Main menu

My name is Larken Rose, and you are most likely here because you have either heard about my research into the federal income tax, or you have heard about my political (or anti-political) rantings and/or books. Because the two issues are really separate, distinct issues, they are dealt with separately. So choose which path below you want.

[ THE TAX THING ]     [ THE ANTI-POLITICAL THING ]

The Giffords Shooting: Unpleasant Truth



(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.



Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com