16 votes

Larken Rose endorses . . . Mitt Romney. LOL!

This is an e-mail Larken Rose just sent out to subscribers. I don't agree with him intellectually on this one, but on an emotional level, I sympathize: Ron Paul may be what America needs, but Romney is what it deserves.

For those of you who don't know, Larken Rose is the author of The Most Dangerous Superstition, which I personally regard as the greatest book on individual liberty vs. government ever written. Which makes his endorsement of Romney very interesting (and funny.)

Romney! Romney! Romney! by Larken Rose

I am thrilled that Mitt Romney seems to be well on his way to becoming the Republican presidential nominee. No, I'm not kidding. I think it is the best possible outcome, far better than Ron Paul winning.

Now, as anyone who knows me can guess, it's not because I think Romney is a great guy who will do great things. On the contrary, he is the quintessential political whore: a delusional, narcissistic, god-complex pathological liar who has no beliefs, values or substance of his own. He is a slimy, dishonest prevaricator who will say whatever he thinks will benefit himself, without the slightest regard for truth or morality. He is a two-faced, opportunistic con-man, a crook of the highest order, devoid of any shred of principles or integrity.

How do you like my endorsement of Mitt so far?

So why would I want him to win? In fact, I don't just want him to be the Republican candidate; I want him to be the next President. Yes, I'm absolutely serious.

But why? Because I think Puppet Romney would do an outstanding job of finishing what Puppet Clinton, Puppet Bush, and Puppet Obama have done so far. No, I'm not talking about their totalitarian agenda. I'm talking about completely destroying the legitimacy of the U.S. ruling class in the eyes of its victims, and in the eyes of the rest of the world. If we want people to see through the extortionistic, violent and fraudulent charade that is "government," what better way to do that than to have the ultimate crooked, paid-off, self-serving empty suit megalomaniac occupying the White house?

It took a while until the dupes who had so enthusiastically shouted "change," wetting themselves with joy at the coming of the Obamessiah, started to notice that nothing changed. There are still a few, but not many, who haven't yet realized that the answer to the question, "Can we use government to fix everything?" is a resounding, "No, we can't!" Obama's emotion-exploiting, empty manipulation eventually wore off, but it took a while for a lot of people to accept reality. The guy is just Bush III.

Before that, devout Republican state-worshipers spent years going to great lengths to try to avoid admitting that Bush II was a big-government, collectivist control freak. But most of them now realize it.

Well, who would have any doubt about Romney? Who would imagine for a moment that the guy has an honest bone in his body, or that he believes in anything at all, other than his own wealth, power and glory? His flip-flopping is downright legendary, to a hilarious degree. If you want to help people see through the facade of "government," to realize that it's nothing but a gang of liars and crooks plundering and enslaving mankind for its own benefit, then Mitt is your man!

In contrast, if Ron Paul became President, it would create among many a renewed, but completely misguided hope in the possibility of "politics" and "working within the system" achieving freedom, despite the fact that it has never happened in the history of the world. With Dr. Paul in office, people might start respecting the presidency again, and that is not a good thing. To put it another way, don't let Ron Paul ruin what so many politicians have spent decades accomplishing--namely, demolishing any imagined credibility or legitimacy the gang of crooks in Washington ever had.

The shortest path from where we are today, to an actually free society, starts with Mitt Romney as President. Now there's an awesome sentence to take out of context, huh? But it's true. If you want state worship and blind faith in "government" to crumble, you should try to put the biggest elitist buffoon, the most obviously corrupt liar possible, on the throne. And Mitt Romney sure fits that bill! Go Mitt!

Comment viewing options

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

Destruction of America a bad thing???

He may be on to something, everyone assumes the destruction of America is a bad thing. Maybe instead it might actually be a good thing, yeah life may suck for a few years but the establishment will be destroyed.

Is destroying the status quo a bad thing, maybe life won't be so bad after the destruction. It's just possible it could be the only way to completely annihilate the people in charge. We outnumber them by vast numbers and there is no way martial law would ever work successfully.

So maybe it could be a good thing that America as we know it is destroyed. What could come after could be much better than what is happening in the present.

it would be funny if . . .

the real outcome were not so deadly.

How does someone like Rose explain that pressing into power of the Bushes, Obamas, Gingriches and Romneys beyond the fact that there are PTB that WANT them there . . . and not for the good of the American people or liberty?

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

This article is hilarious. I have the same view about Newt.

Newt would be downright terrific at destroying the remaining thread of credibility the ruling class has left. I have complete faith that he would even initiate WWIII and become the official Amerika's Hitler. Children around the would study the crimes against humanity committed, and our school books would block out the years 2012-2016.

Obama is more dangerous than Newt because he is cool in that he-is-a-murderer-but-still-down-to-Earth-socialist kind of way, like Che. A large portion of the population is still infatuated with the idea of him. Obama is going to live out the rest of his long life with the massive fortune he made with his charming corruption in paradise like Castro. He is not going to get charged with war crimes like he so justly deserves. Newt is so angry and ugly and evil that I think his presidency would end Mussolini-esque.

Larken's endgame sucks.

Abby Hoffman once wrote a book called "Revolution for the Hell of It. Anarcho-capitalist David Friedman parodied that title in a brilliant essay "Revolution IS the Hell of it." Friedman pointed out that violent revolution ALWAYS leads people to demand that a new governing order be imposed -- which is generally even more tyrannical than the one being replaced. People who are dissatisfied with their present government rarely have the intellectual sophistication to realize that the institution of government itself -- not the particular scoundrels of the moment -- are the problem.

Mitt Romney would be just one more scoundrel of the moment; his election might lead to violent revolution when he is unable to prevent the economy from cratering, or it might lead to even greater tyranny, if he successfully suppresses such a revolution. What it will NOT lead to is freedom.

The belief that some men can be rightful rulers over others is Larken's particular nemesis. He seems to think that people coming to regard Romney as utterly corrupt would lead to a general de-legitimizing of the institution of government. I don't think that's going to happen. Too many people have been indoctrinated with the cult of state-worship, and cannot even imagine what life would be like without it; the very notion is frightening to them. When people grow truly unhappy with their present slavemaster, they will simply look around for a new slavemaster to run their lives for them. The idea that men should not be slaves at all is foreign to their psychology.

I share Larken's belief that all government is illegitimate, and that there can be no "rightful rulers." But I still support Ron Paul, because he shares that belief about 95%. If government could be pared back to the simple constitutional function of defending liberty, I'd be more than satisfied.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Larkens books are powerful paradigm shapers and make his point

The Greatest Superstition is a must read on the subject of authority. A phenomenal complement to that book is Tim and Chuck Balwins book on Romans13...the true meaning of submission. Both of these books can bring one to the realization that Larkens point in his post is the most likely outcome of a majority establishment mind and ego in this country. God grants the leaders a nation deserves.
For reasons beyond my comprehension, masses of people, despite evidence you and I could compile in volumes, want to beleive that their government is good. They cannot grasp the possibility that their favorite Mainstream media source would lie to them. I see an inability for these feeble and insecure minds to separate love and pride of "country" from a government responsible for its destruction. Even blatant evidence of wrongdoing can be glossed over or denied as propaganda coming from one who does not fully appreciate ones "country". Yes, it is an actual mental/spiritual blindness. It's sad to imagine what it will take for these blind ones to see the truth.
The cost of waiting for the lowest common denominators will be great indeed.

A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from his government.

Hey! That's What I always jokingly tell my friends:

the Paradox of the prospect of Dr. Paul becoming the POTUS:

he'll restore trust and confidence in Govt!

Noooooooo!!!!

LOL

"With Dr. Paul in office, people might start respecting the presidency again, and that is not a good thing." - yeah, ironic how the only true "Statesman" alive in America, is the one whom at a fundamental philosophic level is OPPOSED to the State, the Leviathan and all it stands for and does in the name of non-existent, nebulous, arbitrary "greater good."

Frankly the most govt I can 'put up' with is solely for "national defense" against OUTSIDE 'enemies.'

Then again, by sheer nature of the kind of weaponery we're talking about, I'm afraid by the virtue of the Constitution's dictates, no nuke carrier is gonna be built out of a mom & pop shop, so the Military Ind. Complex ain't never going away, unfortunately, as long as we are convinced to believe that we need 100's of nuke submarines, nuke carriers, maintain current 20,000~40,000 in our arsenal (the US-USSR nuke wind-down is a total joke, we now have more 'micro nukes' that don't even qualify under the auspices of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Lest we all think that we can see the day where any citizen who can afford a jet fighter, or an M-1 Abrams tank would be able to buy one, at your local Costco, or AM General dealership.

But knowing history, there is no such thing as an "outside enemy" other than what the banksters have funded on both sides of any given conflict, as they have done, at least by known accounts, since pre-Renaissance mercantilists.

So maybe Larken is on to something, except for the fact that once NDAA rollout hits a crescendo, nothing will be funny when you have to decide what you're gonna do when FEMA trucks come rolling down your cul de sac carrying a battalion of over militarized local county SWAT/DHS goons.

Don't want to see that happen? You better believe Ron Paul better become the POTUS. Otherwise we are likely see the kind of sh*t storm unseen in, at least in our history.

It's either POTUS Paul, or face WW3 abroad and NDAA police state at home. You choose.

The best we can hope for without POTUS Paul is a slightly less bloody collapse. With a President Paul, at least it will be a 'cushioned blow' then after about a yr or two to a 'recovery' of sorts. Though, don't think he can do that without seriously prosecuting USS.Liberty, OKC, and September criminals in full: his DoJ will be VERY busy.

Otherwise it's gonna be Bedlam once currency collapses, at least for a very brutally short period, until the morons figure out who it was that's been warning about it all along, for over 40+ yrs. & the best apology they have is "Sorry, Ron, now we know: you and your supporters were right."

Then again, Larken is not wrong when he says this country DOESN'T deserve an honorable man like Dr. Paul as their POTUS. They deserve no less than Hitler, at this trajectory.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Not ironic at all.

Liberty and government are irreconcilable opposites. Dr. Paul's embrace of liberty necessarily sets him in opposition to the State.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

AnCapMercenary, I've really been

enjoying your well-written, articulate posts. Thought you might like to know that someone has noticed.

oh why thank you so very much, now as long as you're not in

white lab coats coming to take me away.

Noooooooo!!!

LOL

or M. I. B.

you're not MIB, are you?? or with an avatar like C2C, perhaps George Noory?

.o)

thank you. that's very kind of you.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Holy Cow...

That was awesome!!

Come On

Come on, Mr. Rose. Stop beating around the bushes and obamas. Tell us what you really think of mittens. Ha ha.

When the desire to bring about a change in you is not there,
the demand to change the world is not there either. —U.G.Krishnamurti

This is a very amusing article

And of course I agree with him on what an utter joke it is to elect Romney. But I don't agree with him that a Romney presidency is better than a Paul presidency, and that it would move the cause of freedom forward faster and more effectively. The people running the show are not stupid. All you have to do is look at how hard they are working to stop Ron Paul by any means necessary, and to assure that Romney is nominated. If "they" wanted Paul to win he would win. "They" are genuinely scared of that prospect. That is why they are throwing away tons of money and "credibility capital" to make sure that it doesn't happen.

That's because "they" are fools. They lie, they lie all the

time, they lie even when the truth would serve them well.

These morons don't see that pushing too far to fast results in their facade crumbling.

THEIR best hope for a chance to really dupe the American people into despotism is to have Ron restore some legitimacy to the Presidency and with it, to government.

That way, people go back to sleep.

That's how this ruse worked for so long.

It used to be one side would push, the other pull (but not enough to reverse the push)

Over time, we marched to technocracy.

But they got impatient.

That was their first mistake.

Electing Romney would be a big one. And it will fail miserably.

Do you agree with Rose, then?

That despotism's best chance to retain legitimacy is to elect Ron Paul? Is Romney our best hope for freedom?

That might be true if Paul would go along with the program of legitimizing government -- instead of criticizing it at every turn and telling people that most of the functions it performs are utterly illegitimate: unconstitutional and immoral. How can they control him, to keep him from spoiling their game? What will stop him from releasing all the hiterhto "secret" records of past administrations, exposing the vampiric Federal Reserve to bright sunlight, and shutting down their global Empire?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

No, despite the interesting mind game, I'm still supporting

Dr. Paul and I hope he wins.

For the very reasons you just explained.

Though, I don't think he will go as far as anyone here on the DP would like.

For sure, I doubt he'll release tons of secret records.

Maybe I have him pegged wrong, but I just don't think he's interested in that fight.

He has some things he wants to accomplish and I think he will work on those primarily. (bring the troops home, close overseas bases, and audit the Fed)

Larken's book is a must read!

Larken's book is a must read!

humor

... is good medicine.

Wellness Wårrior wisdom:

"assimilations and eliminations"

... wellness is a long-term war against crypto-eugenics for the soul of humanity.

Pick a side.

I posted this article, but don't agree with it.

Larken believes that a Paul presidency would be a bad thing, because it would restore faith in government. That might be true of ANY other semi-decent politician, but Ron Paul seems to be an exception to every rule. Paul may or may not accomplish all the great things that we, his supporters, know he will try to do. But one thing he will unquestionably do is educate the public on issues affecting liberty, banking, and the economy. He will make the case, every time he speaks, for government NOT running our lives, trespassing on our liberties, and generally behaving like the neighborhood bully on a global scale. He will change public perception of the proper function of government, and hopefully do serious damage to the welfare-warfare state.

He may even get people to start asking themselves why we need a government AT ALL. Do you think I exaggerate? Watch him in this speech he gave at CPAC last year. He said: "Government should NEVER be able to do anything YOU can't do."

Meditate on that. Review each and every function performed by our federal, state, and local governments, and ask yourself whether or not YOU have a moral right to do exactly the same thing. When you get right down to it, the ONLY time government is justified in using force is to defend innocent individuals against aggression. All the taxes, laws, regulations and restrictions that government lays on peaceful folk are acts of aggression, exactly the opposite of the sort of government libertarians favor. THAT is the sort of perception-change a Paul presidency might bring about. Larken thinks people will learn something from watching the economy crumble into dust. I doubt it. When things get really bad, people will still turn to government - which will inevitably make things even worse.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

made my day

Posted on Twitter.
Thanks.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Wow I see Mitt in a whole new light

not!

I think he has a point.

.

Yes he does!!

I'm with Dabooda concerning Larken's book "The Most Dangerous Superstition". Read it and you'll find he has thousands of great points!!! He's brilliant!