 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 660, March 4, 2012 The government has spent the last twenty years setting everything in place so it can denounce any member of the Productive Class as a "terrorist" and act acordingly.
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise I've been too busy for a while to pay much attention to the news. When I do, it's just the same old garbage, cycled and recycled, and rerecycled. For that reason, I didn't hear or see much about the shooting of some high school "children" near Cleveland, Ohio last week. Allegedly, some other kid named T.J. Lane, disgruntled by bullies—the usual excuse these days for casting off the last remnants of civilization—or by his girlfriend being lured away from him (it depends on who you listen to), took an autopistol he had stolen to school (an institution itself totally funded by theft at gunpoint) and opened up inside the cafeteria. So far, I've also successfully avoided hearing or seeing any of the round-heeled* media, wringing their hands or asking each other—purely rhetorically; these vermin have no answers to this or any other question—who or what really killed all of those helpless, lovely "children". Believe me, I've heard it all before and I'm no longer interested. But despite the phony answers, some real questions remain. Is the shooter, himself, to blame? Certainly. Nobody forced him to do it. He stole somebody's weapon, took aim, and pulled the trigger all by himself. How about his parents? Should they have brought him up better? It's possible they're partly responsible. I'd have to know more. But in general, there comes a time, regardless of what your parents were like, when you must take charge—and responsibility—for your own actions. What about the public school system, that vicious authoritarian regime under which he, like many of the rest of us, was forced to suffer? Absolutely. Permit me to illustrate with yet another recent event. It is in Canada that we find an answer we can begin work with, although the problem, as you'll soon recognize, is much more widely-spread than that. There, in Kitchener, Ontario, a four-year-old girl (I remember my own daughter at four, and that makes this entire episode even more surrealistic that it seemed to begin with) drew a picture of a gun at school—whereupon her teachers, the administrators, and the local blue-clad thugs went what can only be described as "batshit crazy", and wound up strip-searching and arresting the girl's father. Later on—being a Canadian and also too dumb to live—he voluntarily and idiotically allowed these agents of cultural genocide to search his home. Now in any school I'd voluntarily associate with (my daughter never set foot in any public school and shot her first gun at age 2 1/2), this punk would have raised his weapon in the cafeteria and been gunned down immediately by 47 schoolmates and a handful of teachers. It's exactly the same safety "system" that would have saved the 9/11 airliners. Instead, thanks to exercises in insanity like the one in Canada, kids are not only denied the means of self-defense, they're punished harshly—along with their parents, it appears—for even thinking about them. I've said it before: to eliminate guns, you must first eliminate knowledge of guns; to eliminate knowledge of guns, you have to eliminate all knowledge. Which pretty much explains the public schools. Even if this stupidity worked the way the establishment's victim disarmers want it to (it actually seems to have had the reverse effect—when I was grade school, little girls all drew pictures of horses, which means the policy has only turned guns into objects of fascination for both sexes—in what possible way could the resulting culture of harmlessness have made those kids in the cafeteria any safer? Now compare this pacifism being violently imposed on our children and grandchildren at the "peasant" level, with the culture of amoral, bloody-handed butchery that suffuses the upper political echelon of society. State it bluntly: did Internet newsman Andrew Breitbart die of natural causes at age 43 (I was 47 when I had my first heart attack) or was he murdered by the Obama Administration because he was about to embarrass it? Someone suggested that if the embarrassing material is released, that means his death was inadvertent, whereas if it doesn't, we must draw another conclusion. But we'll almost certainly never know. However what's even more important—to everyone but the guy's poor family—is that we are all living now in a society which has been sufficiently decivilized by those who originally swore to protect and defend it, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that asking such questions about Breitbart's (or anybody's) death is no longer unreasonable. Regard the scene in its full ugliness: the American government routinely murders people in foreign lands whenever the whim catches it. Its illegal blockade of Iraq caused the death of 500,000 childen due to lack of food and medicine, and the repulsive Madeline Albright, the Secretary of State at the time, cheerfully declared "It was worth it". At the same time, the government has spent the last twenty years setting everything in place—most lately with the National Defense Authorization Act and what amounts to an outright ban on public protest—so it can denounce any member of the Productive Class as a "terrorist" and act acordingly. Federal concentration camps are up and running. Did we think they wouldn't use that power once they claimed it? But getting back to he death of Andrew Breitbart, exactly what else are we to conclude once the nation's leader—almost certainly an illegal immigrant himself, and a criminal on many other counts, as well—asserts a right that he and his lawyers imagine he possesses to have any American secretly kidnapped, incarcerated, tortured, and rdered? All without benefit of due process of law. What was that about, if not individuals like Andrew Breitbart? What else have the past twenty years been about, if not looking for excuses to incite violence against ordinary, decent, productive Americans? There has to be a price to pay for having deliberately established such a climate of fear in this once-great, once-free civilization, a stringent, Draconian penalty, under due process, for generating the miasma of state terrorism we're all forced to breathe in today. And, indeed, there is. Such a law is already in place and only wants enforcement by someone with the guts, balls, spine, and brains to do it. That law, Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 241 and 242, decrees punishments for those within the government or outside of it, convicted of depriving individuals of their rights "under color of law"—which in this case means pretending to have the Constitutional authority to override the Bill of Rights when such an authority doesn't exist. The law even provides for a death penalty. Imagine a great court assembling in a little town in Pennsylvania, chosen for its name: Nuremberg. Now imagine a new prison, windowless, featureless, two hundred stories tall, on the island of Alcatraz, all of it dedicated to solitary confinement reserved for politicians, bureaucrats, and cops guilty of violating Title 18, Sections 241 and 242. Nuremberg II. Alcatraz II. Good bumper stickers. Then let thugs everywhere across the land know that this is what their future consists of, if they don't let us all get on with our own.
Was that worth reading?
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next