0 votes

Video: The Real Source of Violence in American Politics

Thanks to Michael Maresco, who posted this at the Ron Paul Forums:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why the music?

The music is too loud. Makes it difficult to understand.

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

SteveMT's picture

Simple and the truth.

What a combination to wake some people up.


Give me liberty or give me...a peaceful demonstration?

Is non-violence the newest American virtue?

Thou shalt not kill applies to innocent people. There is a good argument for just war and self-defense. I am neither saying that the recent US wars or the shooting in AZ was either. However, the gigantic reaction to this murder of political persons seems overblown.

First it was the blame game and now it's the kumbaya. Are there any ideas worth giving our lives for? Why the fear to be associated with a "madman?" Perhaps he IS a madman, but he is still a man. He is as much a part of us as the innocent people he killed and maimed. By dismissing him and his actions as mere oddities are we trying to escape from the problems he was facing? What ideas do we see trying to play out in his mind?

If there are no ideas worth dying or killing for, what ideas are there worth living for? Again, not condoning murder, just hoping that we can re-acknowledge that some concepts must be stronger than "non-violence" for there to be TRUE peace in the world.

Sprout's picture

Wonderfully said!

Recently I read Henry Hazlitt's "The Foundations of Morality" and it totally corroborates your statements. Nice job! This comment was meant to be a reply to "dabooda".



I'll be sharing this with my e-mail list.

Here we go, finally the Bush 6 will receive a trip to prison...

Bush Six to Be Prosecuted
"The Bush Six, like their Nazi counterparts, performed to order for an administration that wanted legal cover to do whatever it wanted with groups it had already deemed non-human."

Goodbye Addington, Feith, Rumsfeld, John Yoo & Cheney!!
All of you punks can collect your severance pay & go directly to jail. Just the start if the Tea Party gets all their seats.

What I'm utterly amazed by is the liberal base, specifically the City Liberals who cheer for the jailtime these punks will face.

Particularly because its the height of hypocrisy by these people especially, to be calling the above out as if they were self-styled "conservatives".


Yeah, Right. These punks, off-the wall criminal torturers that they are happen to be the most liberal socialists to ever step foot into Republican party circles.

They scream from the rooftops to take care of foreign countries and nanny state them half to death. Get in there and bring real Democracy and change Amurika, we need you to babysit all of us.

And because of that fact among others, I would caution the cheerleaders on the sidelines. Because most assuredly punks like Peter Orzag, Queen Pelosi, Krugman, Chertoff, Ben Bernanke, Michael Rubin, Schumer, Hoyer and Hillary Clinton will be next.

Oh by the way, your "Messiah" Obama has never validated his birth certificate & has blocked prosecution of the above crooked liberals at every chance he's got.

One shouldn't throw stones from a glass house, as Dr Paul would most definitely agree!!

That goes doubly for the brainwashed media mouths who constantly bash the Tea Party's proposal to separate the school districts. Newsflash America: If you came to the South, you would be just as upset over whats been done to African Americans.

They live out here too and are tired of having to be bussed in 60 minutes a day to a public school, where they are taught with corruptly brainwashed teachers on how to "diversify" themselves all the time.

It isn't about separating any races, its about separating the criminal Teachers Union from the students. A cursory investigation of Department of Education will reveal such a large house of cards its a wonder the whole thing isn't abolished.

Poor students are taught marijuana is bad, "Join D.A.R.E", snitch on your class mates & praise Keynsian economics. Nobody in the South believes in this hack of crap anymore. Indoctrination is not school.

The Greatest Perpetrator of Violence in the US...

is our government.

ecorob's picture


And, thank you!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

THose were exactly my points

THose were exactly my points that I posted the day of the shoot.... ;) glad to see someone share that mindset...

The US Government is one of the most violent governments and then they are surprised when one of their "own" is shot at..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...


this video has value.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

On a very fundamental level,

On a very fundamental level, violence enter politics when politics start affecting people's lives. When what a politician says or does, have a direct, negative effect on someones lives, some of those someone's will react violently. Or even simply if politicians become so influential they become famous, and shooting one gets one in the press.

If government was small and restricted enough, virtually noone would even bother knowing who some politician was. And neither could one obtain fame by shooting one, since noone else would know who he/she was, either. Instead, the politician would be just anther dude/dame doing something insignificant somewhere on the East Coast.

Even more fundamental

EVERY LAW is a threat of violence, backed by police & military. Refuse to comply with ANY law, and a legal process begins; if you resist it, men with guns will come to throw you in a cage; continue resistance, and they will shoot you dead.

The only just laws are those which forbid the same kind of violence that government uses every day against nonviolent people. How about we just keep the (just) laws, and get rid of the government?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Even more fundamental still ...

History overflows with examples of class struggles in which, over time, the victors become corrupt.
Capitalism, for example, is based on the idea that humans are competitive by nature, and therefore, they will attain the highest of their goals through competitive economic systems. That's no problem, if we think of our highest goals in terms of better ways to enhance the well-being of humanity. In our early stages of consciousness, however, we think in terms of individual profit.
Similarly, the basis of communism is teamwork and sharing. Again, there's no problem with this idea, except that most of us are in our early stages of consciousness, which makes us more concerned with ourselves than the team.
The basic flaw in capitalism, communism, socialism, or whatever well-intentioned economic philosophy, is not in the philosophies themselves, but rather in the level of consciousness of those who apply the philosophies.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi


In our early stages of consciousness, however, we think in terms of individual profit.
Similarly, the basis of communism is teamwork and sharing. Again, there's no problem with this idea, except that most of us are in our early stages of consciousness, which makes us more concerned with ourselves than the team.

The best way for people to cooperate is for all initiations of violence and theft to be illegal. People can choose to strive for profit, or to share, or both. Communism and socialism are not about sharing, they're about forced sharing under the threat of violence.

When threats and theft are illegal, greed and profit motives can only increase cooperation, and thus, prosperity of all. When many threats and thefts are legal (as in the system we have now and as in all other political systems), then greed can have harmful effects.

"The profit system makes those men prosper who have succeeded in filling the wants of the people in the best possible and cheapest way. Wealth can be acquired only by serving the consumers. The capitalists lose their funds as soon as they fail to invest them in those lines in which they satisfy best the demands of the public." ~ Mises

"We will benefit our fellow man most if we are guided solely by the striving for gain." ~ Hayek

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." ~ Adam Smith

Watch some of these videos and Google non-aggression principle.

Class struggles, higher consciousness & economic systems, oh my!

This is stuff you consider fundamental? Sounds more like the Red Queen's program of believing six impossible things before breakfast, to me. Or a whole netful of red herrings.

Does human nature make men competitive or cooperative? Are economic systems flawed because men have low "levels" of consciousness? The fluffy ambiguity and complexity of the concepts you're tossing around like confetti ought to be your first clue that you've totally entered Wonderland.

You want some basic concepts? Violence doesn't happen because of levels of consciousness or economic systems or class struggles or selfishness or altruism or competitiveness or corruption. Violence happens because some people believe it is a good way to get something they want. The basic rationale of government is that the initiation of force can be justified if it is for some "higher good." And if you don't know what "higher good" means, then you certainly need a government to tell you!

Okay, I'm teasing you a little. My main point here is that violence is not a social or economic or political or sociological issue. It is a moral issue.

The particular subset of morality called "ethics" is what separates liberty lovers from statists of all stripes. "Ethics" means what is "right or wrong" in interpersonal conduct. The range of ethical options open to us is really very limited: you can deal with others by means of trade, coercion, or for emotional reasons (love, charity, shared purpose, etc.) In other words, you can deal with others as a trader, as a thief, or as a beggar. That's it. Three options comprise ALL of human ethics.

People who believe in individual liberty generally agree that dealing with one another VOLUNTARILY, without coercion, to achieve their individual purposes is morally good. We can sually agree that coercing peaceful people to do thing that they don't want to do is morally evil. "Freedom" means people being free to do what they think is right, by their own standards, as long as they act with the consent of all those they deal with. That's why freedom is popular. Being free doesn't force you to share a common moral code with everyone. Follow any religion that pleases you, or none. But freedom does require us to share a common view of ethical behavior: that it is EVIL to initiate coercion. Without that common belief, there can be no respect for liberty.

Statists, on the other hand, believe that it's morally okay to coerce people "for a good cause." (Meaning, of course, whatever THEY would like to do with YOUR wealth, time and life.) Statists refuse to understand that "government" is not a fourth method by which people can deal with one another; government is by nature entirely coercive. They tell themselves that violence done by the government is something other than evil -- that mass murder isn't wrong if you call it "war," and theft isn't wrong when you call it "taxation."

Many people think government is a necessary evil -- none should doubt that it IS evil.  Forcing peaceful people to act against their best judgment and depriving them of their property against their will is the exact opposite of freedom, the violent opposite of all that men of good will hold dear.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Sprout's picture

Wonderfully said!

Recently I read Henry Hazlitt's "The Foundations of Morality" and it totally corroborates your statements. Nice job!


Thank you.

I've read Hazlitt's book too, and mostly agreed with it, as I recall. My main inspiration for these ideas, however, was a essay of David Friedman's titled "Love Is Not Enough." It's in his book "The Machinery of Freedom." Friedman didn't specifically relate love, trade and force to ethics, but he got me thinking along those lines.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


Not everyone is aware that there are rules of logic for correct reasoning just as there are rules of mathematics. Because reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion by relating ideas, the laws of logic are extremely important to understand. For just as we will reach entirely different conclusions if we relate two numbers by the laws of addition and subtraction, so will we reach different conclusions when relating ideas using different laws of logic.
Laws of logic are at work in our everyday lives on a scale that dwarfs the effects of even laws of mathematics. The effects of mathematical laws, for example, are in most every manmade product from the family car to the ink used to print these words. Our laws of logic, however, act as the standard of what we think is morally, socially, sexually, politically, economically, and even mathematically, reasonable or pure nonsense. Without standards of logic, civilization would not exist.

Even though humans are born with the capacity to intellectually relate ideas, how we relate ideas or logic plays a major role in the outcome of our daily struggles of life. Learning how to relate ideas in more loving ways is the knowledge that will set us free. This is the consciousness we gain as we evolve to a higher level of being.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Different laws of logic?

You really are channeling the Red Queen today, aren't you? And you might have given credit for "your" post to William Kiefert, from whom you took it. Use quotation marks next time, hm?

I see no merit in his "nonjudgmental logic." His case seems to be built against strawmen. I can agree with him that one should not judge people according to unchosen hereditary factors, but NOT that "different logic" makes all moral and religious choices equally valid. All moral systems are not equal. Those built on coercion are inimical to civilization; those built on voluntarism (trade and emotion, as described in my previous post) are "universally preferable," as Stefan Molyneux puts it. http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


I had to look up the Red Queen to see exactly what you were referring to, and it seems that perhaps you should have used quotation marks yourself, dabooda, as this principle was proposed by the evolutionary biologist L. van Valen, as outlined below:

The Red Queen Principle
For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with.
This principle was proposed by the evolutionary biologist L. van Valen (1973), and is based on the observation to Alice by the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" that "in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

Actually, No - you don't get it.

Since, in general, different species are coevolving, improvement in one species implies that it will get a competitive advantage on the other species, and thus be able to capture a larger share of the resources available to all. This means that fitness increase in one evolutionary system will tend to lead to fitness decrease in another system. The only way that a species involved in a competition can maintain its fitness relative to the others is by in turn improving its design.

That's exactly backwards to what I, through Mr. Kiefert, am trying to illustrate. Please re-read what I have previously posted, and try again.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

The Red Queen

from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland famously believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. I thought my reference to Wonderland made that clear. I was not alluding to any "Red Queen Principle," and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. Sorry if I confused you.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I'd go along with that! There

I'd go along with that!

There can surely be no more surefire way of preventing violence against government officials, than to make sure there are no government officials to commit violence against.

ecorob's picture

the problem is...

that politicians, once elected, become millionaires catering to the special interest groups, the multinational corporations

"they" forget about we, the people...

the chris dodds, the george bush's (x2), the bill clinton's, the dick cheney's, the barack obama's...all of those who have become filthy stinking rich by selling America out...the john kerry's, the al gore's....these are the ones (and countless more before them) that are responsible for the catastophic mess this country is in

they failed the country's people and they failed the country's honor...

THEY were our leaders of the past quarter century and they did NOT change the paradigm

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

I just got slammed

for posting this on facebook. Seems many Tea partiers were offended by the fact that it mentions our violent foreign policy. "We save lives and help others. We lose soldies trying to prevent collateral damage. How dare you insinuate we are at fault for any Iraqi civilian deaths?" I was told to get a life ! Oh and " How many people would have died if we hadn't stopped Hitler? We are the only hope of the world"
Oh geez :( They are so looking for a fight one missed the others punctuation of the other questioning my post they started fighting not realizing they agreed with each other. Hopeless. At least I stopped that fight by pointing out that it was me they disagreed with not each other.
Hopefully others will see it differently and I will get some positive feed back.
Thanks for posting. I sadly think it will still go over too many warmongering heads. I hope I can come back with better news later.

chonk123 I Believe Part Of The Problem Is That These Hideous

illegal wars have been sanitized by media blackout.Remember the Bush admin controversy over the US servicemens airplane coffin photos? If images like these in the link below were forced to the media forefront and on the news like the were every night and in MSM magazine print when I was a boy (Vietnam) this would end pretty soon I think.

Warning: this is war in it's full "glory" and if you are a sensitive individual you do not want to view this site.
I personally think our elected Reps should have to sit through a 3-6 hour slide show of this any time anything to do with war comes up...If you are tough as nails chonk and dont mind possibly losing some face book friends post some of the choicer pics on your FB page and tell those blind people that this is what they support being done against people that never did have weapons of mass destruction or were involved in 911...


reedr3v's picture

I agree that the media has so sanitized the

wars that even many smart people weasel and utterly blank out the violence of the government.

But consider this: the creators of the website you linked apparently themselves sanitize Obama's wars, or they discontinued new posting after Bush. I didn't have the heart to check beyond the introduction and top couple of photos, so maybe I'm wrong.

If the site were non-partisan it might be helpful in selected cases. But I think most people are willfully complicit in the charade that this is anything more than a violent empire. That site had little impact during Bush, I expect they'll have little impact under Obama.

Be careful of pushing people too far before they are ready. It looks to me as though they just stop listening and go into ego-defense mode, especially if they still think the government is their personal benefactor and its victims be d*mned.


perhaps they can see the light watching this video?

General Butler's words worked on many tea-ocons I met.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

chonk, what is your facebook

chonk, what is your facebook handle? I will gladly share on my page.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor