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.


Giffords: Reality Turned Inside-Out

The ongoing discussion of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords makes
an outstanding example of the utter insanity and profound hypocrisy
which the belief in "government" creates. Specifically, nearly all
the related discussions about violence have turned reality upside-
down, backwards, and inside out.

Leftists are having conniption fits about the political ads by
Sarah Palin, showing Giffords in "crosshairs," screaming that that
counts as advocating violence. There are several ways in which this
complaint is completely batty.

1) Leftist constantly advocate violence. "Taxation," as one
example, is the forced confiscation of wealth backed by the threat
of violence. Those who timidly cooperate with the mere threat never
see the violence in their face, but take it from someone who has
had his home forcibly invaded by armed IRS agents: "taxation" is
backed by men with GUNS, who are quite willing to use VIOLENCE to
get their way. But when all those leftists who support the very
system of "taxation" that resulted not only in an armed invasion of
my home, but in me being caged for a year, whine about a stupid
political ad, the level of hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.

2) Right-wing statists, like Sarah Palin, also constantly advocate
violence. Gabrielle Giffords herself was part of the federal war-
mongering committee, which constantly advocates a double-dose of
violence: violence used to force all Americans, including
pacifists, to fund overt violence overseas via "taxes." Bizarrely,
instead of being criticized for that--instead of being taken to
task for advocating aggression against hundreds of millions of
Americans AND the murder of lots of foreigners--Sarah Palin is
being attacked for a stupid campaign ad. Holy smokes, people! Could
your priorities and perspectives possibly be any more screwed up?!

3) There is a moral difference between aggressive force--initiating
violence against someone who hasn't threatened or harmed anyone--
and using defensive force. The vast majority of "government"
violence, advocated by the "left" and the "right," is unjustified,
immoral AGGRESSIVE force. But again, statists from both sides,
being believers in the cult of "government," don't think it counts
as violence, because in their eyes, it's not being committed by
PEOPLE, but by the mystical, magical, superhuman entity known as
"government." And most people imagine that it has the right to do
things which mere mortals do not.

Defensive force, even deadly force if necessary, is both moral and
justified. And whether it's "legal" or not makes no difference.
What this means is that, when the thugs wearing the label of
"government" commit aggression, resisting them by any means
necessary is absolutely justified. As a practical matter, I would
almost always advise against it, because resistors will almost
always be caged, and often killed, for daring to resist "legal"
aggression. But whether it's a good idea in practical terms (which
it usually isn't), and whether it's moral (which it is), are
different issues.

The end result is that I'm watching the insane national argument
over the Giffords shootings, as one who believes that defensive
force--even if "illegal" and even if used against "law enforcers"--
is justified. Meanwhile, both groups of people who are constantly
advocating the use of AGGRESSIVE violence are arguing over
something that was NOT an example of advocating violence (political
rhetoric and ads). It's just too weird to take.

Gabrielle Giffords herself was directly involved in exerting
aggressive violence, overseas and here, against non-violent people,
via war-mongering, "taxation," forcibly interfering with the
medical industry, and so on. She was not an innocent. She was an
advocate of widespread, perpetual, forcible aggression. But being a
devout statist, I'm guessing that she truly believed that the
violence she was helping to commit DIDN'T COUNT as violence,
because it was called "law," and done in the name of "authority."
That's a perfect example of what The Most Dangerous Superstition
leads to: basically good people do evil things, and don't even

So one set of people who CONSTANTLY ADVOCATE VIOLENCE (Democrats)
are complaining about another set of people who CONSTANTLY ADVOCATE
VIOLENCE (Republicans), based on something that is NOT the advocacy
of violence (the political ads). It's like one gang of thieves
criticizing another gang of thieves for committing a crime they
didn't actually commit. How weird can it get? Statists, "left" and
"right," advocate constant, wide-spread violence against MILLIONS
of people, but they genuinely imagine, having been indoctrinated
into state-worship, that it doesn't COUNT as violence because it is
being done by the deity called "government," which they imagine to
be EXEMPT from human morality.

As if that wasn't looney enough, there has also been the
predictable clamor of people who say that the Gifford shooting
proves that we need more "gun control." The belief in "authority"
allows otherwise rational people to openly declare that they abhor
violence, while saying they want guns outlawed. They fail to notice
to glaring contradiction therein.

Every "law" ("gun control" or otherwise) is not a suggestion, or a
request. It is a threat of VIOLENCE, which will be enforced by men
with GUNS. Putting it in question form makes "gun control"
advocates squirm: If I keep a firearm even when it's "illegal" to
do so (and I would), so that I can protect my family from
aggressors, what do you "gun control" proponents advocate be done
to me if I get caught? Do you advocate that someone give me a stern
talking to? Do you advocate that people ask me nicely to disarm
myself? Or do you advocate that I be forcibly captured and put in a
cage? And if I resist that--which I would--do you advocate that I
be killed? If you don't mind, please don't advocate that I be
murdered, while claiming that you abhor violence. And don't
advocate someone shooting me, while saying you hate gun violence.
Doing so is both immoral and insane.

"Gun control" is VIOLENCE enforced with GUNS. In other words, so-
called "gun control" IS GUN VIOLENCE. Ask a Branch Davidian about
this, if you can find one who the feds haven't murdered yet. Or ask
Randy Weaver. Ask him how compassionate and peace-loving "gun
control" is. If you don't know what I'm talking about, turn off
your statist-controlled TV long enough to do an internet search,
and see "gun control" in action.

To be blunt, the opinions of the average American regarding
morality, violence and justice are warped and twisted to the point
of being about as backward as they could possibly be. The good news
is that this is NOT the result of individual stupidity or malice.
It is the result of life-long indoctrination into the cult of
"government." If you love humanity, and consider yourself peace-
loving, I DARE you to read "The Most Dangerous Superstition." You
may find that your good intentions and noble virtues are being used
against you, to the extreme detriment of humanity. You may find
that all the pain and suffering that you see in the world, all the
injustice you want to end, is feeding off of you. If that were the
case, would you want to know? Or would you rather cling to whatever
you already believe, regardless of the harm it may be doing to
others? Again, I DARE you to read the book.


Larken Rose