Natural Law is Retaliation Law
Many have asked what I thought about the Giffords shooting in light of The Michael Collins Gambit. First, this was WRONG period. Talion law and Michael Collins proscribed the involvement and harming of innocent parties period! This event was not one of lawful retaliation, it was not commensurate with whatever the first cause injury was, it harmed innocent bystanders, it was not the use of nor the practice of Nature's Law of Retaliation. This was the action of a lone emotionally disturbed man who had already started to show signs of his dysfunction and little was done to treat his condition. It is a saddening occurrence for the families involved and I wish that it had not happened. I am also sure that the authoritarians will use it to suppress dissension of their ongrowing police state. I could say more but why, when Larken Rose's says it so well.
The Giffords Shooting: Unpleasant Truth
By Larken Rosehttp://www.larkenrose.com
(Let me start with a disclaimer: I say what I mean. If what I actually say offends you--and for a lot of people, it will--then you probably need offending. But don't bother being offended at things I didn't say, but which you imagine I meant. If I meant it, I would have said it. - Larken Rose)
The national news is full of reports of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Considering how inconsistent the reports have been, even from the beginning, I don't know what happened, or why. Maybe I never will. Whether the guy was simply a looney, whether there was some political motive, whether it was another false flag propaganda stunt (which wouldn't surprise me a bit), I could only guess. And since my guess would be essentially worthless, at least right now, I won't bother.
Instead, I want to quickly address several things about the way in which the story has been reported in the media. Be warned, when there has been bloodshed and death, people get emotional, and bluntly discussing literal realities upsets people. Tyrants specialize in manipulating emotions, in order to defeat reason and understanding. That's why stating the truth is most important when people don't want to hear it. So here goes.
The death of Mrs. Gifford was not a huge national tragedy, any more than the hundreds of other murders that happened the same day. Mrs. Gifford was not a great public servant. In fact, she was not a public servant at all. She was not serving you, or me, or anyone else, other than the elite ruling class. She did not "represent" the people. She was a member of the parasitic American ruling class. She was not working for the people.
What she did, along with her fellow political parasites, was use the threat of violence to subjugate, control and extort the general public. Like every other member of Congress, she produced nothing of value, neither product nor service. As a "legislator," her entire job consisted of coming up with new ways to use the coercion of "law" to forcibly control you and me, and use the products of our efforts to serve the agenda of the parasite class.
Did she mean well? How should I know? And frankly, I don't particularly care. As far as I can tell, Hitler meant well, and so did many of the thugs who carried out his megalomaniacal ideas. Did that make him good? Did that make it a "national tragedy" when he died? No. The tragedy was that a human being could ever imagine that forcibly subjugating the human race is the way to make a better society. Whatever her intentions, it was a bigger tragedy that Mrs. Gifford ever became a member of the professional criminal class, than it was that she was shot. (If I ever suddenly decide to embrace the love of dominion, and seek to use brute force to dominate and subjugate innocent people, I hope someone does me the favor of shooting me.)
Notwithstanding the fact that "legal" thuggery, extortion, aggression and violence is hidden under many layers of euphemisms, rhetoric and propaganda, the blunt truth is that Gabrielle Giffords is (or was) a professional bully and parasite. What "law-makers" do is enact "laws." And "laws" are neither suggestions nor requests. They are commands, backed by threats of violence. Obama's commie- care, for example, for all the fluff and B.S. that was used to promote it, was--like all "laws"--a threat of violence. However complicated and convoluted it was, essentially what it did was tell doctors, patients, insurance companies, and others, "You must do this, and you may not do that," and prescribed forceful retaliation against any who were caught disobeying. That's what every "law" is. (As a mental exercise, trying making up a "law" yourself that is not a threat of violence. You will fail.)
Politicians do not "serve" the public, or "represent" the public; they forcibly dominate, control, and extort the public. Despite all the patently inaccurate rhetoric about "public servants," "representative government," and other statist dogma (which will be the subject of upcoming videos), the relationship of every "government" to its subjects is a master-slave relationship. They tell you what to do, and they take your money, and if you resist, they send men with guns to hurt you. To think they're doing that for your benefit is insane.
With that in mind, perhaps the most telling statement in all the reports of the incident were the comments of another parasitic tyrant, John Boehner (R), who said that “[a]cts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." Wow. The hypocrisy is astounding. Everything--absolutely everything- - -that Boehner, Giffords, and every other member of the parasitic ruling class do, constitutes "threats of violence," often against you. (Try disobeying one of their "laws," if you don't believe me.) Yet they become outraged if one of their victims does to them what they do to millions of people on a daily basis.
(Incidentally, Boehner also said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve." That one sentence all by itself, with the lies it implies and the psychosis it exhibits, deserves its own article.)
Am I suggesting that people go out and shoot the politicians? No. Even if it were justified, it wouldn't result in freedom. If anything, it would only serve as an excuse for authoritarian control freaks to increase their power, and further infringe on the liberty of others. (You can already see the push towards this in the aftermath of the shooting of Giffords.) As much as I bash the god-complex parasites who infest DC, the individual politicians are not the real problem. The real problem is that the victims of tyranny continue to imagine it to be legitimate, when thuggery and aggression are cloaked in pseudo-religious political rituals. As long as the people bow down at the altar of "government," getting rid of one parasite--by vote or by bullet--will accomplish nothing, as a new parasite will step right in. On the other hand, when the people outgrow their superstitious addiction to "authority"- worship, no election or revolution will be needed to remove the parasite class. "Government" exists only because the people imagine that it exists. When the people rid themselves of their statist indoctrination, and see reality for what it is, the parasite class will be ignored out of existence.
On that note, I can't resist mentioning the release of "The Most Dangerous Superstition." If you think that the people in power are the real problem, and that another election, or even a revolution, is the solution, I implore you to read the book. You might find that your own beliefs and assumptions, and your own perceptions and actions, are feeding the beast that you fear, the beast that is eating you.
Posts
