L. Neil Smith's
Number 364, April 23, 2006

We have a winner!

The Semantics of Death
by Michael Bradshaw
mtb [at] usrepeals.org

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

Re Pat Hartman's column "Cruel April—"Waco" Seeds" in TLE 363: Miss Hartman has written a darn good article. I agree with much that she said about tolerance, bigotry and scapegoating. However (ain't there always a "however . . .") she does stumble a few times, and I think that in these subjects it is of paramount importance to be as accurate as one can. The results, after all, mean life or death for hundreds of millions of people. I will cite two examples and offer some thoughts.

For the first, she confuses condemnation for the evil acts of real criminals with blame for a scapegoat (one who is made to suffer the blame and punishment for the acts of others).

As an example with regard to scapegoating:

"Believe it or not, there are even those who think life would be rosy if all the politicians were wiped out.

Alas, even that extreme measure, satisfying as it might be in the short run, wouldn't make everything all right."

In her first sentence above Miss Hartman mistakes the real criminal for a scapegoat; thereby letting the real criminal off the hook so that he can continue his depredations. That error gets a lot of real scapegoats killed (over 300,000,000 dead victims in the last century alone . . . and counting); and is just what the criminal politicians want. Politicians want to be seen as being among the victims—by the victims. Killing a scapegoat is murder. Killing a criminal politician or his vile servants is technically known as "self defense". And the latter is morally right and admirable. Killing your assailant may not make life "rosy", but it is much better than submitting to robbery, rape, slavery and genocide; which are the four basic functions of all government.

I have two problems with the second sentence. First is the "extreme" political slant. Don't point that adjective at me! It's loaded!!! Years ago, a guy with a knife slashed my throat repeatedly down to a half inch from my carotid artery. And I am very glad that he did. And that the nurse wiped the blood away after each cut. Tootle-oo, skin cancer! How extreme can you get? Remember that "radical" (which is commonly used as a synonym for "extreme" as it is used here) means "basic" or "going to the root cause". Treating the root cause of a political problem is always labeled "extreme" by the cause of the problem. I am sure that my cancer, were it sapient, would have labeled that surgeon's technique "extreme"—and bitterly condemned him.

Wiping out the politicians will not be extreme. It will be a radical (basic and effective) cure for an otherwise terminal disease. Whereas, treating only the symptoms, such as bad legislation or government programs, is less than useless. That is because it wastes effort on that which would otherwise repeat without end (as it has for the last six to ten thousand years . . . ) instead of actually curing the disease. If you have a carcinoma you must cut it out. Using antiseptic and bandages will get you killed.

Second is that she over-simplifies the method by leaving out the second half—and thereby gets the results wrong, as well as over-stating them. I agree with Miss Hartman that simply "wiping out all the politicians" would be only a temporary solution to "the state problem". (Yes, I meant to use that loaded phrase! bang!) Those who want to be politicians would only be deterred for a limited time by the thought of righteous retribution. That is why I used to be a minarchist. I could not find a solution to the "power vacuum problem" of a new state rising on the ashes of the old.

So far, Miss Hartman was right and Mr. Jefferson was wrong. Repeated revolution at short intervals did not happen, and now we are "ground under the iron heel" of an evil empire once again.

We have known for centuries that wars should be fought from the top, down (as the tactical situation permits—killing kings, ministers, generals and tax collectors; the highest levels available to the individual American at his time and place); instead of from the bottom, up (killing soldier-slaves) as the politicians always want. That was even a primary tactic in the American Revolution. At least one British general complained bitterly about the Americans "firing on the officer's persons!". John Ross showed us how for modern times in his fine book "Unintended Consequences". But Mr. Ross's book stopped short of victory and his revolutionaries lost the war. Even if he had ended the book in victory for the Americans, we would still have no solution for the power vacuum problem. Could that be why he wrote it that way? How do we prevent the rise of another empire after a "successful" revolution?

Again, Miss Hartman was right.

So far.

Then I found Jim Bell's thesis titled "Assassination Politics" at www.jya.com/ap.htm and other places on the net. That was a revelation.

Until now all we had was revolution to remove an evil government—and then a short period of anarchy or a small, weak and endurable state, such as the early history of the United States before Civil War One. That sequence of the rise, fall and re-birth of the state has been the paradigm of political action for the 6,000+ blood-soaked years of human written history and for as far back as we can infer from archeology. The American Revolution gave us the first major shift in that paradigm, the concept of the sovereign individual—acting in concert with his neighbors as a militia and as electors—as the highest political power and authority, combined with a constitutionally limited republican state. Now Mr. Bell has given us a new paradigm shift with his solution to the "rebirth of the state" problem.

By repeating the first American Revolution (with modern technique as Mr. Ross has shown us) to remove the state by killing it from the top down—and then preventing it from rising again like a phoenix of death by the use of the "Bell Memorial Foundations" applying Mr. Bell's thesis of "assassination politics" we may improve on the First American Revolution by making it permanent.

And so I put together that combination of top-down battle with the bare minimum of killing and destruction, combined with the Bell Foundations—to produce the Fifth Generation of modern war, or 5-G W. To read the history and nature of the first four generations of modern war see the William Lind archive at www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html.

Fifth generation war is not designed to make "everything all right". It is, however, designed to make just about everything much better—by removing most of the organized evil from humanity.

Just think how much better life would be with about eight times you present income (You are already earning it, but the state steals the other seven-eighths from you.) and not having to live in fear that the politicians and their thugs will rob, rape, enslave and murder you and your family on any random night.

And for the second example, with reference farther down the article to "one track dirty minds"

"But that's nothing, compared to America's twisted, perverse relationship with terrorists. Here's a country that trains, funds, and sells (or gives) arms and ammunition to terrorists all over the world and then conducts a War on Terrorism. That goes way beyond hypocrisy and far into insanity. If America were a person, it would be a paranoid schizophrenic."

Here Miss Hartman's value judgment is quite correct, but she equates America with the United States. They are not the same. They are, in fact, polar opposites and bitter enemies on the battlefield. They are, in short, at war. A war started by and prosecuted almost exclusively by the United States.

So far . . .

Perhaps these memes may help clear the air.

"America" is a bunch of things:
It is a country. It is a geographic area between the northern halves of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It is the people who live there. It is the culture of those people (the Ethnic-Americans) derived from the Enlightenment—and does not include the Soviet-Prussian American (D&R, or Boot On Your Neck party) culture. It is an idea. It is a philosophy (libertarianism). It is a "go to hell!", "can do!", selfish, generous, irreverent and enthusiastic attitude toward life.
It is Capitalism.
It is Anarchy.

It is not a government!

"The Unites States":
Started as a confederacy of states (governments—hint, hint!) and degenerated from the Federalist coup of 1789 into an empire of evil before you or I were born. It is a criminal enterprise. It is a rogue terrorist state. It is a government first, last and always. It was partially constrained by its Constitution until Lincoln maimed, and Roosevelt II finally killed that constitution completely. It is not and never has been a country—or any of the other things America is.

In her paragraph above she would be spot-on if she substituted "the United States" for "America"; and "government" or "state" for "country". As it is, she is scapegoating America by blaming the Americans for the crimes of the Unites States politicians. We should not open ourselves up to criticism as "the pot calling the kettle 'black'".

Words mean things and ideas have consequences.

We should choose our words and think our thoughts with care. Least we think with words that do not represent reality—and see things as they are not. Least we think with our emotions or our traditions instead of our reasoning faculty—and make choices that lead to error and ruin.

We have a written history of over six thousand years—of state perpetrated robbery, rape, slavery and genocide.

It is time to do it differently now.

It is time to do it right.

Michael Bradshaw is the Speaker (also the Lord-High Janitor) of the United States House of Repeals, www.usrepeals.org. Copyright © 2006, Michael T. Bradshaw


America's Leading Sporting Goods Discounter
Cheaper Than Dirt!

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
to return to the previous article
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 364, April 23, 2006