Saturday, February 27, 2010

Freedom Shenanigan #43
Create Pain for Professors Misusing His/Her Position

Hat Tip to The Militant Libertarian

How a College Student Can Safely Create Pain for a Professor Who Is Misusing His Bully Pulpit

by Gary North

In graduate school, I had the largest private office at the University of California, Riverside — and probably in the entire system of campuses. It had eight desks and room for bookcases, plus room for three more desks. No full professor had anything like it. I had it for two years. Yet I had no position in the university during this time. This was a fluke. The room got lost in the system. I kept it lost. In matters academic, I understand how the system works. I know how to make it work for students.

Someone posted this on one of the forums.

I received an email from one of my nephews today. Here it is:”Today in my economics class my teacher admitted to being a Keynesian economist, which now makes total sense. The past two class periods I have tried arguing with him about his policies but he just makes me the laughing stock of the class every time, which is no surprise because he has a PHD. He believes the Fed saved us from the next great depression and that Ron Paul is a nut. Every point I try to make he just rebukes and it is frustrating. I was wondering if you had any advice.”

I told him the easiest thing is to regurgitate what he is told and pass the class.

What good advice should I give the young man? He is on the right track and I don’t want him to get discouraged.

Here is my analysis of the system.

1. The professor is 100% in charge in class, if his superiors are not threatened by what he says or does.2. Most students in the class don’t care about the academic content.

3. Most students just want to pass the class. They want to know what to regurgitate on the exams. They don’t want disruptions from anyone who will not be grading them.

4. Your targets are the 20% who do care about the material.

5. Are they worth time and trouble?

6. If the answer is yes, adopt an offensive strategy.

The key to an offensive strategy if you are a student is to feign ignorance and beg for clarification. Do this in a way that gains the sympathy of the other students. If the professor pulls rank on you, he’s dead in the water in class. If he stonewalls, he loses face. If he says he will help you after class, go to stage two. He is playing nice guy. Your task to undermine the brighter student’s trust in what he is teaching.

Stage one involves asking questions. “Professor, I’m confused. You said….. Do I have thus right? I do? OK, here’s what I don’t understand….” You bring up the counter view as if you have figured out on your own that something does not add up. To do this, you must master the assigned material and also the counter material. Few students ever attempt this.

Stage two is what I call digital kneecapping.

1. Set up a blog site that allows interaction (a forum).2. Post key questions on the blog. Refer to your confusion. “If he is saying that, then how can we explain this?” Provide the summary of your position. Provide links to supporting data. Do not attack him. Undermine confidence in him.

3. Once you have a few questions posted, hand out a card before class begins. Have the site’s address on the card. Invite others to share their views.

4. Position this blog as a discussion group in which each person helps the others to do better in class. It’s a joint effort to pass the course.

5. If he is forcing mindless regurgitation on exams, ask if others have experienced lower grades for not doing this. Ask what the best way is to give him what he wants, even though what he is saying seems so one-sided. (The phrase one-sidedis a killer in academia, where one-sidedness is universally practiced, and is also universally disparaged as not conforming to the search for truth.)

6. If word gets out to the department chairman that he is not playing fair, he has a big problem — not because he is not playing fair, but because he has been caught and is being exposed where the Administration can see this. The Administration worries about alumni, who might quit donating if the media find out. This is kneecapping.

7. He can respond on the forum. He then deals with you as the top gun; it’s your forum, not his. He comes to it on your terms. He has never had to do this with students. He has played the toady with his superiors to get where he is. He has never had to do this with mere students. This puts him on the defensive. It forces him to defend his ideas and his behavior. You cannot believe the pain this inflicts.

8. If he ignores your site, you can slice him up, piece by piece, day by day, after each lecture. This is not kneecapping. This is death by a thousand cuts.

The technology is free: or

Rmermber: you are as dangerous as a wounded water buffalo if you disguise yourself as a defenseless lamb.

Your site stays on-line forever. Students can view it long after you have moved on. The site will condemn him. New students will hear about it. The grapevine works.

If conservative students would do this systematically, it would create real pain for the educrats.

Be sure you don’t overpay to be run through the collegiate meatgrinder, because that’s what it is. Here is what it costs these days. There are cheaper ways.

Read the rest at this link.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

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 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:

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 w
ould 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 t
ruly 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 supp
ose 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 wit
h 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 inc
onsistencies 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.

Larken Rose

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 t
ypo. 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."

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Stealth Weapon of Choice; Tactical Assault Crossbows

Attention all you aspiring Black Arrows out there.

The new weapon of the American Resistance is here!

Vin Suprynowicz's
Andrew Fletcher would be proud. Get your's NOW before the FedFascists try to outlaw them.

Question: What does it sound like when a fascist receives retributive justice?

Answer: It sounds like a whisper "ffffffft!"

Friday, February 19, 2010

Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack

Larken again is right on the money!!!

Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack

Earlier today(yesterday), a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy. You can decide for yourself if this was the case. As best I can tell, today Joseph Stack burned down his house, and then crashed his plane into the Austin, Texas offices of the IRS. We don't need to ponder the reason, because he told us why, in a suicide note, which can be read here:

I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans. In other words, compared to the deluded masses of conformists, Mr. Stack was the sane one. Several statements in his suicide note show that he had overcome the authoritarian statist indoctrination far more than most people ever will. Does the following sentiment sound familiar?

"We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place ... I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood." [Joseph Stack, 2/18/2010]

A lot of you will find aspects of Mr. Stack's personal story disturbingly familiar. I see no need to parse every sentence of it, though I would urge everyone to read it all, carefully. What would drive a rational, intelligent man to do such a thing? Of course, the control freaks and their propagandists will paint Mr. Stack as a nutcase, and will claim that his actions, by themselves, prove that he was insane.

But they don't. They prove he was desperate, and frustrated, and that he was willing to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to try to resist injustice. And THAT is the part the parasite class does NOT want people to think about. They will paint him as a "mentally unstable" "tax cheat," or apply to him whatever other labels they think might make people not want to THINK about what Mr. Stack did, and why.

Now comes the controversial, uncomfortable part. Several people have already asked me whether I approve of what Mr. Stack did. Any good, unthinking obedient serf would immediately blurt out, "Of course not!" In short, though I am saddened that the world had to lose Mr. Stack in the process, and though there are alternatives I would have much preferred, yes, generally I have to praise him for what he did. I'm not about to emulate him, nor would I suggest that anyone else do so, but he had the courage to do something about the injustice he saw, and that puts him ahead of 99.99% of the population.

So far, I have heard about a couple of injuries, and one person unaccounted for, at the crash site. So at the moment, as far as I know, Mr. Stack is the only one who died in the crash. I don't know whether that was his intent or not. In other words, I don't know if he intended to destroy only property, or to kill people as well. As far as mere property, if someone found a way to destroy every IRS computer, every IRS building, every IRS vehicle, firearm, every bit of property used by the federal extortion racket, without hurting any people, I would without hesitation cheer, loud and long. (I'd like it even more if someone took it all, and gave it to the people who were robbed to pay for it in the first place.)

But the question of taking human life is far more serious. At this point, most writers would quickly add, "I would NEVER condone violence against law enforcers!" Not me. Violence is justified when used in an attempt to stop an aggressor--one who initiates violence. And the politician scribbles called "laws" have no effect on that. IRS employees, from CID down to the paper-pushers, are CONSTANTLY initiating violence, every time they levy a bank account, or swipe someone's home, or send threatening letters (i.e., "pay up or we'll do nasty things to you"). It is their job to use violence, and threats of violence, to take property from those to whom it rightfully belongs.

Most do it without thinking, and I doubt any of them accept any personal responsibility for their actions. "Hey, I'm just doing my job." Yeah, you and the Nazi SS. But this is the problem that the "authority" myth creates: a bunch of brain-dead authoritarian jackasses, day after day, terrorize, extort and rob millions and millions of people. The people are then left with a choice: go after the unthinking bureaucrats whose main sin is being blindly obedient, or allow injustice to continue. Neither option is pleasant. Apparently Mr. Stack chose the former.

I'll have more to say about this later, but today, let me leave you with two excerpts from "The Iron Web" which are disturbingly appropriate to what happened today:

Excerpt 1: "Real life isn't like the movies. In the movies, the bad guy is always so obviously evil that when he dies, in some spectacular finale, everyone stands up and cheers. That's not how it works in real life. In real life, the people who have to be killed to protect the innocent are hardly ever truly evil themselves. Instead, their sin is usually just being stupid, and doing what they're told. That's all. ... The state uses violence for everything it does. Every law is a command, and if anyone disobeys, force is used to make them comply. And good people don't want to resist. Even if they don't like the law, even if they think it's unjust, the last thing they want to do is kill some poor pawn who is just doing what he was told. It would be so much easier if only evil people committed evil, but through the belief in 'authority,' otherwise good people routinely become agents of evil. Even the atrocities of Hitler's regime, Stalin's regime, and all the others, were the result of a few truly evil people, and thousands upon thousands of merely obedient people. The real villains aren't stupid enough to go to the front lines themselves. That's what compliant subjects are for. But the result is that the good people of the world are left with a choice: either allow evil to occur, or kill people who are merely misguided or ignorant. Most people choose the first option, and mankind has suffered unspeakable horrors because of it."

Excerpt 2 (from a different character): "You have to understand, this was bound to happen. The parasites have been making this monster for decades, and now it's broken free. It's not about whether I think it's good. I don't. But I think it's inevitable. It's like some poor dog that's been beaten since it was a puppy. Mostly it just cowers and whimpers, always in fear. Then one day, it snaps and rips its master's throat out. Those IRS paper-pushers have been emptying peoples' bank accounts, taking their homes, and ruining lives for years and years. The zoning bureaucrats, the inspectors and regulators--they've all been pushing people around for decades, and it all adds up. As long as the cogs in the machine felt comfortable obeying orders, they went right on doing it. Their victims had no recourse, so they just put up with it. Well, now all their frustrations are coming out as hatred and a desire for revenge. When people are oppressed, humiliated and tormented for all their lives, even if only a little at a time, and even if they barely notice, it builds up inside them. It's like a poison the body can't get rid of. It builds up and builds up, until something breaks."

Today, something broke. Mr. Stack, rest in peace.

Larken Rose

Thursday, February 18, 2010

“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement.

This guy is one of my heroes. He tells it like it is.
I have said for a long time that poLice need to be held personally accountable for the injury that they needlessly cause to others.
Retributive justice is ALWAYS the right of a free person. How you carry it out is your business.

Mike Vanderboegh
is the alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters who hang out at his blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. Check out his site.

“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. -- William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming.”

Gentlemen and ladies of American Law Enforcement,

There is a growing perception among many Americans that we are headed for one of those periodic moments in our history when our reactions to events will redefine who we are as a people, where we are going as a country and who gets to call the shots when we get there -- what George H.W. Bush called “that vision thing.” This is happening in the middle of unprecedented external and internal stresses on our social order, the results of which you see daily on the streets.

It is going to get worse.

Odds are, it is going to get MUCH worse before it gets better.

IF it gets better any time soon, which I doubt.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of American law enforcement, the prudent among you should be considering this question now, rather than later: “What am I going to do when we get to ‘much worse’?”

Consider first where we are.

The Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes in many communities. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs’ “extended families” and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled.

But the gangs, as bad as they are and as great a threat as they pose to public order, are nothing compared to the larger problem, and that is this.

Respect for duly constituted authority and social trust are essential ingredients of civilization. These elements represent the basic glue of society.

Respect for duly constituted authority is, as every cop knows, at an all-time low. There are two general reasons for this, one systemic and the other so personal that if you look yourselves honestly in the mirror you can see it.

Systemically, “duly constituted authority” derives its legitimacy from the founding documents of our country, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and from the Founders’ concepts of the rule of law. These have all been under attack for a hundred years or more by both corrupt political parties and their union and business familiars. The Constitution has become for some a joke and for others an inconvenient speed bump on the road to tyranny. As long as this degradation of the legitimacy of our political and legal system was perceived by only a narrow portion of the population, it was manageable in a societal sense. This is no longer true.

When a president and Congress robs one set of people to enrich their cronies, when they violate the settled rule of law regarding bankruptcy to stiff secured creditors in the case of General Motors while rewarding self-anointed unsecured creditors -- their political allies, the auto unions -- the rest of the population cannot fail but conclude that we are no longer under the rule of law, but the rule of men, which is to say, the law of the jungle. Or, put another way, they -- the “authorities” -- can do anything that the citizenry can’t or won’t stop them from doing. This is the societal Catch 22 we are now in (and have been for a while) that I call “Waco Rules.”

Other cases such as that of David Olofson, a veteran and marksmanship instructor and family man who was railroaded by the ATF on an automatic weapons charge when his semi-automatic AR-15 malfunctioned (and he was chosen for prosecution simply because the ATF did not care for his low opinion of them), have convinced many that a fair trial is no longer possible in federal court if an agency decides to “deal with” them. And if we are no longer guaranteed a fair trial in the federal court system, then if we are innocent and decide that we do not wish to play drop the soap with either the Aryan or Muslim Brotherhoods, our only guarantee is the right of an unfair gunfight when the ATF comes calling.

And remember that Olofson is merely one example of federal misadventure. There are many others, as there are plenty of similar cases in local and state jurisdictions. When the law-abiding rightfully no longer trust the law enforcers and begin to view them as a class of criminals merely acting under color of law, anarchy is not far away.

Yet, you will say, “don’t blame me, I enforce the law, I don’t make it.” True, but insufficient as an excuse, and here we get down to that look in the mirror.

My friend, fellow gun rights blogger and National Examiner columnist David Codrea over at WaronGuns has a description for feral cops. He calls them the “Only Ones.” His daily blog is filled to overflowing with example of rogue cops, their partners who never rein them in and the prosecutors and judges who find reasons to go easy on even the most heinous of criminals with badges. You know who I’m talking about. If you say there are none of these currently operating or in the making within your department then you are either lying or uninterested in seeing the truth, which amounts to the same thing.

Everyone knows what happens to honest cops who “rat out” their uniformed criminal associates. They are hounded, despised, disciplined and shunned -- and that’s on a good day. Can you blame many of us who pay attention to such law enforcement corruption for concluding that you may merely be a member of an “official gang” as opposed to a freelance one? Such dereliction of duty begs the question: If your excuse is that you don’t make the law, you just enforce it, and then you don’t enforce it upon yourselves, why should we be paying tax dollars to support “official” law breaking?

There is another image that many of you can see in the mirror if you choose to take an honest look -- that of tax collector and nanny state bully boy. Yes, we know, you didn’t make the laws, some liberal puke with a control fetish did. But when you write speeding tickets for 3 miles over the limit because you’ve been told to write “x amount” of dollar value, or when you pull people over for “seatbelt violations” at random roadblocks and then ransack their cars without probable cause, can you understand how such behavior eats away like acid on your reputation -- individually and collectively -- as servants of the citizenry? What part of “to protect and serve” does that represent?

But worse than all that is the militarization of the police -- in equipment, tactics and, worst of all, attitude -- and the federalization of all law enforcement over the past forty years, but especially in the last ten. There were, last time I checked a few years ago, something like 750,000 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. Add to that another 150,000 or so full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government. With the growth of new agencies like the TSA during the “war on terror” (who, because of political correctness can’t seem to figure out who the real “terrorists” are so they merely oppress the rest of us in order to be “fair”) that number has certainly risen.

In any case, there are hardly enough Feds to work the administration’s will upon a nation so vast and a people so numerous, so, much thought and effort has gone into suborning and subverting local and state law enforcement for federal purposes -- “Joint Task Forces” and “fusion centers” being two principal ways. Yet, as the Founders quite clearly understood, it is one of the duties of local law enforcement, especially the county sheriffs, to interpose themselves between the federal government and the people of their jurisdictions when the federal government becomes oppressive.

Now, however, local law enforcement is looked upon by federal agents as force multipliers and willing stooges -- “local yokels” in their parlance. And as a mark of how successful their campaign has been, many local law enforcement officers agree and happily lick the boots that kick them.

A recent case in point. Two county sheriff’s deputies showed up at the doorstep of a man out west who had expressed his contempt for Nancy Pelosi and and other federal politicians in letters and emails. These deputies, saying that the FBI had sent them, interrogated the man, threatened him “with Leavenworth” and engaged in intimidation of political speech. These local cops, having no jurisdiction to do anything of the sort, would have been laughed off of my porch here in Alabama and told to bugger off and return with real federal cops, if that was in fact their intention. Too often these days, when the federal man says “frog” many of you merely ask “how high?”

Of course, if this intimidation had back-fired on the locals in any way, the Fibbies would have been the first to disavow them, leaving them hanging out in the legal laundry to dry. So when y’all are looking in that mirror, ask yourselves how truly stupid you actually are when it comes to enforcing an agenda and not the law just because the Feds ask you to.

Because here’s the essential thing: you, ALL OF YOU, took an oath to, among other things, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” You swore that, the overwhelming majority of you, to God. Did you think that oath had a shelf life? Do you think that now that you have by your reckoning faithfully upheld that oath for, say, twenty years now that tomorrow it is okay to forget it? You swore, whether you realized it at the time or not, an OATH, before GOD, and it was a LIFETIME oath.

While you are looking in the mirror, evaluate your career based upon that oath. It was not to a man, or an administration, or a political party but to an idea -- the idea of ordered liberty as codified in the Constitution of the United States of America. So ask yourself, did you or did you not intend to faithfully uphold that oath? Because the answer to that question is going to become very important very quickly as this politically divided and morally fractured society continues to spin out of control.

To quote Joshua, “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

Katrina showed us many things. It showed that in a disaster many cops will look to their families and not the public duty, leaving their fellow law enforcement officers with an even greater burden. It showed us that cops can be opportunistic criminals as well, partaking in looting with as much energy as professional criminals. It also showed us that the police no longer trust the law-abiding citizen with arms, depriving them of their only means of self-defense once the cops have moved on, thus leaving them to the tender mercies of robbers, rapists and murderers.

It is perhaps dangerous to make too large of a generalization, for there are many rural jurisdictions where this does not apply, but the fact of the matter is that by and large, the police no longer trust the people they are supposed to protect, and they especially do not trust an armed citizen, even if he represents no danger to the cop. This is standing the oath on its head. The people do not exist to serve the servant, but rather the other way around.

When a policeman pulls over a driver whose computer record shows not only the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner, but the fact that they have a concealed carry permit, it is too often SOP for the cop to approach the vehicle, gun drawn, order the man or woman from the car, put them on their knees and cuff them before anything else transpires. These are not the acts of public servants but rather of an occupying army. And with each breach of trust, the glue holding society together is further weakened. For the more you distrust us, the more we are reminded to distrust you.

It is important to remember, Mr. and Ms. Law Enforcement Officer, that you need us, the law-abiding armed citizenry, one hell of a lot more than we need you. Just ask any criminal. Who is it that they fear most? The encounter with a policeman or a would-be victim who turns out to be armed? I tell you this uncomfortable truth and I hope you have the honesty to admit it -- the criminals of this country are far more scared of the armed citizenry than they are of the police.

It is not the fear of the patrol car that inhibits criminal behavior the most, but rather the prospect of screwing up and getting his brains blown out by a citizen in righteous self defense. And so, when you participate in citizen disarmament efforts, whether gun seizures like Katrina, or merely identifying otherwise friendly peaceable folks as “the enemy” just because they are armed, you are alienating your most valuable friends and empowering your most vicious enemies. Not to mention the fact that you are violating that sacred oath you took.

So ponder that deteriorating social trust that holds civilizations together, and then ponder this: the worst is yet to come.

What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster -- natural or man-made -- that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground? Now, even if you intend to run off like some New Orleans policemen did, to see to the safety of their families rather than keep order in the city, you are still going to need the cooperation of the armed citizenry in your home neighborhood to protect your family.

You -- ALL of you -- law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry -- ALL of us willing and competent to muster -- to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown.

Do you seriously think that federal police, all 150,000 of them, will actually help you in that event, beyond issuing orders that they will not be personally endangered with carrying out?

You will then be on your own, and you will have us. At least those of you will who have the sense to plan now to make that happen in the event.

You might start by remembering your oaths, by beginning to trust us, by refusing to engage in petty harrassments of CCW permit holders and by strengthening your department’s auxiliary program (or starting one if you do not have one).

But first and foremost you must quit looking at and treating the law-abiding armed citizenry of the United States as the enemy. For if you don’t, we certainly will be.

Convince us by your actions that you are no better than the gangs who commit crimes without uniforms and we will treat you similarly. And there ain’t nearly enough of you to shove us around in a real national emergency.

Remember, Americans are nothing if not a practical people. We're predisposed to help and support you. Please, take our hand when it is offered, BEFORE it is needed.


Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Most Liberating Word

Will Grigg lays it on the line in a similar way as did Eric Frank Russel in his wonderful story And Then There Were None. Freedom = I.W. or Freedom = I Won't! True freedom is the power to say NO! I Won't! to power without negative consequences to you and your's. ALL "governments" (coercive theft syndicates) ultimately use violence to get their way.

The Most Liberating Word

By Will Grigg

"Let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no' be 'no'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."

~ Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:37

Years ago, somebody coined the aphorism, "'No' is a complete sentence." While some grammarians might disagree with that conclusion, "no" is incontrovertibly the most powerful word that a freedom-focused individual can utter – assuming, of course, that he has the fortitude to let it be his final answer.

To say "no" in reply to an offer, suggestion, or demand is to assert authority. The same can be said of "yes," but only when it is said in particular circumstances. "Yes" can signify either honorable agreement or craven submission. Saying "no," on the other hand, is a way of claiming one's sovereignty and demanding that it be respected.

Refusing consent is an assertion of the most elemental property right. Saying "no" during a business negotiation may abort a transaction, or it may facilitate a mutually agreeable arrangement on slightly different terms. In either case, parties involved in such a conversation understand and respect the sovereignty of each other, and agreement doesn't occur until and unless both sovereign actors are satisfied with the terms.

When "yes" is said in this context, the rights and interests of both parties are protected, assuming that both follow the admonition from the Sermon on the Mount that they will make good on the promises they freely made.

We are routinely told that the government ruling us rests on the "consent" of the governed. "Submission" is a more appropriate term.

Think of it for a second: How often does the State recognize our right to withhold consent? Are those in the State's employ generally willing to accept "no" as a final answer, or do they generally treat it as an act of criminal rebellion?

In myriad ways, from the smallest imposition to the most grotesque mass murder, agents of the State treat non-compliance as justification for the use of potentially lethal force. If an armed stranger in a state-issued costume demands that you submit to an abduction called an "arrest" despite the fact that you've done nothing to injure anybody, what will happen to you if you refuse to cooperate?


Sunday, February 14, 2010

The Goal of Modern Propaganda: Mythocracy

Cindy has an essential piece of the problem puzzle pie. What is an identifiable division that most Americans could understand?

The Goal of Modern Propaganda: Mythocracy

By Cindy Sheehan

“The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief.” Jacques Ellul

February 14, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- On Super Bowl Sunday, the reason that I wrote my new book: Myth America: 20 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution, literally hit home.

Since it was the Holy Day of Obligation for our national religion of Football, I headed for my health club because I have always been a heretic. I arrived there a little before kick off, so the club was still occupied, but after kick-off it was deserted.

After my water workout and swim in the pool that I had all to myself, I headed to the hot tub which was occupied by another spa patron—an older gentleman named Bill whom seems to come to the club just to sit in the hot tub and chat. I get the feeling he is very lonely, and this following exchange may be why:

Bill: I think what you do disgraces your son, his memory and what he died for.

Cindy: Oh really? Since he was killed in an illegal and immoral war, I think this nation disgraced him.

Bill: But they attacked us on 9-11.

Cindy: Who attacked us on 9-11?

Bill: Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Cindy: Are you serious? If you believe the official story, 16 Saudi Arabians attacked us.

Bill: But Saddam killed his own people.

Cindy: We have killed over one million of Saddam’s “own people,” (at this point Cindy does “air quotes?).

Bill: But we didn’t mean to.

Cindy: (deep sigh), So what team are you rooting for this afternoon?

At which point, Bill scrambled out of the hot tub and headed for the showers.

My “friend” Bill has been thoroughly propagandized from the right—there was no use sitting in the hot tub with the jets blasting and trying to reason with a man who thinks that over one million people can be killed “accidentally.”

I didn’t write Myth America for people like Bill who wouldn’t recognize a fact if it flew out of his TV box and hit him on his bulbous nose. I wrote the book for our fellow citizens who have even a tiny inkling that what is our actual shared experience has very little to do with the Mythocracy that we live in.

I also wrote Myth America for people who knew that the wars of aggression were wrong when Bush was president, but magically transformed into born-again warniks when Obama took the oath of office—these newby warniks had begun to see through the propaganda over the last eight years, but allowed one of the more insidious myths to take over—the myth that there is a difference between an elected Democrat and an elected Republican. These are the same people who came to my talks after The Obama came to power to proclaim that the U.S. needs to stay in Afghanistan to “protect the women.”

During my campaign against House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in 2008, it became so clear to me that the only relevant division in this nation, indeed world, is a class division. I know I have been late to this game and analysis, but remember less than six years ago my entire world was my family and this suburban intellectually challenged sinkhole.

During my campaign, I experienced the myths that “Elections Matter” and that the U.S. has a “Free Press” as I struggled in a fierce campaign to even achieve ballot status as an independent and garner a few crumbs of media attention. Even the so-called “Liberal media” abandoned me and when I did get media attention—even from the papers that endorsed me—the punch line always was, “but she has no chance.”

I struggled with the working class to get labor to endorse me, but in each and every case, members of my own class endorsed the Queen of the Robber Class, Nancy Pelosi. Nancy has done nothing for labor, except to operate her vineyards in wine country without unions, support most “free” trade agreements and hire someone to iron her fabulously wealthy husbands’ shirts. So why did labor endorse Pelosi and not a hard working member of their own class with a labor platform that was hailed from all over this planet? Because she’s a Democrat, that’s why. Labor cares more about access to politicians than access to sane policies.

It was towards the end of my campaign when the infamous “bankster bailout” happened. After the bill failed in the House, Pelosi came out all haggard to whine about having to bailout the companies, but pushed the stuffing out of her caucus to ram it through the second time.

Democratic candidate and Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, called members of the House to browbeat them to change their votes and my neighboring Congresswoman, Barbara Lee of Oakland, did a rare about-face and betrayed her principles and her poor constituents—that’s when I finally woke up to what Robber Warren Buffet said: “It’s class warfare all right, and its my class, the rich class that’s making war, and we are winning.” Well, in our Mythocracy, Buffet’s class is really the only class that knows we are at war. Most of the rest of us believe that we live in a “Democracy” where even the lowest of us can attain Robber Class status.

Well, in this Mythocracy, if there’s a Robber Class, then what’s the other class? The one that over 99 percent of us belong to? The Robbed Class—the class that must remain “Hope”notized by those myths and divided amongst ourselves so we don’t even realize that just about everything we hold dear is being stolen from us, right out from under our own noses with our apathetic acquiescence. It’s the age-old Robber Class strategy of "divide and conquer."

What is the revolution that I write of?

First it’s the very revolutionary idea of recognizing that we do live in a Mythocracy and the lower one is on the socio-economic ladder, the farther apart the reality and myth of this country are.

Secondly, the myths must be exposed and dispelled—my new PDF book is an addition to this conversation.

Thirdly, we must work together across racial, political, religious, gender, and sexual preference lines to build community and strength in our class to resist the larcenies of the Robber Class.

Finally, I foresee this top heavy Empire of cards toppling in the foreseeable future. My revolution will create the necessary umbrella to be able to deflect some of the more damaging rubble that will come crashing down.

The Robber Class knows two things that we need to learn quickly…

That they need us far more than we need them and there are far more of us then there are of them.

This is a revolution that we can win.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Casey Sheehan who was killed in Iraq on 04 April 2004. She is the host of Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox Radio Show and the author of five books, the latest is Myth America: 20 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution. (In PDF format). Cindy’s favorite role is being Gigi to her two grandchildren: Jonah and Jovie.

More info and ordering info for Myth America can be found at Cindy’s blog:

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Freedom Shenanigan #42
Practice Jury Nullification as a Stealth Juror

Here is a great story about how and what to do.

“I Don’t Care What The Judge Said!” — The Morally Obscene War On Drugs

by Joel Turtel

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

“The fact are clear as day, aren’t they?” Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

NEW "Articles of Freedom" Website Launched!

Declaration and Resolves of Continental Congress 2009

In Defense of a Free People, the time has come to reassert our God-Given, Natural Rights and cast off tyranny…

Let the Facts Reveal: The federal government of the United States of America was instituted to secure the Individual Rights of our citizens and instead now threatens our Life, Liberty and Property through usurpations of the Constitution. Emboldened by our own lack of responsibility and due diligence in these matters, government has exceeded its’ mandate and abandoned those Founding Principles which have made our nation exceptional;

Our servant government has undertaken these unconstitutional actions in direct violation of their enumerated duties, to the detriment of the People’s liberty and the sovereignty of our Republic;

Over many years and spanning multiple political administrations, the People who have, in good conscience, attempted to deliberate our grievances and voice our dissent against these offensive actions through both Petition and Assembly, have been maligned and ignored with contempt;

The People of the several States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, justly alarmed at these arbitrary and unconstitutional actions, have met as Citizen-Delegates, and sat in a general Congress, in the city of St. Charles, Illinois;

Whereupon We, as these Citizen- Delegates, have gathered in defense of Divine Justice, Liberty and the principles of limited government, now stand in clear recognition of the Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution for the United States of America;

Therefore, We demand that Government immediately re-establish Constitutional Rule of Law, lest the People be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the Defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we shall ever yield.

Monday, February 01, 2010

Democracy: The Joke's on You

Once again Larken is right on!!

Democracy: The Joke's on You

Despite all the lovey-dovey rhetoric about the supposed greatness of "democracy," there's only one thing its proponents want it for: to get moral permission to force their preferences, opinions and ideas on other people. People vote, hoping "their guy" will win. Why? So their own interests and agenda, and NOT the interests and agenda of the people who voted for "the other guy," will be served by the machine of "government." And everything "government" does, it does by threat of force. (It doesn't just ask nicely; it commands, and inflicts harm on any who don't obey.)

I realize that's not the flowery explanation that democracy- worshipers prefer, but it happens to be the truth. The left-wing statists want to win elections so the right-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund welfare programs, wealth redistribution, more government control (a.k.a. "regulation") of commerce, etc. Meanwhile, right-wing statists want to win so the left-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund a huge military, a bigger police force, more border patrols, a "war on drugs," etc.

In short, democracy is gang warfare for cowards. The voters, being too chicken-poop to do it themselves, desperately try to get "government" to rob and control all of their neighbors (while accepting NO responsibility for having advocated that). If your gang of voters outnumbers the other gang, you can get the mercenaries of the state to boss them around. Yippee! Ain't democracy great?

Well, to all you voters, the joke's on you. While you've been whining for other people to be taxed and regulated (robbed and controlled), the tyrants have always been one step ahead of you, using your own envy, cowardice, and irresponsibility against you. In case you haven't noticed, win or lose, BOTH gangs of voters always get robbed and controlled.

Did you really think the politicians and their mercenaries would be on YOUR side, if you were in the majority? (If so, you pretty much deserve the mess you're in right now.) The tyrants have several nifty tricks for getting the shackles on ALL of the peasants, regardless of how anyone votes. One of those tricks relies on this dirty little secret:


Sound strange? Well, it all depends upon how people are categorized. Maybe you're in the majority when it comes to race. Maybe you're in the majority when it comes to religion. But there will always be SOME criteria that the tyrants can use to divide the people which will have YOU landing on the minority side. And then it's YOU the majority will be stomping on, via the thugs in "government." Then your boneheaded faith in democracy (mob rule) will bite you right in the rear end.

Are you in the top 49% of income earners? If so, you're a minority, and the tyrants know they can rely on the bottom 51% to cheer for you to be robbed blind. Are you younger than 30? I'm sure everyone above 40 would love to raise your taxes, to pay for goodies for them. Or maybe you're above 40, in which case you're STILL in the minority, and the YOUNGER people might vote to tax the heck out of whatever wealth you've accumulated so far. It all depends where the politicians decide to draw the dividing line. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Is marijuana your drug of choice? If so, the beer-drinking majority will be happy to advocate that draconian government violence be used against you if you're caught with an "unapproved" plant. Are you male? Well, you're a minority. And if the women ever figure out that they can VOTE away your suffrage "rights," you're poop out of luck. Do you own a gun? If so, you're a minority, and one of these days the politicians might just scare the majority into voting for you to be disarmed.

Depending upon how you slice up the "pie" of human society, there is SOME way in which YOU are in the minority. Ergo, there is some way that "democracy" can be used to oppress YOU, no matter how "normal" or "average" you think you might be. There is always some way to divide up society so you are on the losing end, in terms of numbers. And the tyrants are constantly looking for such divisions, to keep one group of people advocating the oppression of another.

Maybe most people in a particular town own dryers, so they vote to outlaw the use of clotheslines (which they think look too "low class"). Or maybe people over 21 vote to prohibit younger people from drinking or smoking. Or maybe a conservative majority votes to ban music or videos the majority finds offensive. Or maybe the people decide to ban the "environmentally unfriendly" gas-guzzlers driven by a quarter of the population. Maybe most of your neighbors, at the coaxing of the politicians, will decide they don't like your barbeque grill, or your dog, or the canoe you keep in your back yard, or your political yard sign, or your bumper- sticker. Maybe they don't like what you're teaching your kids. One way or another, the tyrants will find a way to control you, and, by using clever divide-and-conquer tactics, they will be able to do it in the name of "the people."

Then, of course, there is the supposed right that politicians have to steal ("taxation"). Whatever a majority wants, it will vote to force everyone--including the people who DON'T want it--to pay for it. Pacifists are forced to pay for war. Pot smokers are forced to pay for the "war on drugs." People who think government "welfare" rewards laziness are forced to pay for it anyway. Young people are forced to pay for old people to get "benefits" from the state. People who homeschool are forced to pay for schools they don't like and don't use.

The tyrants are well aware that if they chop up the "pie" of society in enough ways, EVERY piece of it is a minority, in one way or another. And whatever criteria is needed to put YOU into a category which includes 49% or less of the people, you can bet that, sooner or later, the tyrants will be urging the people on the OTHER side of that line to demand "laws" to control and rob YOU. Need proof? Consider this:

Is there anyone who approves of everything "government" does with his money? No. (Never mind that no one even KNOWS what all "government" does with his money.) Therefore, EVERYONE is being forced, via the "democracy" scam, to fund things he doesn't want to fund. The myth of "majority rule" (which is a lousy ideal anyway) is constantly used to force 100% of the population to fund things they oppose!

The bottom line is, through the cult of "democracy," tyrants can oppress and enslave EVERYONE, while in every case claiming it was the "will of the people," condoned by a majority. So the control freaks stomp on you, all your friends, all your neighbors, and everyone in your family, while at the same time tricking YOU into thinking it was YOUR idea, and pretending that "the people" CONSENTED to all of it. Ain't "democracy" wonderful?

There is only one way to avoid this. Dismiss the evil that calls itself "democracy." Stop partaking in the self-enslaving and neighbor-enslaving ritual of voting. Stop trying to get the Uber Nanny that is "government" to try to make other people into what you wish they were. Mind your own damn business. Spend your own damn money. Start THINKING, for a change, until you grasp the bleeding obvious principle of "self-ownership," where every individual belongs to HIMSELF, and no one else.

If the people did that, the best the tyrants could hope for is that a few dolts might, on an individual basis, advocate their OWN enslavement. And the rest of us--of all races, religions, ages, income levels, etc.--could start living like free human beings.

Larken Rose