(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/16/2007)
Dear Subscriber,
Wow, the fascist apologists in the media, pretending to be
conservatives, are shifting into high gear with their statist
propaganda. The tyrant-approved message today is one which my book,
"How To Be a Successful Tyrant," specifically talks about: the
notion that the government is allowed to use violence however it
pleases, but it is unforgivable for the peasants to even vaguely
suggest forcible resistance.
Various state-worshippers such as Glen Beck have decided to paint
Ron Paul supporters as terrorists. And it's pretty darn obvious
that spreading this lie is a very premeditated, calculated move by
the tyrant mouthpieces. The following link will give you a story
and videos all about it:
http://tinyurl.com/yt8937Please allow me to state the bleeding obvious: Ron Paul is trying
to win an ELECTION, and the people who support his campaign are
also trying to make that happen. He is trying to use the system to
achieve freedom. (I hate to be a party-pooper, but personally, I
think that in the long run, that is utterly impossible.) The fact
that some of his supporters organized a funding campaign on
November 5th--the day Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament--
doesn't make them terrorists.
But one line from Glen Beck's smear piece made it sound like he's
been reading my book. Basically, he acknowledged that the
"government" is corrupt, doesn't do what the people want, etc., but
followed that up by saying that us peasants are allowed to TALK
about that, but only a nasty "terrorist" would ever use VIOLENCE to
resist it. (I guess that would include Jefferson, Washington, etc.)
What do you think the feds do every DAY? They use violence for
EVERYTHING they do. Who made up the rule that it's okay for fascist
thugs to use violence, but it's not okay for their victims to
forcibly resist them? For example, I believe that when the federal
thugs were doing their armed robbery stunt of the Liberty Dollar
offices recently, it would have been perfectly justifiable to use
whatever amount of force, including deadly force, necessary to
repel the thieves. Yes, I'm saying that gunning down the FBI and
Secret Service fascists would have been ABSOLUTELY MORALLY
JUSTIFIED.
Of course, it would also be really dang dangerous, and in the long
run I can't imagine it turning out well for those who resisted. So
I'm not saying they should have, but I AM saying that they had
every right to. Yes, I realize that's an "extremist" viewpoint,
which, in a land of obedient pansies, makes most people wet their
pants. Too bad. And being someone who DOES believe that forcible
resistance to tyranny is a good thing, I am in a position to tell
you that that is NOT what the Ron Paul campaign is advocating.
Rather than writing it all over again, allow me to quote myself.
The following is an excerpt from "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" (
http://www.tyrantbook.com ). Remember, the book is written as if it
is addressing aspiring tyrants. Read it, and see how good a job
Glen Beck and the other statist apologists are doing following the
tyrant blueprint.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com- ------------< begin quote >--------------
Avoiding Revolution
Most people, whether due to being good or just being scared, tend
to avoid violent conflicts. They do not want to get hurt or
killed, but they also do not want to hurt someone else unless
absolutely necessary. As a result, you will be able to stomp on
them a lot before any significant number of them will even consider
resisting you by force. Again, as the Declaration of Independence
explains, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
However, while the peasants will tolerate a lot, there are limits
to their patience. But those limits can be all but eliminated
simply by giving them some sort of outlet (completely ineffectual,
of course) for their displeasure with you and your regime. As long
as there is some system of "checks and balances" whereby the
peasants can appeal to different levels and agencies of your
regime, they will almost never resort to violence. "You have to
work within the system." That should be your mantra, and it will
quickly be echoed by most of the peasants. Of course, working
within your "system" is never going to get the peasants freedom or
justice, but even giving them the illusion of "due process" and
some form of appeal will keep most of them forever banging their
heads against a bureaucratic wall instead of actually resisting
you.
Force Is Uncivilized
There are certain fundamental assumptions that should be constantly
pounded into the heads of the peasants. Perhaps the most important
is this: "you can think whatever you want, but only a truly
despicable scofflaw would ever consider forcibly resisting the
commands of authority." If the peasants bicker, debate and even
complain, it doesn't matter much if at the end of the day they do
as they're told. If you can only teach your peasants one message,
let it be this: breaking the law is uncivilized. (Of course, by
"the law" is meant what you tell them to do.)
Disobedience, even completely passive resistance, can be (and
should be) characterized as "violence." Most people are so
indoctrinated into the concept of "authority" that they will accept
even truly bizarre messages, such as "those darn rebels caused the
violence [of your enforcers shooting them] because they refused to
comply with the law." Of course, the force used by your thugs is
always portrayed as "enforcing the law," whereas any resistance (by
force or not) should be characterized as the "lawless acts of
violent rebels."
Oddly, propaganda which denigrates open resistance to tyranny even
works in a country that was built upon the idea that when a
government becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of the
people, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government" (as stated in the Declaration of Independence).
"The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and
oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and
happiness of mankind." [New Hampshire Constitution]
If you even pretend to have good intentions, and even pretend to
have some sort of "due process" (no matter how shoddy or unjust) to
which the peasants can appeal, only a very few will ever have the
courage and intellectual confidence to resist you by force, and
those can usually be crushed fairly easily.
Aversion to Force
It is highly recommended that you train your peasants to abhor any
use of force, whether against you or someone else. If they see the
use of force as inherently bad regardless of the situation, they
will be easily controlled. In short, you should try to "sissify"
the peasants, so that they consider it lowly, uncivilized, and
crude even to know how to use force against someone else, whether
with fists or firearms. Spread the message: "Violence is never the
answer."
(Of course, history shows that violence is almost always the only
successful "answer" to tyranny. But if your peasants are trained
to despise any such "uncivilized" behavior as being beneath them,
then their resistance to your designs will, at most, consist of
whiny complaints. And whiny complaints never ended a tyrannical
regime.)
"Our goal is to make the enemy passive." [Mao Tse-Tung]
There are three inherent human traits which can be used to train
your peasants to have a strong aversion to the use of force: 1)
their morality; 2) their immaturity, and 3) their cowardice.
Good people hesitate to use violence, as they believe that ideally
people should interact voluntarily. This morality, already held by
most of your subjects, makes them abhor the use of force except in
certain situations (usually involving self-defense). The trick is
to extend their already-existing moral belief to cover all uses of
force, by lumping together all force as "evil violence," regardless
of the context.
Most people don't want to face the harsh reality of having to take
care of themselves, and being responsible for their own actions.
In other words, they don't want to grow up. When they get old
enough, they will want to replace their parents with a new savior
and protector: "government" (you). It is easy to use this
immaturity against the peasants by convincing them that you, by way
of your "law enforcers," will protect them, so they don't need to
protect themselves (i.e., they don't ever need to use force
themselves). The success of this ploy is shown by how many
peasants today opine: "Only the police should have guns!"
Finally, peasants scare easily. If they see the world as full of
big, mean, nasty, violent, evil people, they will be scared of the
thought that they are the ones who have to do something about it.
Of course, logic dictates that if the good people will not use
force to stop the evil people (who themselves do not hesitate to
use force), then the "bad guys" win. Nonetheless, the cowardice of
the peasants can easily persuade them to give up any hope of their
being the ones who must use justified force to "save the day."
They would much rather it was someone else's job.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of
Liberty." [Thomas Jefferson]
These factors together, pushed by a heavy, constant dose of anti-
force propaganda, can train the peasants to have the desired
attitude: "I would never own a gun! I am civilized, compassionate,
and progressive. I would rather die than use violence!" And when
they would rather die than forcibly resist tyranny, they are the
perfect subjects to enslave.
(A fact that seems lost on the peasants is that everything you do
as "authority," every command you give, is backed by the ability
and willingness to use force. The "penalty" for disobedience may
only be a "fine," but the penalty for not paying the fine is taking
the peasant's property by force, and the penalty for resisting such
confiscation is being put into a cage, and the penalty for
resisting being put into a cage is getting shot. Every command,
however miniscule, can and will be escalated to deadly force if the
peasant doesn't comply. Nonetheless, the peasants will almost
never use the term "violence" to describe what your enforcers do on
a daily basis.)
