Commonlaw Copyright © 2010 My Private Audio - All Rights Reserved
back to top
Killing Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it wouldn't.

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

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

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

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

Larken Rose

To subscribe, send a blank message to 
To contact the list owner, send your message to    1302 Waugh Dr. #438  Houston, Texas  77019  USA

Larken Rose