Transcript of Adam Kokesh Interview with Penny Freeman About Ron Paul

The following is a transcript of the 6/8/12 Adam vs The Man interview with Penny Freeman. The original video is still available for viewing, and an audio version is available as a free downloadable podcast. Alterations have been made to correct for grammar and speech disfluency; any mistakes are solely the fault of this humble blogger.

 

Penny Freeman, former staffer in tears over Ron Paul betrayals

 

Penny Freeman: I know that there are members of the Paul family that call Jesse Benton, “the idiot-in-law.” I know that there are members of the Paul family who were amazed and disheartened by the endorsement of Ted Cruz. I know there are members of the campaign staff that are disgruntled and amazed that so much power and influence has been concentrated into one human being. I know that the people of District 14 have been left floundering with two neocon Establishment candidates to replace Ron Paul. There’s just a lot of things going on that you really can’t know how much Ron knows. I hope, and I pray, that he knows very little about this, because the implications of him knowing are not good.

Adam Kokesh: What are they?

Penny Freeman: The implications are that he has been participating in a scam of his supporters.

Adam Kokesh: Do you think that is true? Do you think that he was never running to win and was deliberately deceptive in that, and has allowed all of this to go on?

Penny Freeman: *sobs* I don’t know. I know that his portfolio has grown.

Adam Kokesh: Well, that really is the million dollar question, isn’t it?

Penny Freeman: Yes, it is.

 

[Download PDF]

Ron Paul, Inc. is Scamming Libertarians…Again

Apparently, it would seem to be the case that Ron Paul, Inc. is still trying to jip the Ron Paul Refugees out of what relatively few Federal Reserve Notes they were lucky enough to acquire (as if completely scamming over $40,000,000 from them this past electoral cycle wasn’t enough). Due to Dr. Paul’s last upsurge of popularity amongst political dissidents by calling the US Congress a bunch of “psychopathic authoritarians” in his farewell speech on the House floor, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is now selling the transcript of that speech for $2.95. What the hell gives!?

 

 

Look, the Mises Institute has done some terrific work teaching anyone who is willing to learn about the Austrian school of economics, but the sycophantic “bromance” ramblings of Lew Rockwell and Walter Block has got to stop! The utter lies about the “success” of their Messiah is getting rather old, and is tarnishing the otherwise noteworthy reputation of the Mises Institute. I am so sick and tired of those do-nothing, gutless ivory-tower “free-market” academics who endlessly proselytize about freedom, and think that by itself is going to eventually solve the incessant problem of tyranny.

Railing against the Federal Reserve for years on end isn’t going to bring about its abolishment, and will certainly not help you when one of those damn flatfoots coercively pulls you over for a “traffic stop.” Seriously, isn’t it about time that libertarians had some good role models who weren’t either Messiahs or Patriot Rockstars? How about what Samuel Konkin, Larken Rose, or even Gary Hunt have been advocating? Why can’t the Rothbardians who claim to hate the State seriously contemplate for more than two minutes about successfully working outside the mainline political process? For goodness sakes, Murray Rothbard the “anarchist” was one of the biggest proponents of the Libertarian Party! Is it me, or I am expecting too much when it comes to consistency on a fairly basic level, especially by insisting that there cannot be a divorce between ends and means?

Why won’t the Patriot Rockstars within the Carnival of Distractions allow serious (and very badly needed) discussions about the necessity of working completely outside of the Establishment‘s authoritarian system of oppression and control? Why has SEK3 been ignored for over 20 years? Why has Mr. Rose been treated horrendously when he tried to broach the issue of under what conditions should any of us shoot a cop? Why does everyone else except Gary Hunt absolutely refuse to even propose a sound business plan (of sorts) to restore constitutional government?

I think the real entrepreneurs and non-corporate businessmen of the actual free-market need to teach a lesson to whichever joker at the Mises Institute thought it was a sound decision to exploitatively sell this frankly worthless speech (by none other than an agent of the State, I may add). Let’s show these otherwise well-meaning closeted economists just how commercial dynamics truly work in the marketplace of values, and we can start by showing consumers of alternative media that the an exact transcript of that speech is available for free (alternatively, for the non-literary inclined, you watch the entire speech instead).

The Left, the Right, & the State

Many Americans, to this very day, still suffer under the effects of The Left-Right Paradigm. Falsely believing that either wing of the same bird of prey is going to secure your Liberty for you is nothing other than a recipe for disaster. Any and all efforts to break people out of this false dichotomy should be greatly encouraged.

 

 

Neither the so-called “Left” nor “Right” understand actual market dynamics. The liberal statists want the welfare state as opposed to the conservative statists who gleefully support the warfare state. Put another way, the authoritarian communists think that the coercive redistribution of wealth is somehow “egalitarian,” and the totalitarian fascists turn a complete blind eye to the broken window fallacy (that is, they mistakenly believe that wealth can be created from destruction). Both agree on maintaining the surveillance police state apparatus, the imperialistic military adventures abroad, and most egregiously of all, the viability of central banking. Yet other political dissidents still wonder why I don’t vote anymore, as if the mounting evidence of how the Establishment operates isn’t reason enough.

Government fails miserably in everything that it claims to perform, even those functions that it uses as the justification for its very existence! When it comes to the provision of those goods and services for the purposes of arbitration, security, and disaster relief, the market steps in and supplies those customer demands. Sadly, many people, including even several different kinds of dissidents, still think that human beings need to be coerced into using particular kinds of goods and services, even if they don’t work at all.

Unfortunately, the author has his head up his ass regarding the environment. Rockwell unfairly characterized free-market environmentalists as implicitly accepting a definition of the “environment” as “anything but man.” He used the Objectivist position here, which is the notion that since mankind is at the pinnacle of the Systeme Naturale, the interests of humans automatically and permanently outweigh the interests of the lower orders of non-human animals, plants, and so forth; he goes on to claim that environmentalism is a secular doctrine used by the State as a pseudo-justification for their coercive edicts. While it is true that government can and has manipulated genuine reasons for its own ends, Rockwell’s phony dichotomy between “civilization” and “nature” is intellectually dishonest. What he should have said is what Michael Badnarik mentioned back in 2004:

 

“The free market is probably the best way to handle any problem. Government has power, and when you allow the government power to influence a situation, there is going to be corruption. If we have scientists who are out there doing studies on global warming and we get that information to the general public, once again, the free market will allow us to control the situation. Nobody wants to live in a place where the ice caps are melting and San Francisco is flooding. If we get that information to the public and offer logical, reasonable alternatives, people will follow their survival and do the right thing.”

 

In other words, the free market has a direct financial incentive to make sure that the environment, which includes mankind, is sustainable in the sense that the good stewardship of natural resources will ensure that there is more than enough supply to meet market demand. The viability of property rights contrasted with the irresponsibility of government permitting corporations to plunder the land is what I think will drive in the final nail on the coffin of statism.

Rockwell is correct in much of what he says, especially with regard to the evils of the State, but it breaks my heart to no end what he recommends that all lovers of liberty do to deal with it. Essentially, Rockwell suggests that what is needed, more than anything else, is a ceaseless indiscriminate mass proselytizing campaign of libertarian propaganda. Apparently, if we all just spew the message of Liberty over a long enough period of time (without regard for the natural prejudices of the individuals hearing it), then mystically tyrannical government will be no more. What Mr. Rockwell fails to understand here is that this is not how you win the hearts and minds of the populace in support of your cause.

According to guerrilla warfare theory, it is a necessary prerequisite to have the domestic population on your side, otherwise any combat operations in the field will fail to endear the masses to you. Taking and retaining the moral high ground is best done before violence erupts; that way, “public opinion” is easily swayed your way, instead of being used to tacitly support your enemy. How you go about seizing the individual minds of the body politic is a virtually undiscussed topic, even within the realms of the alternative media.

The most common assumption, which Rockwell seems to make here, is that a “mass awakening” is the only way to convert anybody to our side. I most emphatically disagree, since it has amounted to nothing other than an abject failure, even in my own lifetime. One of the best proofs of this are the 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaigns. Millions upon millions of Americans were adequately exposed to Dr. Paul’s libertarian attitude, and what ended up happening? Sure, there was the advent of what Rockwell has described elsewhere as “the Ron Paul kids,” but that only served to form another niche of political dissidents. Instead of media circuses with flimsy ex post facto justifications with absolutely no proof whatsoever to back them up with, I would admonish my fellow libertarians to reflect upon the fable of The Tortoise and the Hare. Slowly and surely, one person at a time on an interpersonal basis, starting with those who are most ideologically similar to yourself, is the only reliable way I’ve ever noticed at actually recruiting people to the cause of Liberty.

Llewellyn Rockwell’s The Left, the Right, and the State is a collection of articles and essays that applies libertarianism to specific political issues. While Rockwell certainly provides a unique explanation, even I found it to be tiresome after awhile, which I must admit, I never found to be case with Murray Rothbard. I think those individual statists who are skeptical of minarchism because of specific “public policy” issues might benefit from this book, but this work is certainly not a manifesto of principles. Any utility it would be for dissidents, I think, is little more than preaching to the choir, quite frankly.

Conspiracy “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “conspiracy” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:”

 


 

(Ballantine’s)

An agreement between two or more persons to accomplish together a criminal or unlawful act or to achieve by criminal or unlawful means an act not in itself criminal or unlawful [17 Am J2d Conp § 1]. Conspiracy is a criminal offense, a misdemeanor in some jurisdictions, a felony in others [16 Am J2d Conp § § 2, 3]. Conspiracy is also a wrong which will constitute at cause for a civil action [16 Am J2d Consp § 43]. The cause of action is the damage suffered. It is the civil wrong resulting in damage, and not the conspiracy which constitutes the cause of action [Mox, Inc. v Woods. 202 Cal 675, 262 P 302].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act which may become by the combination injurious to others. Formerly this offence was much more circumscribed in its meaning than it is now. Lord Coke describes it as “a consultation or agreement between two or more to appeal or indict an innocent person falsely and maliciously, whom accordingly they cause to be indicted or appealed and afterwards the party is acquitted by the verdict of twelve men.”

  2. The crime of conspiracy, according to its modern interpretation, may be of two kinds, Namely, conspiracies against the public, or such as endanger the public health, violate public morals, insult public justice, destroy the public peace, or affect public trade or business [see 3 Burr. 1321].

  3. To remedy these evils the guilty persons may be indicted in the name of the commonwealth. Conspiracies against individuals are such as have a tendency to injure them in their persons, reputation, or property. The remedy in these cases is either by indictment or by a civil action.

  4. In order to reader the offence complete, there is no occasion that any act should be done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement entered into between the parties, or that any one should have been defrauded or injured by it. The conspiracy is the gust of the crane [2 Mass. R. 337; Id. 538 6 Mass. R. 74; 2 S. & R. 220 4 Wend. R. 259; Halst. R. 293 2 Stew. Rep. 360; 5 Harr. & John. 317 8 S. & R. 420, but see 10 Verm. 353].

  5. By the laws of the United States [St. 1825, c. 76, 23, 3 Story’s L. U. S., 2006] a wilful and corrupt conspiracy to cast away, burn or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel with intent to injure any underwriter thereon, or the goods on board thereof, or any lender of money on such vessel, on bottomry or respondentia, is, by the laws of the United States, made felony, and the offender punishable by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor, not exceeding ten years.

  6. By the Revised Statutes of New York [vol. 2, p. 691, 692], it is enacted, that if any two or more persons shall conspire, either to commit any offence, or falsely and maliciously to indict another for any offence; or, falsely to move or maintain any suit; or, to cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal; or, to cheat and defraud any person of any property, by means which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtaining property by false pretences; or, to commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade and commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice, or the due administration of the laws; they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. No other conspiracies are there punishable criminally. And no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.

  7. When a felony has been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the latter, which is only a misdemeanor, is merged in the former; but when a misdemeanor only has been committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, the two crimes being of equal degree, there can be no legal technical merger [4 Wend. R. 265. Vide 1 Hawk. 444 to 454; 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 1138 to 1193 3 Inst. 143 Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 107; Burn’s Justice, Conspiracy; Williams’ Justice, Conspiracy; 4 Chit. Blacks. 92; Dick. Justice Conspiracy, Bac. Ab. Actions on the Case, G 2 Russ. on Cr. 553 to 574 2 Mass. 329 Id. 536 5 Mass. 106 2 D R. 205; Whart. Dig. Conspiracy; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 220; 7 Serg. & Rawle, 469 4 Halst. R. 293; 5 Harr. & Johns. 317 4 Wend. 229; 2 Stew. R. 360; 1 Saund. 230, u. 4; for the French law, see Merl. Re. Mot Conspirational Code penal, art. 89].

 

(Black’s)

In criminal law, a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful [Pettibone v. US, 148 US 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; State v. Slutx, 106 La. 182, 30 South. 298; Wright v. US, 108 Fed. 805, 48 CCA 37; US v. Benson, 70 Fed. 591, 17 CCA 293; Girdner v. Walker, 1 Heisk. (Tenn.) 186; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 LRA 803, 76 Am. St. Rep. 746; US v. Weber (CC) 114 Fed 950; Comm. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 111, 38 Am. Dec. 346; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 56 Atl. 327, 63 LRA 534, 99 Am. St. Rep. 783; Standard Oil Co. v. Doyle, 118 Ky. 662, 82 SW 271, 111 Am. St. Re. 331].

  • Conspiracy is a consultation or agreement between two or more persons, either falsely to accuse another of a crime punishable by law; or wrongfully to injure or prejudice a third person, or any body of men, in any manner; or to commit any offense punishable by law; or to do any act with intent to prevent the course of justice; or to effect a legal purpose with a corrupt intent, or by improper means [Hawk. P. C. c. 72 § 2; Archb. Crim. Pl. 390], adding also combinations by journeymen to raise wage [State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765, 41 Am. Dec. 79].

  • Civil and criminal: the term “civil” is used to designate a conspiracy which will furnish ground for a civil action, as where, in carrying out the design of the conspirators, overt acts are done causing legal damage, the person injured has a right of action. It is said that the gist of civil conspiracy is the injury or damage. While criminal conspiracy does not require such overt acts, yet so far as the rights and remedies are concerned, all criminal conspiracies are embraced within the civil conspiracy [Brown v. Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429, 41 SE 553, 57 LRA 547, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126].

 

(Webster’s)

CONSPIRACY, n. [L. See Conspire.]

1. A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to commit some crime in concert; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot; as a conspiracy against the life of a king; a conspiracy against the government.
More than forty had made this conspiracy. Acts 23.
2. In law, an agreement between two or more persons, falsely and maliciously to indict, or procure to be indicted, an innocent person of felony.
3. A concurrence; a general tendency of two or more causes to one event.

How to Talk to a Cop…If You Want To (OPF Radio)

I hosted this OPF Radio 3/18/13 broadcast about surviving police encounters. It is now available as a free downloadable podcast (Backup copy).

 

 

Episode Description

Professional police first appeared in America almost a half-century after the ratification of the Constitution. The Framers had contemplated enforcement of the Law as the duty of private citizens, with few constables and sheriffs on the side who could be called upon when necessary. Modern policing would be regarded by the Framers as abhorrent to the fundamental principles of republicanism, especially considering how the growth of militarized police has permanently expanded the centralized power of the State.

Historically, patriots have been particularly concerned about the behavior of the government’s foremost agents in the field. Thus, it would behoove everyone within the Patriot Community to learn how to diplomatically interact with officers, by following some “rules of the road” so as to retain what liberty we have left. Tonight, we will be discussing how to handle police interrogations and what you need to do in order to turn these involuntary encounters around in your favor.

How to Configure & Use PGP Encryption for Email (Windows OS Instructions)

Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is a type of digital mail encryption program. Email that is sent over the Internet is akin to a postcard, in that any third-party who intercepts it can read the message. Encrypted email is analogous to a letter sealed inside of an envelope; while it is still possible for third-party interception to know whom the senders and receivers are (as well as the content of the subject line), they cannot read the message itself. PGP uniquely combines both private and public key cryptography to provide the best possible “envelope” for your email communications.

In regards to privacy, you should keep a few items in mind when using PGP. Despite PGP encryption being still legally regarded by the central government as a munition, it is now exportable to other countries (provided they are not on the list of countries, groups, or even individuals subject to US export controls). The very use of PGP itself might attract digital surveillance by agents of the State, since even if they didn’t have a backdoor, they could still tell that you wanted to prevent at least casual decryption of your messages by third-parties; of course, if more people used PGP that would it make it that much harder for government snoops to surveil anyone.

While some PGP users would suggest that all users always use PGP for every single email, this is not always possible, whether because a user needs to communicate with an individual who refuses to use PGP, or because an email is being sent to a public email list anyway. Finally, you’ll need to consider how you and your contacts will exchange each of your public keys with each other (sending them in the form of a PGP key block or as an ASC file attachment via email is the least desirable, although there are a combination of digital and offline methods that can be pressed into service to provide at least a semi-secure transfer of the keys).

The following tutorial will demonstrate how to configure PGP for the Microsoft Windows operating system using the GNU Privacy Guard (which is the free and open source software implementation of the OpenPGP standard as developed by the Free Software Foundation), the Thunderbird email client, and the Enigmail plugin for Thunderbird. Any other combination of software and operating systems are not applicable for this particular set of instructions (if you want to install PGP for the Mac OS, you need to view this set of instructions instead).

 

The PGP Encryption Installation Guide

Before you get started, make sure you first have 1) a reliable Internet connection, 2) a good browser, and 3) an email address that uses a webmail provider (preferably one that uses POP3) that you would like to allocate for PGP encryption.

Step 1: Download the Thunderbird email client.

 

 

Step 2: Configure the email address you want to use with Thunderbird.

 

 

Step 3: Download and install the Enigmail plugin through Thunderbird (look for “Add-ons” under the “Tools” menu bar).

 

 

Step 4: Download and install GPG4Win.

 

 

Step 5: Create a key pair (which constitutes a public key and a private key) by using the same email address you configured with Thunderbird and choosing a passphrase that you would be comfortable typing every time Thunderbird prompts you, so that you can read your encrypted emails. While you could use GNU Privacy Assistant (GPA) or Kleopatra to create a key pair, these screenshots below show you how to do the same thing with the OpenPGP Setup Wizard (look for “Setup Wizard” under the “OpenPGP” menu bar).

 

 

Step 6: Export your public key and keep it on your hard drive as well as another copy on at least one USB flash drive (for the GPA and/or Kleopatra method, simply highlight the key by clicking on it, then click “Export,” and then choose where to save the ASC file).

 

 

Step 7: Find another individual who has completed the previous steps and exchange each of your public keys (preferably by trading the exported ASC files, instead of the PGP Public Key Block text). Once each of you have imported each other’s public key into either GPA or Kleopatra (and/or the OpenPGP Setup Wizard), then each one of you should send the other a test encrypted message just to make sure you have configured everything correctly (this is best done in person or over the phone, the latter of which either by landline, cellular, or VoIP).

Congratulations, you’ve successfully installed PGP; now you can send and receive encrypted email. If you’d like additional technical support with installing PGP as per this specific combination of software on a Windows OS, then feel free to send me an email (additionally, if you’d like to test whether you configured PGP correctly, also feel free to use my PGP Public Key, but remember, I’ll need yours first), preferably with the subject line “PGP Configuration Help.” If you would prefer some additional guidance with using GPA or Kleopatra, I would suggest you read the “GPG4Win Compendium,” and watch “GPG4Win Installation,” “GPG4Win Generate Keys,” and “GPG4Win Encrypting & Decrypting” video tutorials.

Trial by Press (Behind Enemy Lines)

Here is an informal discussion I had with Gary Hunt about the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly of the alternative media. It is now available as a free downloadable podcast (Backup copy).

 

 

Episode Description

Within the alternative media, there seems to be a tendency to draw premature conclusions. Unfortunately, most of the Patriot Community has succumbed to what has amounted to little other than popularity contests, where they assume that anybody who rejects the false dichotomy of “you’re either with us, or with the enemy rebel government” (especially with regards to differing explanations of suspiciously violent events), allegedly “must be a government agent,” or otherwise undesirable individuals. The remedy to this problem is also discussed.

Topics covered include infighting, Waco, the Carnival of Distractions, skepticism, Vortex, the Murrah bombing, Conspiratainment (Conspiracy Entertainment), and false flag operations.

Death by Government

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

                                                                            – Gen. George Washington (disputed quotation)

 

 

By definition, government is the only social institution that maintains a monopoly on the use of coercive force. One could think of the State as the collective ideological delusion promulgated by a gaggle of individual humans who mistakenly believe that they know better how to run your life than you do, and they have not hesitated to enforce their subjective preferences upon you and your family. They are willing to say and do anything in order to get what they want, regardless of whom is abused or injured along the way.

Since government is indeed “a dangerous servant,” even in the best of times with the most limited of powers, then why would any rational creature advocate for its centralized expansion in any way, shape, or form? Most sycophantic statists I’ve come across (you know the type, such as your neighbors who don’t have a direct financial incentive in perpetuating tyrannical government, but verbally support it because that is what they were conditioned to believe during their early formative years in the government indoctrination centers) always inevitably fall back on the baseless assertion that since the government provides “services,” the body politic must offer its allegiance, lest they be perceived by their fellow man as “unpatriotic,” or even as “terroristic” criminal extremists (or whatever the latest Establishment lingo for political dissidents happens to be this week). They never seem to realize that their championing of the warfarewelfare State is their moral sanction for the “fearful master” who is, in fact, directly responsible for the nature of the situation we are all suffering under.

Democide, by definition, is death by government; democide is the logical and inevitable end of statism, regardless of its specific flavor. This is why it is so pivotally important for political dissidents to first, speak out and publicly repudiate tyrannical government; should that prove itself to fail in securing their Liberties, dissidents still reserve, under both their own individual natural liberty and the (albeit collective) right of revolution, to resist by whatever means necessary. If there is to be any principled resistance to tyrants, then the Lockean triad of life, liberty, and property (as the necessary prerequisites for the Jeffersonian pursuit of happiness) must be held as sacrosanct, especially against central banking (as evidenced by taxes, inflation, and debt), the police state (including, but certainly not limited to, unconstitutional regulations, mass incarceration, and rampant licensure), and particularly democide (which has a tendency to target martially weaker individuals and their families).

The author primarily focuses on documenting and calculating the civilian mortalities caused by government, chiefly during the 20th century. According to Rummel, there are the “lesser” megamurderers (19,178,000 dead), the suspected megamurderers, (4,145,000 dead) and the dekamegamurderers (128,168,000 dead). Not counting the pre-20th century democide estimated total of over 133,147,000 dead, Rummel’s breakdown by country is as follows (from the least to the greatest estimated number of civilians murdered by “their” governments):

 

Feudal Russia (possibly 1,066,000 murdered)

Mexico, 1900 – 1920 (possibly 1,417,000 murdered)

North Korea, creation to present day (possibly 1,663,000 murdered)

Yugoslavia, 1944 – 1987 (1,072,000 murdered)

Pakistan, 1969 – 1971 (1,503,000 murdered)

Poland, 1945 – 1950 (1,585,000 murdered)

Vietnam, 1945 – 1987 (1,670,000 murdered)

Turkey, 1900 – 1923 (1,883,000 murdered)

Cambodia, 1970 – 1980 (2,035,000 murdered)

Japan, 1937 – 1945 (5,964,000 murdered)

Chinese nationalists, 1927 – 1949 (10,214,000 murdered)

German national socialists, 1939 – 1945 (20,946,000 murdered)

Chinese communists, 1949 – 1987 (35,236,000 murdered)

Russian communists, 1917 – 1987 (61,911,000 murdered)

 

Just considering the sheer numbers of corpses here, I would like to point out that the Second Sino-Japanese War and its aftermath must have been a real doozy for the Chinese population to suffer through. Considering that initially, the Chinese nationalists had an on-again, off-again uneasy alliance with their communist counterparts because they were both trying to resist the Japanese, the Chinese people were blatantly lied to that they must support the nationalists and/or the communists, because if they don’t, the Japanese will “get” them. Of course, history demonstrated that the communists and the nationalists, even in a mutually exclusive sense, were a far greater danger than the “invader” Japanese ever were to the Chinese people. Such is the nature of statism, always inventing foreign boogeyman as if they were the genuine threat, whereas the actual truth is (to paraphrase Adam Kokesh) that, “the enemy is not to be found in the sands of some far off land, but right here at home.”

I must admit that I became emotionally distraught while reading these detailed case studies, especially those of the Armenians and the Cambodians. For once, I had to stop reading on multiple occasions, not because I was tired or bored (as is usually the case when I am preparing these book reports), but because I could literally hear my blood pressure in my skull, as well as the fact that each time I had to stop reading, my visual perception of time actually slowed down; in the past, that had only happened when I was involved in either a schoolyard-type fisticuffs scuffle or a police encounter. Besides imagining how the torture-murder of innocent people was carried out (as per Rummel’s descriptions), and after my emotions had settled down a bit from its roller-coaster ride, the only thing I could contemplate (or feel, if at all, for that matter) was that if I was there in the midst of each of these truly indescribable atrocities, what would I have done, tactically and strategically, to take out the enemy rebel government forces? Needless to say, any well-meaning dissident who makes the claim that the Establishment is literally invulnerable is not only fear-mongering (at least unwittingly) on behalf of the tyrants who “equally” oppress us all, but also demonstrates his blatant incompetence with regards to taking self-defense seriously.

R. J. Rummel’s Death by Government is a terrifically detailed work on the often overlooked phenomenon of democide. If only the American body politic understood that with statism, at some point, the tyrants will forcibly impose (at least partial) firearms registration; anyone with even a small amount of historical knowledge knows that such registration is a necessary prelude towards citizen disarmament (statists call this kind of registration, mala prohibita legal statutes that attempt to limit the private ownership of firearms, and likely future confiscation of them, as “gun control”), and that once such disarmament has been formally declared and/or carried out, then democide is the logical end point. If contemporary Americans understood, as the Founding Fathers did, that with the individual natural liberty of self-defense (and it’s collective version, the right of revolution) and of free association comes the subsequent organizing of martial capability, as evidenced by the formation of the various Committees of Safety and their subordinate militia units during the 1760s and 1770s, which were necessary in order to secure their Liberties. I advise all of you to seriously contemplate on what Rod Taylor said back in 1996:

 

“Remember, America is about liberty, first and last, not obedience to bureaucrats. The Washington power clique want you shut up, get in line, do what you’re told to do, and most outrageously, think what you’ve been told to think. We have hundreds of politicians and thousands of lobbyist groups crawling all over Washington thinking of ways to control you, to extend their will over you, to subvert your freedom, and to replace it with their will; to capture, that is, to steal your life force, and so we should be very angry, because anger is the engine that drives our will to resist, and without resistance, without awareness, they will take it all. It’s not just politically perverse, it’s a sin against mankind, because freedom is actually sacred.”

 

Has democide already happened here in America? Will democide occur in the near future? I honestly don’t know, but I sure hope not. What I do know though, is that until the mainline American public begins to take their Liberty seriously, everyone who happens to live here are essentially sitting ducks just waiting to be wholesale slaughtered at the first politically convenient moment. I don’t want that to happen, and neither should any of you.

Inviolate “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “inviolate” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), and “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

 

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

Unhurt, uninjured, unpolluted, unbroken [Flint River Steam Boat Co. v Roberts, Allen & Co. 2 Fla 102, 114]. Freedom from substantial impairment [Commonwealth v. Almedia, 362 Pa 596, 68 A2d 595, 12 ALR2d 183, cert den 339 US 924, 94].

 

(Webster’s)

INVI’OLATE, a. [L. inviolatus.] Unhurt; uninjured; unprofaned; unpolluted; unbroken.

But let inviolate truth be always dear
To thee.