Folks-This is Just Plain wrong. Nothing Else Can be Said That describes it.
- it’s a plain cut. (sickocean.wordpress.com)
Folks-This is Just Plain wrong. Nothing Else Can be Said That describes it.
Original Article: http://larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/2120.html
|Sunday, 08 January 2012 09:12|
Once upon a time (back in 1994), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum
pretended to believe in freedom. I’d even hold out the remote
possibility that to some extent, they really did almost believe in
freedom. So, assuming they weren’t completely lying from the
beginning (a big assumption), why are they being war-mongering,
control-freak fascists now?
Those who seek positions of power almost always do so because
they’re already narcissistic control freaks, who just can’t wait to
dominate and control their fellow man. Who else would want the job
of bossing everyone around? But let’s pretend that a good person,
with good intentions, ran for Congress, and won. What would happen?
Politicians get a lot of attention, a lot of money, a lot of fame,
a lot respect, and so on. They get called the “honorable” so-and-
so, and are treated like royalty. All of that can obviously make
someone conceited and self-centered, just as rock stars and movie
stars get that way. But why should it turn people into fascists?
Well, consider what the job of a politician entails. He and his
fellow politicians enact “laws,” which are then forcibly imposed
upon the rest of us by armed mercenaries known as “law
enforcement.” For all of their posturing, pontificating and
propagandizing, ultimately that’s all that politicians do: threaten
and control people. That’s their “job”–insane, evil, and horribly
destructive as it is. All of the attention they get, the money they
get, the power they get, comes from exercising their (imagined)
“authority” to control their fellow man, via the “political”
system. So how should we expect them to act when someone advocates
The reason fascists like Santorum and Gingrich (and Obama, for that
matter) have such tantrums against people who actually want freedom-
– -calling them indecent, extreme, dangerous, traitorous, fringe,
absurd, and so on–is because the underlying message to
politicians, from those who want freedom, is: “We don’t need you
and we don’t want you; go away and leave us alone.” It’s no more
complicated than that. Most of the time it has nothing to do with
principles, or actual philosophy. Fascists like Santorum and
Gingrich want perpetual war-mongering, the “war on drugs,” and the
rest of their megalomaniacal agendas, because, in their minds, it
makes them important. They have to exert violent control over their
fellow man (via “government”) or they become irrelevant, impotent
nothings. What would be the point of acquiring power, and then
doing nothing with it? What great historical “leader” ever said,
“Hey everybody, do whatever you want, and I won’t interfere”?
Even Ronald Reagan, who so often bashed “government,” ended up
pushing fascism forward through the “war on drugs.” Why? Because
damn near no one can have the “Ring of Power” in his clutches and
not use it. And to use it means forcibly dominating one’s fellow
man, even if the intentions for doing so are allegedly good. What
every politician wants to convey is, “I’m important, and great and
noble, because look how I use my power for good!” How well would
that work for them if they didn’t use the power at all? “Look at
me, I’m not doing anything!” Great, but who cares? What prestige,
glory and adoration (not to mention wealth) would that bring them?
Since the two-hundred-faced Mitt Romney changes his “beliefs” every
five minutes, let me use him as an example. What do you suppose
would happen if tomorrow he decided to have another philosophical
reinventing, and it went something like this?:
“If elected President, I will leave you alone. I won’t tell you
what to do or take your money. I will be irrelevant to your life.
You will have no reason to pay any attention to me, or care what
I’m doing. You’ll have every reason to forget my name, and forget
that I ever existed. So will everyone else. I will end up as an
unknown, ignored and irrelevant nothing.”
Is it any wonder that politicians so zealous despise the idea of
freedom, and those who espouse it? “Political” agendas are the
antithesis of leaving people alone. The interests of the
politicians are always diametrically opposed to the interests of
those they dominate, or their will wouldn’t have to be inflicted
via violence. When it comes to politics we remember those who
dramatically exercised their violent control over others (FDR,
Lincoln, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). We don’t remember those who did
little or nothing with their alleged “authority,” whether it was
because they didn’t want to or because their subjects didn’t let
them. Politicians hate the idea of freedom, because it renders them
completely powerless and unimportant.
Okay, now let me say what I know a lot of you are screaming by now:
“What about Ron Paul!?” If you ask me, Dr. Paul is a mutant freak–
and I mean that in a good way. How anyone could have walked the
halls of power for that long, and still have any integrity and
honesty, is a mystery to me. (Maybe Ron Paul is the reincarnation
of Frodo.) Ironically and bizarrely, he really has achieved fame
and adoration by NOT trying to control his fellow man, which is
almost unheard of in politics. In truth, as he points out, it is
the idea of freedom that people are getting excited about, and he
just happens to be a symbol of it right now. In many ways, it
really does seem as if he wants to acquire power in order to NOT
use it. How strange.
And you can see how much the establishment control freaks hate him
for it. When the politicians are out there screaming that it would
be the end of the world if we give up war-mongering, drug
prohibition, mass extortion, and all manner of other centralized,
authoritarian domination, I don’t think it’s even because they have
some deep philosophical belief in anything. I suspect this was true
of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the rest of them, too. Whatever
philosophical beliefs they had, or pretended to have, were
secondary to their own desire to feel noticed, important and adored
(or at least feared). They wanted attention, and they wanted to
feel powerful. That’s why Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and the rest
of them want to be elected, too. And it’s why they shouldn’t be.
Those who seek attention, fame, power and wealth by way of
dominating and subjugating their fellow man–and that includes
street thugs and politicians alike–are the last people in the
world who should ever be given a scrap of power over anyone else.
The next time you see a politician (left or right) babbling on
about his supposedly noble plans and agendas, keep in mind that his
agenda is all about forcibly controlling you, and that he knows
that if he stopped trying to control you–if he stopped playing the
game of “politics” and just left you alone–he would become an
unknown, powerless, irrelevant nothing.
Well, unless he decided to turn around and do something useful and
productive instead, but how often has a politician done that?
And that has transitioned into this which, given the whole voluntaryist view I understand and even, to a degree can sympathize with. (E)
Sunday, 05 February 2012 07:37Larken Rose
I am thrilled that Mitt Romney seems to be well on his way to
becoming the Republican presidential nominee. No, I’m not kidding.
I think it is the best possible outcome, far better than Ron Paul
Now, as anyone who knows me can guess, it’s not because I think
Romney is a great guy who will do great things. On the contrary, he
is the quintessential political whore: a delusional, narcissistic,
god-complex pathological liar who has no beliefs, values or
substance of his own. He is a slimy, dishonest prevaricator who
will say whatever he thinks will benefit himself, without the
slightest regard for truth or morality. He is a two-faced,
opportunistic con-man, a crook of the highest order, devoid of any
shred of principles or integrity.
How do you like my endorsement of Mitt so far?
So why would I want him to win? In fact, I don’t just want him to
be the Republican candidate; I want him to be the next President.
Yes, I’m absolutely serious.
But why? Because I think Puppet Romney would do an outstanding job
of finishing what Puppet Clinton, Puppet Bush, and Puppet Obama
have done so far. No, I’m not talking about their totalitarian
agenda. I’m talking about completely destroying the legitimacy of
the U.S. ruling class in the eyes of its victims, and in the eyes
of the rest of the world. If we want people to see through the
extortionistic, violent and fraudulent charade that is
“government,” what better way to do that than to have the ultimate
crooked, paid-off, self-serving empty suit megalomaniac occupying
the White house?
It took a while until the dupes who had so enthusiastically shouted
“change,” wetting themselves with joy at the coming of the
Obamessiah, started to notice that nothing changed. There are still
a few, but not many, who haven’t yet realized that the answer to
the question, “Can we use government to fix everything?” is a
resounding, “No, we can’t!” Obama’s emotion-exploiting, empty
manipulation eventually wore off, but it took a while for a lot of
people to accept reality. The guy is just Bush III.
Before that, devout Republican state-worshipers spent years going
to great lengths to try to avoid admitting that Bush II was a big-
government, collectivist control freak. But most of them now
Well, who would have any doubt about Romney? Who would imagine for
a moment that the guy has an honest bone in his body, or that he
believes in anything at all, other than his own wealth, power and
glory? His flip-flopping is downright legendary, to a hilarious
degree. If you want to help people see through the facade of
“government,” to realize that it’s nothing but a gang of liars and
crooks plundering and enslaving mankind for its own benefit, then
Mitt is your man!
In contrast, if Ron Paul became President, it would create among
many a renewed, but completely misguided hope in the possibility of
“politics” and “working within the system” achieving freedom,
despite the fact that it has never happened in the history of the
world. With Dr. Paul in office, people might start respecting the
presidency again, and that is not a good thing. To put it another
way, don’t let Ron Paul ruin what so many politicians have spent
decades accomplishing–namely, demolishing any imagined credibility
or legitimacy the gang of crooks in Washington ever had.
The shortest path from where we are today, to an actually free
society, starts with Mitt Romney as President. Now there’s an
awesome sentence to take out of context, huh? But it’s true. If you
want state worship and blind faith in “government” to crumble, you
should try to put the biggest elitist buffoon, the most obviously
corrupt liar possible, on the throne. And Mitt Romney sure fits
that bill! Go Mitt!
I have recently come into Mr. Rose’s writings, videos etc and given that he was once a political prisoner of these United States that alone gives him some credibility. Check him out if you get a moment. (E)
WRITTEN BY THOMAS L. KNAPP
Note that McCain doesn’t argue that the campaign is unusually vitriolic. He’s smarter than that; thus far it has actually been quite pedestrian.
bombshell … none of these hold a candle to past negative campaigning.
In the 1800 campaign — America’s first competitive presidential election — Thomas Jefferson’s SuperPAC equivalents referred to John Adams as a “hideous hermaphroditical character;” in reply, Adams’s supporters described Jefferson as “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
It’s pretty much gone downhill from there.
In 2000, George W. Bush’s operatives spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain — a former prisoner of war in Vietnam — might be a “Manchurian candidate,” and that his adopted daughter (of Bangladeshi
ancestry) was actually an out-of-wedlock “love child” from an affair with an African-American woman.
In 2008, we learned that Barack Obama not only “pals around with terrorists,” but is in actuality a Kenyan-born Muslim Communist, smuggled into the US and his birth records doctored so that he could someday destroy the United States from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that Sarah Palin faked her own pregnancy. And that Mitt Romney was a robot. OK, that last one may be true. But anyway …
Negative campaigning is part and parcel of American politics for three reasons.
The first is that there’s a lot at stake. Even the least fiscally demanding of the Republican candidates, US Representative Ron Paul, only wants to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget. That means he’s running for executive control of $2.7 trillion, or more than $8,500 to be annually seized from each man, woman and child in the United States through taxation, inflation or debt assignation. I’ve seen customers and cashiers say nasty things about each other over a 39 cent discrepancy in the grocery checkout line. We’re not talking chump change here.
The second is that politicians have nothing to offer the public but fear. They can’t give you anything they haven’t first taken from you.
In the aggregate, that is: Yes, some pay more than others and some get less, but that’s the whole point, see? The pivotal exercise in electoral politics is convincing you that I’ll take something from Pete and give it to you, while that other guy — the big meanie who cheats on his wife, smokes crack on the campaign bus, and may actually be a secret Rwandan! — will take something from you and give it to Pete. Letting Pete keep his stuff and you yours is explicitly off the table. The game’s rigged that way from the start.
The third reason is that negative campaigning works. You — I’m speaking to voters here, and once again in the aggregate — say you don’t like it, but your voting patterns prove you respond to it exactly as its practitioners intend. “Shining city on a hill” and all that makes for nice stump speech filler, but it’s “keep your sheep locked up when my opponent’s around” that moves the poll results.
There’s only one way to get past negative campaigning, and that’s getting past campaigning itself. Getting past politics. Lowering the stakes by telling those boobs on the stage that your $8,500+ is yours, not theirs. That they can’t have it. That you don’t need them.
That happens to be the position of the non-voting American majority.
57% of Americans did not cast votes in the 2008 presidential election.
They withheld their consent to be ruled by the lying, thieving, fearmongering few. In 2012, let’s join them in their healthy rejection of politics.
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).
By THOMAS L. KNAPP, GUEST COLUMNIST Hernando Today Published: December 13, 2011
“Remember there was no Palestine as a state,” says Newt Gingrich, current front-runner for the Republican Party’s U.S. presidential nomination (“Gingrich Describes Palestinian People as ‘Invented,'” Fox News, Dec. 10). “It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people …”
First, credit where credit is due: Gingrich is right.
Throughout recorded history, the region known as Palestine has been a football kicked between empires (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, various Caliphates, the Ottomans), its inhabitants usually denied anything resembling a “national identity.”
That began to change in the early 20th century. Local Arab leaders, responding to the succeeding waves of Jewish aliyah (“ascent,” return to their historic home) and hoping to cut a new state out of the territory instead of acquiescing in absorption by existing Arab regimes, attempted to counterpose a Palestinian national identity to incipient Israel.
Had those existing Arab regimes succeeded in quashing the new Jewish state, that’s likely the last we’d have heard of “Palestinians” (except in the sense in which the term was used prior to 1948 – referring to Jews born in the region). Those Arabs would have become Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians whether they liked it or not, and that would have settled the question for a long, long time.
It was Israel’s victory in the 1948 war which allowed a Palestinian national identity to emerge and harden in exile, nurtured by Arab “leaders” who’d missed their chance to absorb and crush that identity and now found it a useful propaganda instrument.
All collective identities of this sort are invented, not least that of Israel, which its citizens self-assembled in less than half a century, operating from the dream of Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl.
“Americans” were British colonists seeking “the rights of Englishmen” until, in the second year of their revolution, Thomas Paine convinced them to invent themselves differently.
Germany and Italy didn’t come into existence as cohesive nations until they were forcibly united by men like Bismarck and Garibaldi in the 19th century.
Look at any of the imaginary lines drawn on the ground by politicians around the world –”borders” – and you’ll find that those lines started with invented identities, upon which power-seekers piggybacked their pretensions. Gandhi’s India and Jinnah’s Pakistan, Bolivar’s Gran Colombia – you name it. Nations invent themselves constantly and spontaneously, after which they’re boxed in and drained of their inventive energy by their own emerging political classes.
To condemn Gingrich for taking notice of this fact is to both miss his point and gloss over his real failure of imagination and character.
Minimized in most accounts of his statement is the fact that Gingrich supports adding yet another Westphalian nation-state – based, like all such states, on parasitic exploitation of invented identity – to the map.
That parasitic exploitation, statism, is no solution to social ills.
In fact, it exacerbates those ills and prevents those who identify with each other from finding real solutions.
Political government inhibits the constant, natural process of invention and re-invention, attempting to freeze social and ethnic identities in place and channel their energy for the benefit of parasites. Parasites, like, in a word, Gingrich.
The first step toward peace – in Palestine as everywhere else – is abolition of the state.
I have mostly stayed away from saying anything disparaging about the other candidates. I am strongly in favor of Ron Paul though I know that there is no political solution to our problems in this nation. We are spiritually corrupt and we desperately need repentance. Yehovah is drawing people to himself through his son Yahshua.
Still, if there is anything that can be done politically Ron Paul is probably as close to the best solution out there. Newt Gingrich, as this video shows, has consistently been more concerned with his own pocket than the interests of the American people.-E