage.
In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else. However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim.
Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And suppose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed. Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe "legal theft" to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions.
So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we could make it so they didn't WANT to initiate violence against us. But if fear of harm is all that will keep thieves from stealing, it's better than letting them rob people.
This brings to mind a related topic--which I'll rant about more in some later message--having to do with condemning the state's mercenaries ("police"), calling them names ("fascists"), insulting them ("Nazi swine"), etc. Believe it or not, I don't just do that to be nasty. I believe it serves a useful, worthwhile purpose to identify evil as evil, and I believe it can be very destructive NOT to do so. I know some people prefer to always be polite and civil, in an effort to "win over" the statists to the idea of self- ownership, but I think in a way that is often inappropriate. The thugs with badges get paid to harass, terrorize, assault, extort, control, and otherwise oppress people who haven't hurt anyone. I don't believe sane people should talk as if it's up for polite discussion whether that's okay or not.
In the ever-popular example of the Nazis, which of the following would have been more appropriate or more effective?: 1) lots of Germans politely trying to point out the philosophical inconsistencies in Hitler's agenda, or 2) lots of Germans constantly and viciously condemning the Nazis in the most hostile, insulting, caustic terms imaginable, as soon as that party came into being? If people can be shamed or brow-beaten into not acting like thugs, I'm all for it. Of course, it would be a lot better if they could instead be ENLIGHTENED into choosing the philosophy of self-ownership. And in the long run, that is absolutely what our goal should be. But history has shown all too well, all too often, that in the short term, it's a lot easier to shoot an aggressor than it is to reform him.
I spent years trying to make various IRS employees (and other state mercenaries) consider the possibility that maybe "doing their job" is immoral. Joe Stack spent a day showing them that "doing their job" might be hazardous to their health. Which of us did the IRS folk learn anything from? Sorry to say, I don't think it was me.
P.S. I have to take this opportunity to throw in a disturbingly appropriate excerpt from my second book, "Kicking the Dragon: Confessions of a Tax Heretic," most of which was written in 2006, during my time as a political prisoner:
"Then along comes this '861' thing, and suddenly I saw, not just a really nasty fraud that needed exposing and resisting, but potentially a means of achieving real positive change (not the fictional kind that politicians endlessly yammer about), WITHOUT violence ... Imagine that: a nonviolent way to rein in some of the government's gargantuan power. Sounds good to me. To be blunt, I still see exposing the income tax deception as the only way to avoid an eventual (but not too distant) large-scale violent conflict between the U.S. government and the citizenry. ... To put it another way, I did what I did in part because I saw this endeavor as the best hope for avoiding large-scale violence AGAINST THOSE IN GOVERNMENT. No, that wasn't a typo. I believe that ending this fraud is the best way for those in government (as well as others) to escape a very nasty end, by allowing for a 'revolution' that requires no bullets and no blood. ... I really wish I had some compelling argument left supporting some hope of success via nonviolence, but I don't. To be blunt, if you read in the news that some IRS paper-pusher or collection thug, or some pseudo-judge, got his or her 'determination' overruled with a baseball bat or a pipe bomb, I won't be very surprised. ... [JFK] said that when you make nonviolent change impossible, you make violent change inevitable. I really do hope, even as I sit here in prison for a crime that the prosecutors and the judge know I didn't commit, that a bunch of IRS headstones don't start to appear as a confirmation of JFK's words."
If you at all wonder why I often say, "The Law Is a Fraud!" This is why! Law = Theology. It is always open to interpretation by the ruling "revelators;" prophets, lawyers, judges of the day. There are NO absolutes, NO immutability, NO divine revelation! The only absolute in the law is the ruling revelator's willingness to use lethal coercion to enforce their interpretation of TheoLawlogy. This is why Your belief in and reliance upon this shifting quicksand of "lawfulness" must come to an end. Embrace your inner outlaw! Attend to the only law that has ever naturally existed, Natural Law. Embrace what "Nature's God" has shown by example, the Talion Law. The right to retributive justice. Quit going to the "matrix" for justice. The truism is oft repeated ad nauseum that, "No man is above the law." Humbuggery, Balderdash and Drool!! Man has ALWAYS placed himself above the law because it is up to man to interpret "the law." PoLice, prosecutors, lawyers and judges place themselves above the law everyday by their interpretations of what the "law" means and how to enforce it. Grammar, semantics, hermeneutics means nothing to those whose pattern and practice is deception and brigandism. Below is evidence again of wherewith I speak! Nemo me impune lacessit!
Please distribute to your mailing list:
The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Hirmers' Petition for writ of certiorari. Despite having uncontroverted evidence that several states intentionally amended the language of the 16th Amendment as proposed by Congress, conduct the government admits violates Art. V of the Constitution, district court judges in Pensacola, Florida and Chicago, Illinois, the entire panel of the 7th Circuit court of appeals, three judges in the 11th Circuit court of appeals, and at least five judges of the Supreme Court (I don't know if any of the judges voted to grant cert) have each violated their oaths to support and defend the constitution. The denial of the petition for writ of cert in the Benson case has ended that case. The criminal trial of the Hirmers is scheduled to commence on March 1st. I am currently preparing for trial. The trial is expected to last between three and six months. So what is next now that we know for a certainty that the federal courts are closed to protecting the Constitution, and the people, from fraud of the Executive branch of government in the collection of the federal income tax, and are closed to protecting the First and Fifth amendment rights of those who would expose that fraud? I believe it is now incumbent upon the people to press Congress to remove the culprit judges from office for bad behavior through the impeachment process. The second is that the people need to press Congress to declare the 16th Amendment not ratified. Third, is that the people need to take action to widely publicize the conduct of the federal judiciary and the attorneys working for the goverment in order to bring about the first and second actions. Hopefully, there are those among you with the fortitude to assume positions of leadership to bring about the above suggestions. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Dickstein Attorney at Law 500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208 Fox Point, WI 53217 (414) 446-4264 firstname.lastname@example.org http://jeffdickstein.com
In recent years Americans have become more and more alarmed at the lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution exercised by Congress and other elected representatives. The list of violations has grown large indeed.
Some have tried to fight the violations through the election process, attempting to remove those representatives who have perpetrated them. Others have tried to fight infringing legislation as it is introduced. Still others have fought in the courts, attempting to defend liberties in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.
To date, little has worked as many elected representatives and court rooms openly defy the Constitution, calling it antiquated. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announce that they now look to international law for precedence and guidance, rather than the Constitution. Government at all levels is growing ever further from the reach of the people. In such a growing desperate situation is it possible to restore the Republic to the vision of the Founding Fathers?
Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel West speaking at the American Freedom tour in Fort Lauderdale Florida at the Revolution Nightclub. For more information about the West for Congress campaign or to become involved please follow this link http://allenwestforcongress.com/.
Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
By Bob Ivry | Bloomberg
Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.
The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today. FULL STORY
This is the man, U. S. Representative Mel Watt, Representing the 12th District of North Carolina, the man who gutted HR 1207, Audit The Fed Bill.
Take a good look at Mel Watt and ask yourself why is this man so against AMERICA? Against YOU?
Who is Mel Watt's protecting?
2304 Rayburn HOB
Fax (202) 225-1512
Special thanks to Rose Lear who posted this story at this link.