Subject:
Leader of the Misfits

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Dear Subscribers,

Yes, the title of this e-mail refers to Ron Paul, but before you
get all riled up, read the rest of it.

I like to keep an eye on what both sides of a disagreement have to
say. In fact, I find studying opposing views a lot more fun and
informative than looking at what my allies say. So, in that spirit,
I keep an eye out for critics of Ron Paul, to see what they can
come up with. And it ain't much.

One critic whined that Dr. Paul is getting the support of white
separatists, who never support anyone else in either party. From
that, we're supposed to conclude that we should be scared of Ron
Paul because (supposedly) nasty people support him. Nothing like a
little guilt-by-association to use in place of logic and evidence.
In that same vein, the status quo mouthpieces love to say that Dr.
Paul is supported by various kooks and wackos--fringe types who
just don't fit in. Well, why might that be?

What is a "misfit"? Someone who doesn't "fit in." In other words,
someone who isn't like everyone else. Well, I hate to break it to
all those people who consider "misfit" to be an insult, and who
take pride in their own normalcy, but I can't think of ANYONE in
history who made any real positive contribution to society who
WASN'T a misfit. And that is to be expected: it isn't all the sheep
who think the same things and do the same things who are going to
change anything; it's the people who go AGAINST the grain, who go
in a different direction--and usually such people are despised, and
often attacked, by the conformist sheep.

Well, guess what. There's a REASON for "misfits" to be pro-freedom:
because it is those who DON'T conform with the herd who are most
often oppressed. There are two reasons why "misfits" get involved
in politics: 1) to get "the law" to forcibly give them special
treatment (like all the various pieces of the Democratic base do);
or 2) to try to get "authority" to leave them alone. The latter is
what the "misfit" Ron Paul supporters want.

Unfortunately, people are so indoctrinated into state-worship that
they are incapable of distinguishing between "I don't like that"
and "government should use violence to stop that." And the tyrants
use that to constantly fuel their "divide and conquer" methods,
pitting one group against another, as a means to increasing their
own power. Here are a few examples:

1) Many people, myself included, think it's a bad idea to
excessively use mind-altering substances (including alcohol).
Nonetheless, I have no right to FORCIBLY control (by myself or by
way of "government") what someone else drinks, smokes, or shoots up
in his own house. They own themselves. I don't own them. So while I
may criticize their choices and behaviors, I will NEVER advocate
the initiation of violence against them. In a free society, we
could both coexist peacefully.

2) Some people, myself NOT included, think that races should stick
with their own, when it comes to where we live, who we marry, who
we do business with, etc. There are black "separatists" as well as
white (and lots of other colors). If people want to freely
associate that way, it their RIGHT to do so. If some guy--black or
white--only wants to hire people who are the same race, it is his
money, and he has every right to make that choice, no matter what
anyone else thinks of it. In a free society, racial separatists and
the rest of us can coexist peacefully. We don't go onto their
property and tell them who they can hire, who they can fire, and
who they can associate with, and they let us do what we want on our
property.

3) Many people, myself included, think prostitution is extremely
unhealthy--mentally even more so than physically--for both "seller"
and "buyer." Nonetheless, I do not have the right--by myself or by
way of "government"--to forcibly interfere in a mutually voluntary
business deal, however distasteful I may find it. Once again, in a
free society, we can coexist peacefully.

4) Many people, myself included, consider the term "marriage" to
mean a certain kind of relationship between a man and a woman. Some
people, however, think two men, or two women, should be allowed to
get married. The "government" answer is the usual "divide and
conquer" tactic: half of the tyrants promise to use FORCE to stop
two people of the same sex from having a wedding ceremony.
Meanwhile, the other half promises to FORCE everyone to acknowledge
the validity of "same sex marriages" and to treat them just like
the usual kind of marriage. In a free society, two people can say
and think whatever they want, and I can say and think whatever I
want to about it. If two men want to have a ceremony and say they
are "married," I have no right (by myself or by way of
"government") to forcibly stop them. On the other hand, they have
no right to force anyone else to accept the legitimacy of their
"marriage." Once again, we can coexist peacefully, if we accept the
premise of individual freedom.

5) Many people, myself NOT included, don't think normal people
should own firearms. (For the moment, we'll ignore the fact that
statist indoctrination is the main reason anyone thinks that.)
Those people can say what they want, and think what they want, but
they have no right--by themselves or by way of "government"--to
forcibly disarm those who want to own firearms. And, not that it's
a big problem, but the rest of us have no right to FORCE anyone
else to own a gun. (There is at least one town in which this was
done.) Again, if we accept the value of FREEDOM, we can coexist
peacefully. If you don't want to come into my house when there are
guns here, fine. And if you want to tell me I can't come into your
house with a firearm, that's fine too. (I know a couple who are
devout pacifists AND strongly against victim disarmament (aka "gun
control"), because they understand the principle of individual
rights.)

In one sense, the "Golden Rule" all by itself demolishes the entire
political game. If you don't want authoritarian thugs telling YOU
what you can say, what you can read, what you can watch, what you
can eat, what you can drink, what you can smoke, where you can
live, who you can work for, who you can hire, etc., then DON'T
ADVOCATE THAT THEY DO THAT TO ANYONE ELSE! And if you don't want to
be forcibly robbed via "taxation" to fund things YOU don't like,
how about not voting for people who will do the same to other
people?

Those deemed "misfits" are merely the ones whose preferences and
beliefs are not in the majority. Whether their views are better or
worse than the majority, they tend to be the oppressed ones. As
such, it should come as no surprise that they would support a
candidate who believes in FREEDOM--their freedom, as well as
everyone else's.

The masses have been so trained to view the game of politics as a
great contest to decide WHICH viewpoints and behaviors should be
forcibly destroyed, and which should be rewarded, that most
Americans are incapable of considering the possibility that aside
from acts of force or fraud, NOTHING should be condemned OR
rewarded by the control freaks calling themselves "government." I
know it's a radical extremist viewpoint, but maybe we should leave
each other alone. But the statist indoctrination of the majority
has been so effective that most people assume that if you want to
leave someone in FREEDOM to do something, you must CONDONE what
they choose to do with that freedom. That's just bad logic. You
see, this is how peaceful society can exist:

I can say to the pothead, "You shouldn't fry you brain," and at the
same time say to the DEA thug, "You have no right to break into his
house, drag him away, and put him in a cage." I can say to the
prostitute, "You really shouldn't be doing that," and at the same
time tell the "vice squad" fascists that they have no right to
forcibly interfere. And so on. In short, I can have lots and lots
of very vehement differences of opinion with lots of different
kinds of people, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY OWN THEMSELVES, and
that I don't own them. That is why, as Ron Paul's campaign is
proclaiming, the cause of freedom unites us; it does not divide us.
So, aside from whatever other differences we may have, I don't at
all mind being on the same side with all the other "misfits" when
it comes to opposing unjustified "government" violence.

In the Declaration of Independence, it says that ALL people, which
would include the "misfits," have inalienable rights. All those who
condescendingly scoff at the pro-freedom "misfit" lobby now
supporting Ron Paul apparently believe otherwise. I guess they
think rights are only for the average, conformist sheep.

Sincerely,


Larken Rose
http://www.tyrantbook.com

(P.S. Of course, all the people who are NOT "misfits," but who are
being "taxed" and "regulated"--i.e., robbed and controlled--to
death, also benefit from freedom. While the "misfits" get stomped
on the most by tyrants, just about everyone gets a substantial
amount of stomping in one way or another, so we'd all benefit from
a reduction in totalitarian "stompage.")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Charset: UTF8
Version: Hush 2.5

wpwEAQECAAYFAkdG/QcACgkQGmVFo/iGj322sgP8D5zGkrnLsHMkrBapycM24T9511b1
TJI5p3jH5noXw90NjNdbLZnk6+cGo6QQirY+x3loCUJOYx4NmwJMimPxa2qyaj1PlnAq
TK00PRXWI0IK8o/Ch6VrIr5v26x2AlusvJqK7S0vxDbZvkf4VmZVR9Xn6QwZyqK2gtyg
XvnGPr0=
=YOO+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe,   send a blank message to tmds-on@mail-list.com