A letter from Larken Rose on the events transpiring yesterday in Austin.
-
No link, so I'm posting the whole thing... ----- Original Message ----- From: tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:47 PM Subject: Mr. Stack, Rest in Peace Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy. You can decide for yourself if this was the case. As best I can tell, today Joseph Stack burned down his house, and then crashed his plane into the Austin, Texas offices of the IRS. We don't need to ponder the reason, because he told us why, in a suicide note, which can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle24783.htm I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans. In other words, compared to the deluded masses of conformists, Mr. Stack was the sane one. Several statements in his suicide note show that he had overcome the authoritarian statist indoctrination far more than most people ever will. Does the following sentiment sound familiar? "We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place ... I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood." [Joseph Stack, 2/18/2010] A lot of you will find aspects of Mr. Stack's personal story disturbingly familiar. I see no need to parse every sentence of it, though I would urge everyone to read it all, carefully. What would drive a rational, intelligent man to do such a thing? Of course, the control freaks and their propagandists will paint Mr. Stack as a nutcase, and will claim that his actions, by themselves, prove that he was insane. But they don't. They prove he was desperate, and frustrated, and that he was willing to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to try to resist injustice. And THAT is the part the parasite class does NOT want people to think about. They will paint him as a "mentally unstable" "tax cheat," or apply to him whatever other labels they think might make people not want to THINK about what Mr.
josda1000 wrote:
I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans.
Ok, that scares the hell out of me. Not that it's true, but that someone believes it. I read that rant, I have a copy sitting here, this guy was no more in touch with reality than I am the economic viability of a colony on Pluto. Just going to reiterate this, just because they agree with you, doesn't mean they're right. Generally speaking, anyone with the urge to burn down their home and fly a plane into a building is not someone who is thinking all to clearly. In fact, if he was of sound mind there are far more effective measures that could have been taken, but the writing in question is obviously the product of an addled mind and the actions are those of someone who has completely lost their grip on reality, or at least decency. It's funny, because until right about now I'd been of the opinion that the smart tea baggers and libertarians were running screaming the other direction from this guy, as the majority of the ones I'd seen had been. Seeing this, I think I may owe my five bucks as I may have lost the bet on the subject.
-
josda1000 wrote:
I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans.
Ok, that scares the hell out of me. Not that it's true, but that someone believes it. I read that rant, I have a copy sitting here, this guy was no more in touch with reality than I am the economic viability of a colony on Pluto. Just going to reiterate this, just because they agree with you, doesn't mean they're right. Generally speaking, anyone with the urge to burn down their home and fly a plane into a building is not someone who is thinking all to clearly. In fact, if he was of sound mind there are far more effective measures that could have been taken, but the writing in question is obviously the product of an addled mind and the actions are those of someone who has completely lost their grip on reality, or at least decency. It's funny, because until right about now I'd been of the opinion that the smart tea baggers and libertarians were running screaming the other direction from this guy, as the majority of the ones I'd seen had been. Seeing this, I think I may owe my five bucks as I may have lost the bet on the subject.
I do agree that his actions were nuts. But think about it: what of the Boston Massacre? That was extreme, but there was a reason for it. Some people lost their minds from utter oppression from the crown of England. I'm not condoning what he did. But he had reason.
Distind wrote:
Just going to reiterate this, just because they agree with you, doesn't mean they're right.
I do agree with Joe Stack's stance, though I don't condone his actions and I don't believe he was right in doing it.
Distind wrote:
Generally speaking, anyone with the urge to burn down their home and fly a plane into a building is not someone who is thinking all to clearly.
Ahhh! Notice what you said. You said, "Generally speaking..." Yes, generally, you're right. Some people lose their calm because of conditions that have been created by themselves, and their own actions alone. But in this case, it looks like they were created by the IRS and the corporation he was working for. He lost a lot, and he couldn't take it anymore. So he did something outrageous, extreme, and taboo, nevermind the fact that he's violating property rights of the United States of America. But he did it out of losing a lot. "When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it." To me, in the end, it sounds like a rational response, revenge. Nature has its way of working things out.
Distind wrote:
In fact, if he was of sound mind there are far more effective measures that could have been taken
Such as?
Distind wrote:
but the writing in question is obviously the product of an addled mind and the actions are those of someone who has completely lost their grip on reality, or at least decency.
I disagree. If you were trampled on, are you going to fight back or just let them keep doing that to you? That's the idea of freedom right there in a nutshell.
Distind wrote:
It's funny, because until right about now I'd been of the opinion that the smart tea baggers and libertarians were running screaming the other direction from this guy, as the majority of the ones I'd seen had been. Seeing this, I think I may owe my five bucks as I may have lost the bet on the subject.
Again, it depends on your idea of rationale. If you're a libertarian running
-
No link, so I'm posting the whole thing... ----- Original Message ----- From: tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:47 PM Subject: Mr. Stack, Rest in Peace Rest in Peace, Mr. Stack Earlier today, a victim of the largest extortion racket in the world struck back, giving up his life in the process. The control freaks, and their propagandists who pretend to be "reporters," will no doubt spend the next few weeks demonizing the man, or painting him as crazy. You can decide for yourself if this was the case. As best I can tell, today Joseph Stack burned down his house, and then crashed his plane into the Austin, Texas offices of the IRS. We don't need to ponder the reason, because he told us why, in a suicide note, which can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.infoarticle24783.htm I found reading the note very disturbing, mainly because Mr. Stack was obviously far more intelligent, and more in touch with reality, than the vast majority of Americans. In other words, compared to the deluded masses of conformists, Mr. Stack was the sane one. Several statements in his suicide note show that he had overcome the authoritarian statist indoctrination far more than most people ever will. Does the following sentiment sound familiar? "We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place ... I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood." [Joseph Stack, 2/18/2010] A lot of you will find aspects of Mr. Stack's personal story disturbingly familiar. I see no need to parse every sentence of it, though I would urge everyone to read it all, carefully. What would drive a rational, intelligent man to do such a thing? Of course, the control freaks and their propagandists will paint Mr. Stack as a nutcase, and will claim that his actions, by themselves, prove that he was insane. But they don't. They prove he was desperate, and frustrated, and that he was willing to GIVE UP HIS LIFE to try to resist injustice. And THAT is the part the parasite class does NOT want people to think about. They will paint him as a "mentally unstable" "tax cheat," or apply to him whatever other labels they think might make people not want to THINK about what Mr.
You know, I can feel some pity for the guy, in that half of his financial problems came from being made jobless by recessions. But look at the guy's suicide note again... Look specifically at the IRS-related problems. Incident #1: He tried to exploit a tax loophole and failed. Incident #2: The tax code was modified, and he spent $5000 and a lot of time campaigning to revert it. Incident #3: He didn't file a tax return at all (Assuming that no income = No tax return) Incident #4: He hired an accountant, and according to Stack, the accountant screwed up. Now if his letter is all true, then #4 was not his fault, and he's within his rights to sue that accountant for damages. But the first three are his own choices. Like it or not, the tax code is the law. If you break the law, there are penalties. Yes, the tax code is ridiculously complicated and in serious need of reform, but until/unless it changes, it's the law. So the guy got screwed by the economy, got screwed by a bad accountant, and failed in his attempts to game the system. Partly his fault, partly just bad luck or poor planning. Doesn't give him the right to commit a terrorist act. Yes, it was a terrorist act. It was a calculated use of violence against civilians (IRS employees), in order to attain political goals (Tax reform). http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You know, I can feel some pity for the guy, in that half of his financial problems came from being made jobless by recessions. But look at the guy's suicide note again... Look specifically at the IRS-related problems. Incident #1: He tried to exploit a tax loophole and failed. Incident #2: The tax code was modified, and he spent $5000 and a lot of time campaigning to revert it. Incident #3: He didn't file a tax return at all (Assuming that no income = No tax return) Incident #4: He hired an accountant, and according to Stack, the accountant screwed up. Now if his letter is all true, then #4 was not his fault, and he's within his rights to sue that accountant for damages. But the first three are his own choices. Like it or not, the tax code is the law. If you break the law, there are penalties. Yes, the tax code is ridiculously complicated and in serious need of reform, but until/unless it changes, it's the law. So the guy got screwed by the economy, got screwed by a bad accountant, and failed in his attempts to game the system. Partly his fault, partly just bad luck or poor planning. Doesn't give him the right to commit a terrorist act. Yes, it was a terrorist act. It was a calculated use of violence against civilians (IRS employees), in order to attain political goals (Tax reform). http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
-
OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way.
He committed an act with no purpose other than to cause fear. Do we have a better definition of terrorism? If he thought it would accomplish anything more it's nothing but another sign of how far gone he was.
-
OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism[^] Random House Dictionary: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. #1 applies. American Heritage Dictionary: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Applies. Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism #1 applies. Since he attacked the IRS, and supplied a politically-charged suicide note demonizing the IRS, it seems that his attack was politically-motivated. He used violence against a non-military target in order to elicit change in the tax code. I do agree that if this starts to be commonly referred to as "terrorism," the media, public, and government will likely overreact and try to shove another Patriot Act down our throats... But it is what it is.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism
I expect that the people who were working in the building at that time would be in complete disagreement with you. As am I. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
You know, I can feel some pity for the guy, in that half of his financial problems came from being made jobless by recessions. But look at the guy's suicide note again... Look specifically at the IRS-related problems. Incident #1: He tried to exploit a tax loophole and failed. Incident #2: The tax code was modified, and he spent $5000 and a lot of time campaigning to revert it. Incident #3: He didn't file a tax return at all (Assuming that no income = No tax return) Incident #4: He hired an accountant, and according to Stack, the accountant screwed up. Now if his letter is all true, then #4 was not his fault, and he's within his rights to sue that accountant for damages. But the first three are his own choices. Like it or not, the tax code is the law. If you break the law, there are penalties. Yes, the tax code is ridiculously complicated and in serious need of reform, but until/unless it changes, it's the law. So the guy got screwed by the economy, got screwed by a bad accountant, and failed in his attempts to game the system. Partly his fault, partly just bad luck or poor planning. Doesn't give him the right to commit a terrorist act. Yes, it was a terrorist act. It was a calculated use of violence against civilians (IRS employees), in order to attain political goals (Tax reform). http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)The law can state that I have no free speech, doesn't mean I'm going to follow it. I would shit all over that law.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism
I expect that the people who were working in the building at that time would be in complete disagreement with you. As am I. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism. Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
The law can state that I have no free speech, doesn't mean I'm going to follow it. I would shit all over that law.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism. Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Supposedly throwing a water balloon at a protest is terrorism
Citation needed.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Since that is terrorism, it is justification for indefinite detention and torture.
Underlying assumption not proven, hence derivative clause is invalid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Or you actually go through the long and painful process of either reshaping the nation, or burning the old and starting something new. Which generally fails, horribly in most cases. What you don't do is sit there and bitch, then strike out at people when they finally get tired of you.
-
And you would be punished for it. When you live in a country, you follow the laws of that country, or you move out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)So you would submit to that law? With lack of freedom? What was this country built on? New Hampshire's slogan is: "Live free or die." The steps of the Archives of the United States of America has a plaque: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When laws are corrupt and unjust, people will sacrifice their lives for freedom. That's what you saw in this statement. Call it terrorism, call it a massacre. I call it a statement for freedom.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way.
He committed an act with no purpose other than to cause fear. Do we have a better definition of terrorism? If he thought it would accomplish anything more it's nothing but another sign of how far gone he was.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism[^] Random House Dictionary: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. #1 applies. American Heritage Dictionary: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Applies. Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 2 : violent and intimidating gang activity terrorism #1 applies. Since he attacked the IRS, and supplied a politically-charged suicide note demonizing the IRS, it seems that his attack was politically-motivated. He used violence against a non-military target in order to elicit change in the tax code. I do agree that if this starts to be commonly referred to as "terrorism," the media, public, and government will likely overreact and try to shove another Patriot Act down our throats... But it is what it is.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
-
Distind wrote:
He committed an act with no purpose other than to cause fear.
Apparently you did not read the letter. Please do so. The reason he did it was because of personal issues with the IRS, whether he was in the right or not.
Oh, so it's not terrorism if you only terrorize people, just if you don't have some justifiable grudge against the target. Oh, wait a second, I have another report just in, 9/11 was not an act of terrorism either as there are very good reasons those involved would like to bomb the living hell out of the US.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Webster's Dictionary of Law: 1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
josda1000 wrote:
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
The key to dealing with this is admitting that if the American revolution where to occur now we would have been labeled terrorists, and we very much did commit such acts during it. This flimsy rationalizing isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
OK I see your points... BUT! Please do not call it terrorism. It's just a crime, I would argue. Calling it terrorism leads to the idea of domestic terrorism, and then opens a pandora's box of namecalling that may never close. People will start calling normal thinking people such as myself (however unpopular I am) as terrorists, as the MIAC report has already done. Yes, he did something extreme and committed suicide and a crime. But he did not commit an act of terrorism, just because Princeton tends to define it a certain way. What about a dictionary or something? But even then I just can't do such a thing and call this guy a terrorist.
josda1000, what exactly disqualifies this from being terrorism, that he had a small plane rather than a large one, that his goals were political rather than political-religious, or that his target was an IRS building rather that the Pentagon? Barring you giving me some good reason not to consider this act what it so obviously is, then I'm going to continue calling this particular suicide dive-bomber a terrorist.
-
Oh, so it's not terrorism if you only terrorize people, just if you don't have some justifiable grudge against the target. Oh, wait a second, I have another report just in, 9/11 was not an act of terrorism either as there are very good reasons those involved would like to bomb the living hell out of the US.
Yes because so many fucking people are in fear right now, aren't they? Nobody's in fear, they know it's over. Yes, people were killed and a couple of buildings are destroyed. But the one that caused this destruction is dead. It's over. Life goes on. 9/11 can be considered terrorism (if you believe the official story), because those who'd committed the act were a part of a group, and that group still exists.
-
josda1000 wrote:
When talking about it in this way, I'd say that if that law is unjust, then yes, crimes will be committed in order to show that the law is unjust and try to repeal it. When people submit to laws that are directed against liberty and our own decision making, it is just wrong. We have a right to the fruits of our labor, not the government. That's the basis of this whole thing.
The key to dealing with this is admitting that if the American revolution where to occur now we would have been labeled terrorists, and we very much did commit such acts during it. This flimsy rationalizing isn't going to get you anywhere.