Hey, Larkin Rose here. The way people talk says a lot about how they think and how they perceive reality and
the language and vocabulary that most people use when it comes to law and
political authority
shows a profoundly bound and
subjugated mindset.
Now one particular example of that is how the word
allowed is used by believers in government.
You're not allowed to own that firearm. You're not allowed to possess that substance.
You're not allowed in the country without the proper paperwork.
You're not allowed to build that without a government permit.
That's the way children talk and think when it comes to what their parents allow them to do.
But what does it literally mean?
Sometimes it's even expressed as you can't do that. It's against the law.
But lots of people do things that are against the law.
So to say that people can't do illegal things is obviously inaccurate.
When the average person says you can't do that or you're not allowed to do that,
it literally means that the politicians have issued
formal and official threats
to send armed enforcers after anyone who does a certain thing.
Now if you're out there robbing and assaulting others,
I'm all in favor of someone stopping you by force if necessary, whether he has a badge or not.
But the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with stopping actual aggressors.
Mostly they're just arbitrary commands issued by control freaks.
But notice how the difference in thought comes out as a difference in language.
If a local street gang or mafia style crime syndicate in some city
started beating up anyone caught outside after midnight, for example,
lots of people living in that city might change their behaviors and not go out after midnight just out of self-preservation.
But they wouldn't talk as if they are the bad guy if they disobey.
If you went out after midnight, no one else would condemn you as an immoral criminal
and lawbreaker for disobeying the gang thugs.
They might say you were stupid and risked nasty things happening to you.
But they wouldn't talk as if you were somehow the bad guy in the situation.
But when the gang of thugs called government does such things,
lots of people will view you as the bad guy for disobeying.
When they say you can't do that or you're not allowed to do that,
they don't just mean that disobedience is dangerous. They mean it is morally wrong
because they have been trained their whole life to view obedience to authority as a virtue.
So they think and talk and act like well-trained subjects of a ruling class
because that's exactly what they are. They even often feel pride in how well they obey and pay
tribute to political parasites, proudly wearing the label of law abiding taxpayer
as if that makes them a good person, which it doesn't.
So when, for example, stories come out about some people destroying flock cameras to resist the
Orwellian surveillance state nonsense, some well-trained subjects jump to be first to condemn
those scoff law vandals because you're not allowed to do that. And it's against the law.
So the Karens are thinking and acting like house slaves, literally.
If you haven't seen my video about that, I will include the link in the description below.
But there is another allowed that is relevant here. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, the federal government is not allowed to spy on people, track them,
invade their privacy, do searches and seizures and so on and so forth without probable cause.
But what does allowed mean in that context? Absolutely nothing.
Some ink on parchment says they're not supposed to do that, but so what?
What is the enforcement mechanism of that supposed prohibition? There isn't one.
Yeah, you can beg judges after the fact, who are appointed by and paid by the same politicians
pushing the authoritarian crap. You can petition them to please retroactively say that the feds
can't do what they did. But if they do it anyway, then what? Now, if you get caught doing what
the law says you're not allowed to do, expect men with guns to show up to punish you, rob you,
cage you, maybe kill you if you resist. If politicians do things that they're not constitutionally
allowed to do, what happens to them? Nothing. And what do well-trained subjects
think should happen to the politicians or their enforcers for doing things they're not allowed to do?
Nothing. If the authorities don't punish themselves, which is a silly thing to expect or hope for,
then what do obedient law-abiding taxpayers think should even happen?
Revolution? Illegal resistance? Violence or otherwise? No. Most people would say, oh,
we can't do that. So what should happen when they do things they're not allowed to do,
which they do constantly? People who think that political authority is real and legitimate are
necessarily and automatically mental slaves. They believe that government has the right
to rule them and all the other mere peasants, and that the mere peasants should never take the
law into their own hands by disobeying and resisting or by acting as criminals, traders,
and terrorists by not meekly putting up with whatever abuse of authoritarian crap those in power
decide to inflict upon them. And of course, it means nothing to say that someone isn't allowed
to do something if no one can stop them and if there are no adverse consequences to them doing it.
Sadly, even many of those who object to and protest about and sometimes even resist
authoritarian injustice, many of them still often think and speak inside the statist paradigm,
when a cop illegally detained someone, an educated citizen might say, you can't
detain me without probable cause to think I've committed a crime? Well, yes, he can,
as demonstrated by the fact that he just did. You can say that he wasn't supposed to,
according to some document that he ignores, has probably never read,
is too stupid to understand, obviously doesn't care about, and will almost certainly
never be punished for violating. But here comes the really uncomfortable part for
well-trained subjects. If a badge wearing thug obviously ignores the law, the very law that
supposedly gives him his authority, what do you have the right to do about it?
He wasn't allowed to do that. He can't do that. The law says so. Okay, but they
violate their own laws constantly. So now what? Mind about it? Hope that his gang is going to
investigate him and punish him? Good luck with that. And you know that even if a cop is completely
breaking the law, the badge wearers are absolutely going to escalate their use of violence until
they get their way. They're literally trained to do exactly that. Keep calling in more and more
of their fellow gang members until you submit and comply or die. Even if it's complying with
completely illegal actions or demands, things they're not allowed to do, only they obviously are
by definition allowed to do those things since they do them constantly and get away with it.
So setting aside their bullshit laws, which are mostly arbitrary crap anyway, and which they
never know and never actually obey themselves, what would you have the moral right to do
if they're doing what they're not allowed to do? Even if you still believe that political authority
is real and legitimate, which it's not, if the law enforcers are being law breakers,
are you obligated to just let them get away with that? Are you obliged to allow yourself to be
illegally victimized? And cops love to say, kick it up with the judge. In other words, just let us
mistreat and abuse you and later ask some other authority to retroactively say that we weren't
supposed to do that to you, as if that would fix or undo anything. Now as a practical matter,
you may very well choose to passively allow the injustice to happen to you,
just so the power happy and trigger happy cops don't just murder you for resisting.
But do you have any moral obligation to just let them do what they're theoretically not even
allowed to do? If not, what's the alternative? Ask them nicely to stop, or make them stop by any
means necessary, even if that requires defensive force, even if that requires deadly force.
Am I saying that mere peasants would sometimes be morally justified in shooting law enforcers?
Absolutely, I am saying exactly that. By the way, the founding fathers said exactly that,
and they did exactly that, and they wrote the Second Amendment specifically so the people would
forever retain the ability to do exactly that. Even the US Supreme Court has recognized that
people sometimes have the right to do exactly that, even within their own bogus legal system.
In the case of John Bad Elk vs. United States, where someone forcibly resisted an illegal arrest,
the Supreme Court said this, quote, where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder,
which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very
different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest,
from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case
might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense
had been committed, end quote. Whether you like hearing it or not, cops are quite literally
allowed to stop you for no good reason, to detain you, harass and interrogate you without just cause,
to behave like power-happy sadistic jerks, abuse you, lie about the law, lie about the facts,
lie about what they just did to you. That keeps happening to people over and over again,
so by definition the cops continue to be allowed to do all those things regardless
of what any legislation or constitution might say about it. Now, when the people decide to stop
allowing that, and they make it stop themselves, not by whining or protesting or voting,
but by resisting by any means necessary, that is the only time that cops actually won't be
allowed to behave like power-happy tyrants. Until then it's just slaves begging the master
to be nicer, which doesn't have a great track record of success. In the words of Frederick Douglass,
quote, power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just
what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice
and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with
either words or blows or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress, end quote. To put that in a more modern and more blunt vernacular,
unless and until some people start shooting more of these crooked power-happy assholes
when they're breaking their own laws, expect the authoritarian abuse to continue.
And if you are shocked and offended by that obvious description of reality,
which centuries of history show all too well, then you are still mentally subjugated and bound.
And you should probably read this book so that you stop thinking and acting like someone else's
livestock.