The Crimes of Empire: Rogue Superpower & World Domination

An excellent review of a must read book! The original review was translated from German so you will notice spelling errors on the original web site. I have corrected them here and some of the punctuation that didn't translate well. The paperback version is due to be released April 10, 2010 and seems to be retitled The Crimes of Empire: The History and Politics of an Outlaw Nation which is certainly more apropos considering the content of this book. You can pre-order from Amazon HERE.


From MWC - Media with Conscience News

Pluto Press, London- New York 2010
By Ludwig Watzal

Ssuccessive governments of the United States of America like to designate other countries, whose leaders they do not like, "rogue states." Noam Chomsky showed in "Rogue States" that this designation does not apply to countries such as Iraq but to the United States itself. According to him, the American superpower fulfills all the characteristics of such an entity. The U. S. and its "junior partner," the United Kingdom, made Iraq a cartoon of an "outlaw nation" that threatens the entire world, and Saddam Hussein the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

If that would have been true, they should have turned to the U. N. Security Council. Instead they started an act of aggression against Iraq, thereby showing contempt for international law and the U. N. Charter, which would have provided a legal base to handle this crisis peacefully. Chomsky mentions that Libya, Cuba, and North Korea were also designated as "rogue states," and the "boy emperor from Crawford, Texas" named Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil." U. S. President Ronald Reagan had already termed the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Having red Carl Boggs book, one can doubt whether the right countries were stigmatized "rogue states” because "The Crime of Empire" is the criminal history of U. S. behavior in international relations.

The central thesis of Carl Boggs`book may be summarized in the following statement: "The U. S. stands today as the most fearsome outlaw nation in the world, its leaders having contributed to a steady descent into global lawlessness." The author explores the rise of the U. S. from its foundation in 1776 as it rose against old European colonialism to the status of an empire, which dominates the world. Boggs follows an interesting approach. Over a period of more than 200 years the development of U. S. policy is described as a history of "military criminality and outlawry." Boggs links global and domestic (political, economic and cultural) elements of a power structure that is addicted to militarism and war. The present U. S. neo-colonialist policies of aggression cannot be understood apart from this historical legacy. According to the author, the legacy of U. S. outlawry has its origins in the earliest days of the Republic beginning with the extermination of the Native American.

This book is the third part of a trilogy on U. S. imperial power which started with "Imperial Delusions" in 2004 and was followed by "The Hollywood War Machine" in 2006, the last one written with Tom Pollard. Without the support of the film industry, the corporate media and the military-industrial complex the American public could not have been so easily manipulated into supporting the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Carl Boggs teaches Social Science at the National University in Los Angeles. In 2007 he has received the Charles McCoy Career Achievement Award from the American Political Science Association. In seven chapters of his book, the author succeeds to convince readers about the criminal nature of the U.S. superpower.

The consequences of U. S. outlawry for the future of international relations are regarded by the author as "nightmarish”: in the wake of 9/11 the U. S. lost all legal restrains on its military conduct and stepped up its quest for world hegemony aggressively. The Bush administration demonstrated open contempt for international law, the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This contempt of the rule of law "is deeply rooted in U. S. practice and intellectual culture." If that would not have been enough, it even arrogated itself a "right” to attack any country it deems as a potential threat to U. S. domination.

Boggs points at a dichotomy in U. S. governments behavior. "No ruling elite proclaim the `rule of law' more loudly, and no society produces more lawyers, prosecutors, judges, legal theorists – and prisons,” than American society. But this goes no further than domestic society. At the international level, the U. S. "routinely favors power over legality, often dismissing legality as nuisance in the face of pressing global realities.” The U. S. power elites "believe” in "national exceptionalism”, they view the country as a "benevolent” or a "benign” hegemony working for "democracy, human rights, and peace.” The elite – politicians, media, academia, and think-tanks presents U. S. policy as "pragmatic”, non-ideological, furthering liberal democracy, freedom, equality, and citizen participation. Policies are driven by a consensus of economic and geopolitical desiderata that actually "revolves around a struggle for domination over the Middle East,” writes Boggs. According to the author, the unholy legacy started with the white European settlers.

They perceived their mission as :"God-given”, driven by enlightenment and social progress. This "white-man´s burden” was later called "Manifest Destiny.” A concept rooted in the religious zealotry of the Puritans. In the nineteenth century the U. S. carried out military interventions in several nations in Central America and the Caribbean. The author writes that in 1844, under the presidency of James K. Polk, the U. S. annexed, after a self-provoked war against Mexico, large parts of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada which belonged to Mexico. Already at that time this "primitive war” was justified by national security arguments.

The Mexicans were slaughtered by the thousands as being "backward, ignorant, and undemocratic, hardly worthy proprietors of the land they had controlled.” neocons and the religious fundamentalist of today cartoon the Muslims in a similar fashion, in order to dehumanize them and make attacks against them appear more "rational?” With the massacre at Wounded Knee "a system firmly rooted in authoritarian controls and propelled by a mixture of colonialism, racism, capitalism, and militarism” was firmly established. "An ideology of ruthless expansion was incorporated into the political culture, shared especially by the upper circles of politicians, business elites, the military, and Christian institutions.” Boggs adds: "It is precisely the legacy of imperialism, warfare, and outlawry that was carried into, and helped shape, later U. S. behavior in such targeted areas as the Philippines, Central America, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East.”

In the chapter "Crimes against Peace”, "Warfare against Civilians”, "War Crimes by Proxy”, "Weapons of Mass Destruction”, "A Tale of Broken Treaties”, "War-Crimes Tribunals: Imperial Justice”, and "Torture and Other Atrocities” the author spreads out to readers a picture of this country, unknown to most of the world. To outsiders, the American political system presents a highly idealistic model that actually hides its hegemonic aims. This perception is widely shared around the world. In the chapter "Crimes against Peace.” Boggs shows how the U. S. violates not only the "Nuremberg principles” but also international law in general. He mentions that after World War II the Germans and Japanese were tried for "crimes against peace.” The Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg"the U. S. has violated every one of the above principles, generally holding itself above the most hollowed norm of international law,” so (sic) Boggs. defined such crimes as "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy (for war).” At different periods in its history

The Nuremberg Charter had jurisdiction over four separate crimes: conspiracy to carry out aggressive war, the actual launching of aggression, killing, destroying, and plundering during a war not justified by military necessity, and crimes against humanity related to atrocities against civilians. The Nazis were convicted on all four counts. Did not the rulers of the United States commit all these crimes in the Korean and Vietnam War? Or in the more recent, and illegal, wars against Afghanistan and Iraq?

In "War Crimes by Proxy” the author writes: "The Israeli occupation of Palestine, with its continuous acts of military aggression and human rights abuses over several decades, is surely the most visible (and no doubt most egregious case of U. S. war crimes by proxy. The state of Israel has in many ways served as an American imperial outpost in the Middle East, subsidized by every conceivable form of economic, political, diplomatic, and military backing – a relationship that is, indeed, sui generis.” Boggs mentions persistent Israeli disregard for international law and human rights. "Beneath its celebrated `democracy,' the Israeli state was historically founded on brute force and terrorism leading to an occupation regime in clear violation of international legality. The territory expropriated by Israel is stolen land, justified by Zionist ideology with its phony biblical claims and sustained by a fanaticism that views the local population as subhuman primitives. (...) To legitimate such criminality, Israel lays claim to ethnic and religious supremacy rooted in Zionism, an ideology that glorifies colonial theft of land, appropriation of resources, and military occupation denying even the most basic rights of Palestinians.”

According to the author, the U. S.-Israel "client-state relationship is solidified and legitimated by the indefatigable and well-financed work of the Israel lobby.” In this respect, Boggs mentions AIPAC, JINSA, WINEP, ZOA, IPP which are blindly supported by the various Christian Zionist organizations, by think-tanks like AEI, PNAC and the Hudson Institute. Boggs quotes from the book "The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in which the authors wrote "if the United States were to choose sides on the basis of moral considerations alone, it would back the Palestinians not Israel.” The U. S. departure from moral principles started at the Lausannesidedness of U. S. Middle Eastern policy but also the caving in to permanent Israeli pressure. conference in 1949 and has continued ever since. The book "The Passionate Attachment” by George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball shows not only the one-sidedness of U. S. Middle Eastern policy but also the caving in to permanent Israeli pressure.

As a postscript, the author describes "the routinizing of mass murder” referring to explanations from political psychology. For Boggs, the U. S. armed forces have occupied a special place when it comes to war crimes. Two of many reasons are noteworthy: the constant pressures to maintain imperial hegemony and a long history of evading legal accountability, writes Boggs. Winding up this extraordinary book, the author concludes: "A major problem with U. S. war crimes in general is that virtually everyone has managed to escape criminal liability, except in a few cases like My Lai and Abu Ghraib where lower personnel was tried, convicted, and generally given light sentences.” Last but not least, all the war crimes the U. S. has committed against other peoples were not planned and carried out by sadistic thugs or xenophobic right-wingers but by ordinary folks who come from solid family backgrounds, are well mannered, display elevated cultural taste, and may even be informed by good intentions, writes Boggs. And the planners of these horrendous crimes are mostly so-called whiz kids liberal, cultured, urbane, visionary government officials and many celebrated academics from the Ivy League Schools.

The following distinction could be important which Boggs did not contemplate on: The specific nature of U. S. "criminal conduct” is not so much the number of direct victims – which are much smaller than the victims of Hitler´s and Stalin´s brutal tyranny - but the fact that U. S. "criminal conduct” are being overly supported or at least tolerated by all governments which claim to represent democracy and human rights. Another specific feature of U. S. "criminal conduct” is that the U. S. crimes have been mostly been committed in broad daylight, whereas both the Nazi and Soviet regimes attempted to hide their crimes. The "crimes” by "democratic governments” require much greater reliance on the manipulative practice of mass media than were the crimes by the Nazi and Soviet regimes, because "crimes” by "democratic governments” must be legitimized by public acceptance.

Having read the book I was flabbergasted by the fact that the country in which I studied International relations has such a long history of war crimes. If "The Shining City upon a Hill” and "the light of the world” does not end its hegemonic policy and become primus inter pares in the international system, it will be doomed to the fate of the Roman Empire.

I don't agree with his solution. However it is one way to deal with the FedFascists. I think that this method is for those who don't have a stomach for a fight, have the ability to flee, and probably haven't come to terms with who actually initiated the force that one is able to rightfully resist with equal or greater force. He also is fuzzy on the morality of voting. Saying that, he identifies the problems well and succinctly.

Towards A 21st Century Peasant Rising

Submitted by Jacob Dreizin

A French poet once wrote that the devil’s greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn’t exist. Funny that we can say the same thing about today’s American elite. Somehow, it is not polite, not PC to even acknowledge them as a class—much less to speak of them. We have a democracy, after all. We are all equal. Everyone has a vote. And if mere voting is not enough for you, you can shell out ten grand for a closed-door meeting with your fifteen-term career Congressman, like any other respectable person would do. Surely, there are no grounds for complaint.

Well, sorry but democracy means choice. In America, today, there is no real choice. The financial and corporate elites are funding both sides equally, and so they always come out ahead, no matter who is in charge. Otherwise, how is it that former Goldman Sachs Co-Chairman Robert Rubin was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, and then former Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson was Bush’s Treasury Secretary? (And let’s not forget Goldman alumn Larry Gensler at Obama’s CFTC). Is this what you call a two party system?

This is the same Goldman Sachs that uses millions of clueless 401k contributors as liquidity props to support its machine trading programs that buy and sell the same stock hundreds of times per second. For you simple voters out there, this means that your mutual funds stagnate while Goldman rakes in tens of millions of your dollars each and every working hour—while generally ending each day with almost the same portfolio as it started with in the morning.

How’s that for an unfair advantage over the little guy? Where is the government in this outrage? But really, who cares about high-frequency trading when we mortals have more important things to worry about, like Guantanamo, same-sex marriage, abortion, misuse of the word “teabagging”, having a “conversation about race”, and posing as an intellectual by parroting the latest Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman column?

Something else to consider: How is it that we were force-fed a highly-unpopular health care “reform” package that aims to pull down costs without allowing for cheaper drug imports or malpractice payout limits—which, as every Canadian, European, and Japanese bureaucrat knows, are the only proven methods for holding down medical costs? Does the answer have something to do with both parties being in the pocket of the seven-figure ambulance chasers and the ten-figure drug, err, pharmaceutical kingpins?

But again, why sweat this stuff when it is more fun to argue about Obama’s missing birth certificate and the political implications of the Avatar movie?

How is it that we have a politico-economic system in which the government’s explicitly stated goal is to entice people to take out loans for houses and cars they don’t even need? 150 million cars on the road and we must keep buying new ones? Millions of vacant housing units and we need to build new ones? Homes so full of Chinese junk that half of it goes into off-site storage, and we need to shop more? For whose benefit?

Ever heard of debt-slavery? How about feudalism? In terms of social organization, we are regressing to the Middle Ages. But don’t worry—just as in feudal times, someone will come out ahead, even further than they are already. Of course, we cannot talk about who that someone is. That would be impolitic. We are all equal, right? Only kooks and conspiracy theorists complain about something called “the elite”, accusing this class of deliberately snatching an ever-larger share of the blanket and deliberately sticking it to everyone else in systematic, organized fashion via the political process—even as our elected officials throw us a few crumbs to secure the popular vote and keep the masses from depressing the bottom line via looting and rioting.

Now you see why I laugh when people ask who I voted for. Am I supposed to vote for the guy who remembers his lines better, or the one I’d rather share a beer with? How about a party that actually cares about what I care about?

A party that will coerce the banks to pay higher-than-laughable interest on our savings accounts, just like we have to pay interest on our loans?

A party that understands that pushing underwater homeowners to renegotiate payments on principal they cannot afford—and will never pay off—serves no one’s interest but the banks’?

A party that will discourage the Federal Reserve from blowing bubbles on the stock market, so young 401k contributors can get some real dividends on their future shareholdings?

A party that believes in sound money without any “inflation targets”?

A party that will renounce its claim on our income when we live abroad, instead of treating us like Dred Scott, slaves no matter where we are located?

When that party is constituted, I will vote for it. Until then, this serf has jumped the plantation and taken to the hills. No debt slavery for me. From now on, don’t expect me to “consume” anything I can’t eat or blow my nose with. No late fees or sales tax receipts from this corner. I am taking all legal means to starve the elite and the government that works for it.

You can join me, or you can continue to live as cattle, or chattel if you prefer. Your choice. See you around.

What Could A Terrorist Look Like?

Oh yea..health-care for all...whoopee....more big government...yawn...brought to you THIS TIME by the more "liberal" wing of the same party of autocratic authoritarian ponerologists!!!

Just too make sure that all you protesters are properly categorized while you continue to "exercise your rights" to protest and spending all your time, energy and money on the the distracting focus of the "Heath-care Take Over" while the REAL usurpation & infringement upon our rights occurred Two weeks ago when Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman introduced a stunning piece of draconian diatribe euphemistically called the bipartisan Senate Bill 3081, or the 'Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010'. The bill is 'bipartisan' in the sense that it is the product of at least two different types of psychopathic personality disorder.

Constitutional expert, lawyer and author Glen Greenwald described the bill as: "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect - including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly says that they 'may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,' which everyone expects to last decades, at least."

Read More Here

How to complete the Census!

Complete instructions with video example, Click Image or Below!

Census Completion Instructions

To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW.

Hope all had a great St. Paddy's day! Took the week off but back ready to rumble. Mike Vanderboegh at The Sipsy Street Irregulars put this out Friday. I have often wondered why government is allowed to do all the bad stuff without consequences.
Often it is not just the politicians who usurp and infringe but the bureau-rats that do. Those entrenched unanswerable wretches who make the lives of millions miserable. Where do they do these jobs from? From gooberment buildings, offices, trucks, boats, planes, trains and automobiles!
Who owns those things? We the People.
We all have a part ownership in whatever the gooberment claims to own. Guess what all these things have in common? Yup, you got it, GLASS. Gooberment Glass. So, what if besides the politicians' glass (which is technically private property) the people decided to take back the glass from these other pieces of public property? It might be their way of saying, "Not with my glass you don't usurp, infringe and impose!?" Why should gooberment officious OAFicials be allowed to work in comfort, away from the elements while the people who are coerced to pay for gooberment comfort do with less or without?
Gooberments are now having a hard time making "ends meet." I just wonder what would happen if they started having to replace glass and how much it could impact the cost of local gooberment? Might they have to cut back? Maybe they will just board up the windows and the bureau-rats will have to work without natural light. How much does it cost to replace auto glass? Hmmmm.

To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW.

Sons of Liberty burn and sack the house of the Massachusetts lieutenant governor, Thomas Hutchinson.

To all free Americans who still hold dear the Founders' vision of a constitutional Republic and who wish to remain free --

Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act is within days of passage by devious means so corrupt and twisted that even members of her own party recoil in disgust.

This act will order all of us to play or pay, and if we do not wish to, we will be fined.

If we refuse to pay the fine out of principle, we will be jailed.

If we resist arrest, we will be killed.

They will send the Internal Revenue Service and other federal police to do this in thousands of small Wacos, if that is what it takes to force us to submit.

This arrogant elite pretends that this oppression is for our own good, while everyone else understands that this is about their selfish, insatiable appetite for control over our liberty, our money, our property and our lives.

The majority of the people have made it plain that they do not want this tyrannical transfer of power wrapped in soft lies.

It does not matter.

Pelosi and her ilk apparently do not understand that this Intolerable Act has some folks so angry that they are ready to resist their slow-rolling revolution against the Founders' Republic by force of arms. Why should they? For in the past seventy-five years of being pushed back continually from the free exercise of our God-given rights to life, liberty and property, WE HAVE NEVER SHOVED BACK. Rather, it was we, the law-abiding, who backed up each time, grumbling.

These are collectivists. They do not hear you grumble. They do not, it is apparent after the past year of town halls and Tea Parties and nose-diving opinion polls, hear you SHOUT. They certainly do not hear the soft "snik-snik" of cleaning rods being used on millions of rifle barrels in this country by people who have decided that their backs are to the wall, politics and the courts no longer are sufficient to the task of defending their liberties, and they must make their own arrangements.

The Imperial Democrats do not care what you think. They will not hear you. They are every bit as arrogant and isolated as King George the Third was from the liberty-loving American colonists in 1775.

And yet, if we are to avoid civil war, we must get their attention BEFORE the IRS thug parties descend upon us each in turn -- when we will be forced into dozens of defensive slaughters and then, to end it, forced yet again to call Pelosi and the other architects of this war upon their own people to final account.

We are the law-abiding of this country, yes. We always have been. But when the "law" is distorted and twisted into an unconstitutional means of oppression, backed by the entire weight of the federal Leviathan, it is not "law" at all, but mere illegitimate force.

John Locke said it best:

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."

When the law becomes a deadly tool of tyranny, it is no longer a good thing to be obedient and "law-abiding." It is, in fact, suicidal.

Yet, given the federal mandarins' willful ignorance of our very existence and conviction that we have no opinions that they are bound to respect, is there anything that can be done to prevent civil war?

Yes, there is.

We can emulate the Sons of Liberty of old.

We can break their windows.

These windows are not far away from where you are reading this right now. In virtually every city and county in this land, there is a local headquarters of Pelosi's party -- the Democrat party. These headquarters invariably have windows. When the Sons of Liberty wanted to express their opposition to the actions of the King's ministers, they would gather in front of the homes and offices of his tax-collectors and government officials in Boston or New York and break their windows. Glass was expensive. The King's minions were often the most well-to-do. The Sons of Liberty hit them in their pocketbooks.

Most importantly, however, was the message to the royal functionaries that there are personal consequences for oppressing your fellow citizens. The King is far away, and you are here, among us, the people.

This is the message that modern Sons of Liberty should get across to the Royalists of today. Now. Before we have to resort to rifles to resist their "well intentioned" tyranny.

This is not to say that the GOP (I refuse to call them "Republicans" for that is a misuse of the word) does not bear a large measure of responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in today. However, they have opposed this Intolerable Act. Yet, if we do a thorough job of breaking Democrat windows, I am sure that the GOP will profit from the example.

So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows.

Break them NOW.

Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats.

But BREAK THEM.

The time has come to take your life, your liberty and that of your children and grandchildren into your own two hands and ACT.

It is, after all, more humane than shooting them in self defense.

And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.

Sons of Liberty, this is your time.

Break their windows.

Break them NOW.

And Nancy, if this be sedition, if this be treason in your eyes, then make the most of it.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

If you agree with this message, spread it far and wide. The night is coming, and there are many windows to break. We'll need all the help we can muster.

LATER: There are those who feel that I have crossed a Rubicon here, and perhaps I have. I can only say that while wading the river, I met Nancy and her fellow jackasses coming the other way. I rather suspect they will make the opposite bank first. -- MBV

More Fascist Porcine Thuggery

By Steve Elliott in Growing, Medical, News

Monday, Mar. 15 2010 @ 11:31AM

​A Washington medical marijuana patient has died after being attacked by robbers who were after his pot crop. When local police were called to the scene, rather than investigating the assault, they started questioning mortally injured Michael Shane Howard about how many plants he had.

The police told Howard, who had just been clubbed in the head with a crowbar, that the medics would "probably just put a big bandage in his forehead and leave him at the house."

Two days after the attack, as Howard lay dying, the

police called Howard's good friend and roommate, Renee, and asked when she was going to go visit him in the hospital.

Then while Renee visited Howard at the hospital, she got a call from a friend telling her officers from the Pierce County, Washington Sheriff's Department were raiding her home.

When Renee rushed home, she was handcuffed and put in the back of a police car for 2-1/2 hours; officers told her it was because she lived in the same residence as Howard, even though his grow operation was outside in a shed.

"They took all his plants and equipment," Renee said. "It's so sickening that they are more worried about his meds than finding out who attacked him. His skull was bashed by a crowbar; it seems like they are not even trying to find out who did it. It makes me sick to my stomach!"

​ The investigating officers didn't even take the murder weapon into evidence until the morning after the attack, when they finally realized Mike was likely not going to make it.

When Howard had been taken to the hospital, it was revealed that his skull was cracked and his brain was bleeding. He lay in a coma for two days before dying.

According to patient advocacy organization Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC), Howard had been facing a constant and continued police harassment in the small town of Orting, Washington.

The local police, and Pierce County Sheriffs, would constantly pull Mike over because they knew him as the "medical marijuana activist" in town.

Ironically, local medical marijuana patient advocate Steve Sarich of CannaCare, who had spoken out forcefully in his attempt to get the word out about Howard's mistreatment at the hands of police, was himself shot in a home invasion and attempted medical marijuana robbery early Monday morning.

​"This has totally gotten out of hand," Sarich said three days before his own home was invaded. "Home invasions have been increasing and these crooks are getting more violent. I've had a home invasion and I can tell you that you won't sleep well after that."

"Pierce County law enforcement officers are out of control," Sarich said. "Apparently it's OK to try to kill someone in Pierce County -- as long as they're a medical marijuana patient."

"But then to raid Mike's garden while he's in the intensive care unit is just totally inexcusable," Sarich said.

Two or more would-be medical marijuana robbers broke into Sarich's Kirkland, Washington home and exchanged gunfire with Sarich. Sarich was injured but is expected to be fine; the home invader was taken to Harborview Medical Center.

King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart said medical marijuana was being grown in the house and was likely the motive for the robbery. "We are aware of the house," Urquhart said, reports Susan Gilmore of The Seattle Times.

The incident occurred just before 5 a.m. Monday, when Sarich, who was armed, confronted a robber, who was also armed. Both were shot.

A second suspect was found hitchhiking, said Urquhart, and was being questioned by authorities, while police were searching for two other supects.

"It seems that robbery has slowly replaced police raids as the number one patient fear in Washington State," said Ben Livingston, CDC spokesman.

"Violent thieves consider medical marijuana patients to be sitting targets, rarely able to readily defend themselves," Livingston said. "When patients do call police during or after a robbery, most often the police show up, take a report, and raid the patient."

"So, most medical marijuana patients have learned that calling the police for protection is a sure-fire way to have one's home raided," Livingston said. "What a fucked up Catch 22."

The Issues that Matter Most

These are still the central issues that matter most. This Mr. Rogers is a good neighbor.

Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous

Thanks to Dr. Dan for the heads up on this!

Sunday, March 7, 2010
Washington's Blog

Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous

Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous.

Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.

The list proves - once and for all - that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.

Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.

Senior intelligence officers:

• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).

• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

• 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
  

• The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."

• Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.

Congressmen:

• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)

• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11

• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
  

• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"

• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

9/11 Commissioners:

• The Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"
  

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
  

• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Other government officials:

• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence."

• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

• President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt"

• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

• Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government's version of 9/11.

One Term President!

Thanks to Bill St. Clair for the heads up on this link. Catchy tune! OTP, Y'all!

Freedom Shenanigan #44

Practice Agorism

Here is another piece of the resistance puzzle to play. Working "under-the-table" with others.
From George Donnelly's blog.


He's interested in voluntary alternatives to government, prosperity, mutual aid, firearms, self-sufficiency, direct action and resilient community. Check it out. So, what is "Agorism?"

Agorism is Just Trade Without Government

Agorism may sound complicated, but it’s just extra-governmental trade. Anyone can do it. In fact, you’re probably already doing some of it. Anyone can be successful at it. You can earn extra income, become self-employed and advance liberty all at the same time. What could be better? Get started today raising organic vegetables, baking pies, manufacturing solar panels, importing hemp and stevia or doing a million other productive things.

How to Start Doing Agorism

The million-dollar question – how do we start doing agorism? We’re convinced the right way out of this tyrannous morass is to starve the bastards out by trading outside of their purview. We’re giving up on voting in their sham elections. We’re tired of begging them for relief from their own tyranny. We’re locked out of their monopoly in-justice system. Now what? What is agorism and how do we get started doing it?

Create a Product

To approach the question as simply as possible, all you have to do is come up with a product – something people want, something you can produce better or cheaper than the state sector already does. Then sell it discreetly. The customer does not have to understand agorism; they don’t even have to be interested in liberty. Most importantly, you must not report the transaction to the state, you must not collect or pay taxes on it in any form and you must ignore state regulations if they interfere with the proper operation of your business. Absolutely do not even think about registering this effort with the state as some kind of corporation.

Not Strict Agorism

Now this isn’t really strict agorism. But it’s a good way to start thinking about it. It’s critical to start, even if your initial efforts are rough. As long as you initiate and sustain at some level your entrepreneurial ventures, they will bear fruit. And I’m not just talking about money. Your life will become more flexible. You’ll have more time for your friends, your family, your hobbies, your kids, you name it. You’ll stop worrying about paying your bills and have more time for yourself.

Don’t Have to Start a Business

If you’re not interested in starting your own business, you can still practice agorism! Just work for cash. Work under the table, don’t do any W-2 or 1099 jobs. The agorist entrepreneurs surely have many different kinds of jobs they need done. You can do them. Little commitment or risk but you still earn a tax-free wage.

Agorism Nationwide

There are agorists all over North America. Leverage that! Maybe you’ve got some great maple syrup. Trade that to folks in Georgia for some juicy organic peaches. You can make your own solar panels and hire agorists in other areas to market them for you. The possibilities are endless.

Disguise Yourself!

Worried about law enforcement interest? Disguise yourself! Create a barter network – there are tons of them so you’ll blend right in. Give it a vanilla name, nothing even remotely connected to liberty. Call it the Granite Barter Network. That doesn’t sound subversive at all!

Co-Opt the Statists

And that’s just how you want it because now that you’ve disguised agorism and created a paradigm anyone can plug into, you co-opt the minarchists and other statists into joining you. They spend so much time on counter-economics they forget all about voting and protesting. Since they’re spending more time with market anarchists, they radicalize. Soon it becomes easier to patronize the counter-economy than the official one. Certified agoristic products flood the shelves. Now we’re winning!

Also see 7 Ways to Keep Doing Agorism

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: www.Blogger.com or www.Wordpress.com.

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.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/department89.cfm

Read the rest at this link.

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:

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.

Larken Rose

http://www.larkenrose.com

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."

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!"

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

http://www.larkenrose.com