Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 12, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

12:31

1828 True News: 'No Place for Violence in our Political Discourse' ?!?!?

It's hard to get upset with people who are so deluded - the media response to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting is a true example of the power of the Matrix.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Some more thoughts on the Giffords shooting.
	A lot of effort has been poured into the escalation of rhetoric in the political discourse in America.
	Sarah Palin's crosshairs and some Democrats saying that our opponents are behind enemy lines and all of this sort of stuff.
	What doesn't seem to have been made as a connection by anybody outside of WikiLeaks is the degree to which People who are susceptible to violent rhetoric, and there's no proof from any of this, this is just a speculation.
	People who are susceptible to violent rhetoric were imbibing an enormous amount of assassination rhetoric from American politicians and media pundits about assassinating Julian Assange, hunting him down, killing him, having these special forces go and take him out.
	For insane people, I would imagine, hearing political leaders kneel before the altar of assassination and praise the murder of a foreign national may have had some effect on his thinking.
	We don't know this, of course, and we probably never will.
	But rather than talking about Sarah Palin's crosshairs, which were metaphorical and everybody understands that, how about Sarah Palin's call for the assassination of Julian Assange?
	I unfortunately could not find anything about what Gifford said about The assassination, maybe it's out there, maybe it's not.
	If you do, please let me know.
	But I also couldn't find any place wherein she'd condemned the call for assassination by other political leaders against Julian Assange.
	Is this related? We may never know.
	We probably never will know.
	But I think we can say that if he had exposure, if this young man had exposure to this kind of rhetoric, it may not have been unrelated to what he ended up doing.
	Of course, Lochner had had run-ins with the police many times prior to his assassination.
	There are also reports that I've not been able to confirm that the sheriff's office knew that he'd made death threats against people and did nothing, of course.
	This is what happens when you put your security in the hands of the state.
	But the only thing that I really wanted to touch on here, I had talked earlier about the potentiality for his abuse as a child.
	There are some indications of this, that his father was verbally abusive and aggressive, extremely bad-tempered, and would scream at the neighbors for not putting the garbage out on time and so on, and also that Lochner had shown up to school drunk on vodka and was suspended, I believe, and was complaining that his father was yelling or screaming at him.
	This is a lot of pressure for a sensitive and intelligent young man to go through that he'd been picked on in school seems almost So predictable that you can't even really bother mentioning it.
	But I also wanted to mention something about the degree of delusion that people in the media are in about the nature of their society.
	So, Keith Olbermann, I'll just read a paragraph or two from what he talked about.
	He said, we need to put the guns down.
	Just as importantly, we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.
	Left, right, middle, politicians and citizens, sane and insane, this morning in America, this age in which this country would accept targeting of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.
	This morning in Arizona, this time of the ever-escalating borderline ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse is closed.
	And he basically said, as so many have, paraphrasing, he says, there is no place for violence in our political discourse.
	I'd like you to dwell, just sit on that phrase like a hen on an egg until it hatches the truth.
	There is no place for violence in our political discourse.
	That is a truly astounding statement.
	And it shows the degree to which propaganda can so thoroughly derange, unseat, and corrupt minds that it has no idea how far it is from the truth.
	One more time.
	There is no place for violence in our political discourse.
	How do you even begin breaking down such a delusion?
	Politics Government is force.
	Laws are violence.
	Prison is coercion.
	The police kidnap and imprison.
	National debts are theft from the unborn.
	Our theft, tariffs, regulations are all the initiation of force.
	A federal registry in the US produces upwards of 100,000 pieces of new legislation every year.
	The tax code, the books detailing the tax code even in small font could fill a small room.
	I don't even know how to say it in a way that doesn't sound like I'm saying to a PhD mathematician that two and two make four.
	The state is the social agency with a monopoly on the initiation of force in a geographical area.
	To say that there is no room for violence in a political discourse is like saying there is no room For stealing in theft.
	There is no room for aggression in mugging.
	The state is the very definition of violence.
	The state passes a law.
	The law is enforced upon the citizens through the initiation of force.
	Citizens who resist that initiation of force will be gunned down.
	Those who obey will be kidnapped and imprisoned.
	To say that there is no place for violence in the political discourse is so completely bizarre.
	It's like saying there's no place for aggression in war.
	There's no place for bloodshed in war.
	There's no place for cutting in surgery.
	I mean, it's so bizarre.
	There's no place for writing in calligraphy.
	I mean, it's so hard to even know what to say to somebody who's that deranged that they don't actually understand the nature of what it is that they're talking about to that degree.
	When I was younger, I used to get enraged by this kind of stuff, but the fantasy is so deeply embedded that it cannot be uprooted, say, through intergenerational progress.
	People are so deluded about the nature of the system that they're in that it simply takes a new generation.
	As they used to say about scientific theories, scientific theories never die, just their ancient advocates eventually snuff it through natural causes.
	But this is what is going to have to happen.
	This is multi-generational.
	There is no short-term solution to the institutionalization of violence in the form of the state.
	It is simply the next generation is going to have to be told the truth because there's simply no way.
	These trees are too deeply embedded in people's minds to uproot them.
	If you uproot them, it's like they're going to go mental or something like that.
	So I just sort of really wanted to point that out, that what it is is a highlighting of the degree of derangement.
	For example, Obama says, At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it is important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
	But just think of the drug war. So Keith Olbermann says, let's put down the guns figuratively and metaphorically.
	Fantastic. Then he must be talking about the war on poverty, the war on illiteracy, the war on drugs, let alone the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 700 plus military bases the U.S. has around the world, holding guns to the necks of the locals.
	Private violence is hideous and should be morally condemned in all of its forms, but it completely pales in the face of public violence.
	There's a researcher in Hawaii, a professor in Hawaii, I believe, who's coined the term democide, who has talked about the fact that there are between 250 and 300 million murders of citizens by their governments in the 20th century alone, not including wars.
	This is just... Murders against their own.
	This doesn't count people who are incarcerated and die, or incarcerated and lose years of their life through things like the drug war.
	But saying that we should respect those with a difference of opinion, why doesn't this apply to people who want to trade voluntarily with each other?
	Why is it that this doesn't apply to people who want to smoke drugs?
	Why is it that this doesn't apply to people who want to make their own arrangements for their retirement and who don't want to have money stolen from them and blown and be left with nothing but empty coffers in the end?
	Why doesn't this apply with people who would rather use anything other than the police to protect their persons and their property, who want to make private arrangements for security?
	Why doesn't it apply to any of these people?
	Why doesn't it apply to people who don't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who should be perfectly free to not fund that which they find morally reprehensible and abhorrent?
	Because government is all about forcing people with a difference of opinion.
	It is about the failure Of conversation.
	It is about the failure of discourse.
	It is about the failure of negotiation.
	When the guns come out, civilized discourse is already gone.
	And the state is only a big gun pointed at exactly what citizens want to do and forcing them to do otherwise.
	Government is exactly what people don't want to do.
	Because they have to be forced.
	If you come across a woman who's having sex with a guy, you know it's rape if he has a knife to her throat.
	Well, government is forcing people to do stuff or not do stuff.
	And therefore, it is an exact delineation of what everybody does not want to do in society.
	How do we know that people don't want to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
	Because they have to be forced to do so.
	How do we know that people don't want Social Security?
	Because they have to be forced into participating in it.
	How do we know that people don't want a war on drugs?
	Because they have to be forced to fund it and support it.
	How do we know that people loathe and hate public education?
	Because they have to be forced to support it, and forced to send their children there, and forced to pay for it.
	Whatever somebody is doing when they have a gun to their head is exactly what they don't want to do.
	People complain and say, oh, well, threats against government officials have increased 300% over the past few years.
	That is terrible. I completely agree.
	But how many new laws, how many more taxes, how much more debt has been piled on the average citizen?
	How many threats are being made by government employees to their citizens if you don't get in this body scanner, if you don't accept this fiat currency, if you want to look for alternatives, a gold-based currency?
	What is going to happen to you?
	You're going to be thrown in jail!
	How civil is that goddamn discourse?
	But really, I feel the outrage dissipating even as I speak, because It is throwing the dandelions of truth at the endless brick wall of delusion.
	So I speak not to my contemporaries and certainly not to my elders, but to the young in the hopes of opening their eyes to the world that they live in, and to recognize that, to the truly deluded, you can't even charge them with hypocrisy, because they have no idea,

▲