@szaagman Actually, it's probably a very good sign. More people are coming to realize that loyalty to a political jurisdiction, whether you call it "nationalism," "patriotism," or anything else, is nothing more than slaves feeling loyalty to their master. A people, or a place, or a culture, or a principle, might have things worth loving, but why should anyone "love" the turf over which a particular gang ("government") claims the right to rule, defined by an imaginary line?
@LarkenRose I respect your opinion and your right to it, but I think loyalty for ones country in it's purest, unadulterated form stems from sharing the beliefs which that country tries to uphold. Also if something isn't right in our country, it's the job of the people to make it so, as you said. That's why me and so many others are doing the Occupy _____ protests.
@Medevila Sorry, but the beliefs most Americans share revolve around state-worship, irresponsibility, thuggery and ignorance. I won't speak for you, but it seems like most protestors simply want the giant beast called "government" giving THEM goodies, and violently imposing THEIR agenda, rather than the agenda of the Wall Street crooks. Americans don't want freedom, or even know what it is. They just want to fight over who gets to control the club of "government."
How is Bush a nazi? Nazis didn't start wars against random countries like Bush did. Hitler invaded only countries who had been stolen from the German empire and given new names. He militarily restored citizenship to the Germans in "Poland" that had been conquered after West Prussia was stolen from Germany and given to Poland after WW1. England and France started WW2 over THAT, but didn't fight Russia when they took over Poland at the end of the war.
Your first sentence had me worried, but the rest was a nice save. I personally do not like national socialism, nor do I have any feelings for Hitler, but your version of history is quite correct.
Yeah, except that the "holocaust" tale has long been debunked as post-war propaganda. These days, it's merely something that Marxist-Zionists use in their war of ethnic supremacism against Christians and other non-Jews -- an effective way to extort from the gullible masses. If you want to see what "Nazi" Germany was really about, the watch:
Good job Larken. I've heard people make a "serious attempt" at country and not come close to this. If it was on Itunes, I'd give you a buck for it (and I'm a hard rock / heavy metal guy :-)
Only a complete idiotic mouth-breathing troglodyte would give the old "love it or leave it" line. It's hard to believe that people that blind to what's happening to this country still exist. Well, yes I can, thanks to our education system. Complete idiots they are.
You're gonna take your chainsaw anal rape and like it dammit!
So if you do not like the Socialist police state direction America is heading toward, you should move to a socialist police state. The illogic of such a statement is immediately self-evident.
Nice smear which is very weak. I would respond further but it appears those below me responded quite well.
"Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it." Patrick Henry
Great video! Cowboy Clyde "gets it". We can choose fascist (Bush) or Marxist (Obama) but forget liberty, that has redefined as unAmerican...but maybe they have schooled the America out of us by now.
Great response to that barfy Lee Greenwood song they play at 4 H events and fairs.
No I think I will stay, thanks. Do you recognize the total lack of logic demonstrated in the act of blathering "love it or go to North Korea" to people who criticize the U.S. government for drifting toward a dictatorship like North Korea? Would you have said to Patrick Henry, "If you don't like life in the colonies, move to tsarist Russia"?
Why should I leave? I love this country, it is the freaking government I hate. They (both major parties) are the ones who changed, not me or my kin. You are telling the wrong people to go to North Korea or China. Bush, Obama, Clinton, et al would be more at home there.
Because we live here; this is our land. That government is an interloper when it acts aggressively towards us. What if a burglar broke into your house and told you, "Well, if you don't like it, you can leave."
Is the government a burglar who came to your 'house' (country) from elsewhere? No, it's your own goddamn misbehaving son. If you had followed the teacher in your government-paid school, you'd know that the people you elect to run your country are the same people that live there and that if you weren't a dumbass, you'd be able to run for an office yourself.
Tell that to the Indians. Tell that to that Tories, the Mexicans, and the Southerners. All states are created and maintained through conquest and aggression. They are not us, and we did not create them. That's pure propaganda. They are the ruling class that holds power over us at the point of a gun. The magical talisman of "democracy" is a lie, a method of managing us by making us think we're free. Wake up, PrunedSamurai, and don't let yourself be duped by your slave masters.
I never said that the US was created by anything more than aggressors, though while it doesn't justify it, they did what they thought was right. That's one reason why it should collect taxes to help out the Native Americans living in crappy conditions today. And hey, I live in a free country where I'm able to run for office (granted that I'm of proper age) and I believe US is the same. Your democracy isn't a lie, you just have to learn to use it.
You're saying that the US govt should steal money from innocent people to pay damages to the descendants of its former victims. Whereas justice demands that the personal assets of the aggressors--Obama for example--should be stripped from them and they should be in debt bondage for the rest of their lives to pay the massive damages they owe to their victims. Democracy is a lie, lie, lie. Even true democracy could exist--and it can't--it would be tyranny of the majority.
Thanks to that damage, they are still victims. And yes you should pay for it. I personally would change a lot about how, how much and to whom any of the money would be paid out, but that's that. Not until the rest of your lives, until people in your country have equal opportunities to live their lives as they see fit. If everyone would see that purpose, your country would turn into a paradise in no time. And any state of being is the tyranny of the majority, that's inevitable.
I should pay for it? No, because I didn't aggress against anyone. Pay yourself. You don't know what justice is. I don't care what you want me to change, to do, or to see to. I just want people who think like you to LEAVE ME ALONE. Just stop pointing that gun to my head and LEAVE ME ALONE. No, tyranny of the majority is not inevitable. In a society based on individual liberty, people who design to commit violence against others would be subject to retaliation.
If you find yourself a nice little forest somewhere, then by all means, live there and don't pay taxes. Just don't use the public roads, built for your money, to get there. Or the education you received (or would've been able to receive, had you wanted it). Or anything else your country has provided you with. If everyone would have to willingly choose to help the poor and the needy, then they'd be much worse off. Why? Study some sociology dumbass.
No, as I said 2 months ago, I refuse to be forced off of my legitimately-owned property because a gang of brutal, vicious mass murderers laughably claims that I , in some mystical and abstract way, signed up to have them enslave me. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be accomplished through aggression couldn't be accomplished more efficiently through voluntary interaction. And even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter, because the ends don't justify the means and aggression is always evil.
Okay, then answer this- how or from whom did you obtain that land from? How or from whom did that person obtain that land from? And so on. As I imagine you could trace it back to when the first settlers came there, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't you or your ancestors. So they had to obtain it somehow. Did they do it peacefully? If not, then how? By force? What makes that more right than the government taking it by force?
No one has accused my family obtained our land illegitimately. If they did and they could prove it, then we would be obligated to give the land to them. However, it can be shown that the US govt acquired its land through force. IF it had obtained its territory peacefully, it would be the actual property owner of that territory. But it didn't and it isn't. Even if it were the owner of its territory, it couldn't lock people in prisons, execute them, and start aggressive wars.
Yeah well the guys (and their children, if they had any) you took it from are long dead or living in reservations and they have no chances of proving anything (though don't take my word for it, I haven't researched your ancestry or the origins of your place of residence). That, however, doesn't make the land you are living on legally yours. If I commit a crime and no one can prove it, does that still make me a criminal? I believe so. And I guess you'd allow criminals to roam freely?
It's tragic that various land thefts have occurred over the centuries, but there's nothing we can do about it now. You don't have a specific victim pressing charges against a specific defendant with evidence. I'd like it if all of the money stolen through taxation was returned to the rightful owners too, but that impossible. The money's spent and gone. We can't correct all aggressions from the beginning of time, but that's no justification to embrace the ongoing aggressions of the state.
Then don't embrace it. Do something about it! Gather enough supporters and start a party if needed. Even a local one. Chew out from the inside (since there certainly won't be a revolution there, at least not a pro-anarchist one). Try to work out how the government could take less taxes and build less roads for you. Try to explain to the people that free education and public protection against fire and crime are evil. I'm sure you won't get far, but hey, that's life!
"Participate" in an evil system? So if I'm oppressed by the Mafia, I should JOIN them and work within the system. Maybe I'll rise to become a capo, and I'll lower the rates of protection money a little. (Of course, I probably won't get far, but hey, that's life).
No, I'd rather work on propounding how the state is evil, is a failure, and should be smashed FROM THE OUTSIDE IN.
And the fact that you use the lie about govt services being "free" demonstrates the depths of your statist delusions.
Free in the sense you don't have to pay directly for education, seesh you aren't that stupid.
Well good luck to you, gather around you everyone who thinks like you and smash the government of the USA from the outside in. I believe that if you'd gather enough smart and good people around you, they might give you a piece of land where you could try out your anarchy. In the mean time, the rest of the world keeps on living their normal lives, while paying taxes, but at the same, enjoying life.
I'd rather pay for things I want upfront and VOLUNTARILY than have my money picked from my pocket by thieves who'll give a portion of it back in "services" I never chose nor asked for. Wouldn't you? Or are you that crazy?
No, no state is going to give up its territory to let anyone live in a stateless society. In fact, they're actively trying to force statism on the Somalis. They'll never allow an anarchist society if they could help, because it would provide what worthless parasites they are.
Yes because the Somalis have it all SO good right now.
But what about if you wouldn't have money to pay for protection. Or you could pay for protection but couldn't afford fire insurance? How would you choose from all the service providers? If there isn't anyone to regulate the market, who could assure you that their services are what they say they are? Think about it realistically for a second. Would that kind of a system function?
They have it better than they did under communism and better than most of the surrounding states.
How, how, how. I'd explain if I thought you were really interested, but you still can't see why states are evil. If you don't understand the why, how can you understand the how? Nonetheless statelessness doesn't mean there'd be no law and no enforcement; it just wouldn't be in the hands of a monopoly. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for the US govt's $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities?
Oh I see why you think states are evil, I just fail to see any other possible solution. For every glimpse into your 'better' society, I can think of several things that I don't think would work there. And yes, for me statelessnes does mean that, since there would be no government imposed rules over the whole community, then the ones with brute force would actually impose rules and laws that they see better. And we'd be back in tyranny.
We're already in tyranny, so it would be a wash at best. In fact, anarchists have long discussed peaceful ways to set up voluntary institutions to replace states. What about panarchism, in which everyone is free to sign up for one govt or another or no govt at all? You keep insisting we have to stop wasting time on YouTube and get like-minded people to promote these things; well, what do you think we're doing but fighting in the marketplace of ideas? (What are you doing on YouTube anyway?)
I'm entertaining myself. Thought I'd learn more about the possibilities of anarchy, but all I see is people who don't really want to pay their taxes. Panarchism, though I admit I know next to nothing about it, seems difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
If you're seriously interested in details of how a voluntary society might work, you're not going find them by watching a joke video and reading 500 word comments. Read theoretical essays on market anarchy like Bob Murphy's "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?, Stefan Molyneux's "The Stateless Society," or Roderick Long's "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections." They're all online. Or watch Long's "An Anarchist Legal System" speech on YouTube.
Panarchism is simply a method of achieving a voluntary society, which is all anarchists want to achieve. We're against the state because it's aggressive, and aggression is immoral as well as inefficient. Panarchism strikes me as one of the least invasive ways of doing it, since in panarchism statists can keep their states so long as they allow us to opt out (without having to emigrate to do so).
anything else my country "provided" me with (with my own stolen income): Wars, big brother surveillance, worthless paper money, militarized police, prison-industrial complex, quasi-fascist economy....
help for the poor: The govt's doing such a good job with that, which is why we have a permanent, dependent underclass and 10% unemployment.
"study some sociology": Modern academia is another tool of the state.
Seeing everything in the positive light eh? So every teacher in every school is a brainwashed state-zombie? Even those who teach, say chemistry? All the policemen (who are working there from their free will, protecting your ass, tho sometimes doing a better job, sometimes worse) are a bad thing? Yeah like the government cares what porn you watch. If you don't like how things are, gather some support and run for office. Or go learn something. Or keep on sitting in YouTube, chasing wind.
I'll say it again: there is NOTHING that can be provided through aggression that can't be provided more efficiently through voluntary interaction, and even if there was it wouldn't matter, because the ends don't justify the means and aggression is always wrong. And yes, the schools are dysfunctional child prisons, the police torture, maim, kill, and loot people people enforcing victimless crime laws, and govt does spy on people without warrant, you happy house slave.
Ok so let me get it- you'd prefer if a) schools were voluntary (or better, no schools at all); b) every single person would have to hire bodyguards (what about orphans? who'd guard the guards?); c) the government... oh wait you wouldn't like a government to look over you at all. Right, like that would make the world a better place. Anarchy won't work, no matter how. The state is the only way, the question is just how much power the state should have.
If voluntary groups can't provide these services, why would you trust a violent monopoly to do so? It's never worked. Statism has utterly failed in every area it's been tried. "Who guards the guards"? That's the whole point! Who'll protect us from this monopolistic institution with a million guns? Are you American? Then you live under the rule of a group of people who control thousands of nuclear bombs, and you blithely trust them to protect the orphans? Hogwash!
Because I think they do a better job than a private company that I'd have to find out about and hire myself. Because I think they'd also protect the ones who are incapable of paying for a company to protect them on the ultra-free-anarchist-market. I don't live in the US but I was in it's political life as a volunteer for 4 months (grassroot level election campaign work) and while I can point out many flaws, I'm 100% sure it does a better job than the total absence of government would do.
A state does a better job than a private company in providing security because you don't have to find out about the state? Duh...Why would a violent monopoly do a good job with ANYTHING? And if it does do a better job than voluntary institutions, why not have it run everything as in the USSR? As for affordability, we can't afford the state now. It steals half of our income plus inflation and it still has tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Well, thank goodness it's ****free****
Well I'm enjoying relative security in my small home town. I did so also in another small town in the US. It doesn't run everything as in the USSR, because people (the voters) believe that it only runs SOME areas better. By the way the USSR wasn't 100% bad, evil and rotten. It had good parts also. In fact, some areas were better organised than in the US today. Of course your country could be run better, but I don't think anarchy would be that 'better way'.
I'm NOT enjoying my lack of security here in a decaying authoritarian empire. I see you have a soft spot for the totalitarian slave state that slaughtered 60 million people (not counting war) and impoverished hundreds of millions more. I'm glad you said it, so we all can see the sort of butchery you're willing to defend in the name of "law and order." But the truth is that human beings tend towards order through voluntary interaction on their own. You don't have to force them into it at gunpoint
Sad to hear that you live in a crappy neighborhood then.
And don't put words into my mouth, I never protected the evil deeds of USSR. I just said that even those guys could run a few things (other than Gulags). My country has suffered more from the occupation of the USSR than the US could ever imagine.
And yes, human beings tended towards order through voluntary interaction and thus formed the USA. Though some descendants seem be unhappy (and unwilling to do anything to fix it).
"those guys could run a few things" So does communism work or doesn't it? Even if it does work (actually it doesn't, but whatever), that doesn't justify forcing it on people at gunpoint.
So you're still contending the US govt is a voluntary association, even though you agree that it gained power by driving out the Indians. But it also drove the British loyalists in Canada, stole the southwest from Mexico, and violently reconquered the secessionist south. This is a brutal, violent empire.
No it doesn't, not like it was run in the USSR at least.
Well wasn't it you who said something along the lines, that "well the past is past, what's been done is done, we can't change that." and that we should live in the present day? The current situation is that yes, it's a voluntary association. You really can't change it unless you gather enough like-minded people. These crappy YouTube videos won't be enough.
No, the US govt is not now a voluntary association; it is an institution committing vast aggressions even as we speak. It commits them against its citizenry through taxation, legislative decrees, etc. We never signed up for this govt, whatever you claim; it was imposed upon us. Even if we had signed up, what voluntary organization is allowed to imprison or execute misbehaving members? And then there's the violence it's committing against foreign populations through wars, bombings, sanctions.
Running for office solves nothing. Do you really think that the ruling classes would allow a person who wanted to dismantle their aggressive apparatus of power to be elected, say, US president? Gimme a break.
I have to wonder, when "PoliticalByline" gets a flat tire, does he try to FIX it, or abandon his car in a ditch and go find another car? If the plumbing in his house starts to leak, does he try to FIX it, or abandon his house? If you're so busy feeling blind nationalistic pride that you can't see how BROKEN this country is, then kindly get out of the way so those of us with principles can try to fix it. (I think if "PoliticalByline" ever read "The Iron Web," his head would explode.)
You also have to love how he assumes that anyone who criticizes the U. S. gov't is a commie, and would be happier in a "socialist paradise" like N. Korea or Venezuela. What, can't traditional conservatives and libertarians criticize the gov't without being demonized as "America-haters"? As Ron Paul said, dissent from unjust gov't policy is the mark of the true patriot.
you mean if it want to be left alone and don't want the government crimminals to rip me off(income tax) and control me as if i were a slave, i must leave? that is the opposite of freedom.
You elect the government yourself, jackass. If you don't like it, gather some alike-minded people around you and do something to change it instead of writing witty comments on YouTube!
i do not elect the government myself. the majority does. do you not think there are natural rights that must be observed? if i own my own body and the property i aquire then a majority elected government can't take it away. it is theft if they can, and i think the current system could be called a form of slavery. one tip: the name calling does nothing but discredit you. happy new year!
We love this country which is why people are trying to get the truth out. Instead of all the Joe Six packs out their that endless brainwash themselves with the propaganda spewed forth from the Main Stream News. Educate yourself. Shut off the "boobtube" and open your eyes. Don't be a sheeple!
Actually, Karl Marx's ideas DO naturally lead to both poverty and violence. Communism is not a good idea that wasn't done right; it is an inherently evil, destructive, animalistic, anti-human idea. If you want to know WHY that is (and it's not because flag-wavers say so), do a web search for "Obama Mania" and "Larken Rose," together. (For some stupid reason, YouTube doesn't seem to allow comments with web links in them.)
Oh then why during Soviet Russia there were many areas which were run far better than in the US today (I'm not saying Soviet Russia was anything better than Anarchy, btw)?
You're making the common error of mistaking Stalin for all of communism! He had the Nazis hell-bent on destroying the U.S.S.R., and he was a sociopath----but that doesn't mean that the ideas of Karl Marx would somehow always lead to slaughter! Communism is an economic system, not a call for mass slaughter---quite the opposite, actually.
The only place communism will work is in a small group of committed followers such as a small religious order. In any other situation it will lead to mass murder. Can you give any example of any group other than small self contained groups where communism has worked?
Explain please how labor and capital goods will be allocated peacefully under communism if there are disagreements between part owners or between the individual worker and the "collective decision". What will happen to the fellow who dissents? Will the community out of motherly love sustain the economic apostates?
Hey thanks for the compliments, particularly that of calling me a drummer! Now I know that there is at least one other person in the world with my peculiar dispositions.
I hate bashing of Karl Marx, because most people who criticize communism/socialism actually know nothing about it but the U.S. propaganda they've been fed for decades.
BUT--this song makes up for it at the very end by calling 9/11 a "false flag attack", which is exactly what it was.
Rockin' ! Too bad you fade out right at the end- is there a sequel coming?
Reading "How to be a Successful Tyrant" now, and getting lots of good ideas for my hostile takeover of the Galopagus islands... "come on you Iguanas- pay up or get out!"
I loved it Larken!! Way 2 Go! I finished ur book 'The Iron Web' and I loved that too. U should be very proud and every American better listen up to what ur sayin man. Thanks for all u do.
Has government actually served the people? My memory might be failing. God help us if they get health care in their hands. What ever they touch turns to ruin. I scratch my head and wonder how government serves me well. I'm at a loss to answer. I take solace in the fact I have no childen. Somehow I don't have faith things will improve and am relieved the utter disappointment will end with me. My God help the future generations, they will need it and more. Cowboy Clyde is quite the wise cowboy!
The "swastika" on Bush's forehead is mis-inverted: to be an accurate Nazi version it would go counter-clockwise, otherwise it's just the original Kabbalistic symbol...
Dang it! You're right, but what makes it really sad is that I even double-checked. Then I flipped Bush's face while designing the poster, which flipped the swastika and made it backwards. Gack! (I'm just obsessive enough to re-render it with that fixed... but not tonight.)
great video. as long as the statist are in power this country is doomed.
denisonM 1 month ago
i hate USA
1AMPAKISTAN 3 months ago
This needs to go Viral.
M14Mann 4 months ago
My new favorite song.
ArsenalReady 7 months ago
This is so so so sad that when I Google 'I love my country' this is what comes up.
szaagman 8 months ago
@szaagman Actually, it's probably a very good sign. More people are coming to realize that loyalty to a political jurisdiction, whether you call it "nationalism," "patriotism," or anything else, is nothing more than slaves feeling loyalty to their master. A people, or a place, or a culture, or a principle, might have things worth loving, but why should anyone "love" the turf over which a particular gang ("government") claims the right to rule, defined by an imaginary line?
LarkenRose 8 months ago 7
@LarkenRose I respect your opinion and your right to it, but I think loyalty for ones country in it's purest, unadulterated form stems from sharing the beliefs which that country tries to uphold. Also if something isn't right in our country, it's the job of the people to make it so, as you said. That's why me and so many others are doing the Occupy _____ protests.
Medevila 4 months ago
@Medevila Sorry, but the beliefs most Americans share revolve around state-worship, irresponsibility, thuggery and ignorance. I won't speak for you, but it seems like most protestors simply want the giant beast called "government" giving THEM goodies, and violently imposing THEIR agenda, rather than the agenda of the Wall Street crooks. Americans don't want freedom, or even know what it is. They just want to fight over who gets to control the club of "government."
LarkenRose 4 months ago 4
Love it! I doubt Huckabee will be inviting you on his show any time soon to play this song. But that's a good thing.
rightarmofwyoming 10 months ago
Great video.
SeppLainer 1 year ago
more, more, more!!!
depravity0 1 year ago
It's really creepy when the ex-prez's + Obama side-step across the frame in their jeggings.
rockstarofredondo 1 year ago
Lovely singing voice Larken! ;)
Regards,
Greg Diaz
dsgvishnu 1 year ago
hahaha
Neo1ehT 1 year ago
Comment removed
bomb6710 1 year ago
Dancing high cap mags! Yesss!
G95G95 1 year ago
How is Bush a nazi? Nazis didn't start wars against random countries like Bush did. Hitler invaded only countries who had been stolen from the German empire and given new names. He militarily restored citizenship to the Germans in "Poland" that had been conquered after West Prussia was stolen from Germany and given to Poland after WW1. England and France started WW2 over THAT, but didn't fight Russia when they took over Poland at the end of the war.
hughtub 1 year ago
@hughtub
Your first sentence had me worried, but the rest was a nice save. I personally do not like national socialism, nor do I have any feelings for Hitler, but your version of history is quite correct.
SeppLainer 1 year ago
Nice job! Loved the ending!
landofthefreemyass 2 years ago
Unbelievably funny
Good song buddy
dave777blaster 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Obama a socialist?
What a fucking stupid hill billy moron.
llothar68 2 years ago
Is he an anarcho-capitalist?
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago
@llothar68
The only moron here is you. Good day.
MisterDajjal 2 years ago
Comment removed
bomb6710 1 year ago
Awesome!
warzmx 2 years ago
".....since that false-flag attack...."
LOL!
NoLongerFooled 2 years ago
Those who do not study history ...Are doomed to repeat it...
interseed 2 years ago
Think Nazi Germany 1937-ff and you will certainly be seeing what is coming forth~~The eugenics/ chemical halocaust is here folks ~~
It is time to Shout and then arm yourselves...Where is Paul Revere when you need him~~~"The Nazis' are coming"~~~'Oppppps they are here!!!
interseed 2 years ago
@interseed
Yeah, except that the "holocaust" tale has long been debunked as post-war propaganda. These days, it's merely something that Marxist-Zionists use in their war of ethnic supremacism against Christians and other non-Jews -- an effective way to extort from the gullible masses. If you want to see what "Nazi" Germany was really about, the watch:
"Adolf and Controversy"
Shalom!
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago 6
Good job Larken. I've heard people make a "serious attempt" at country and not come close to this. If it was on Itunes, I'd give you a buck for it (and I'm a hard rock / heavy metal guy :-)
realjoeplummer 2 years ago 3
lol its a funni song.....even my parents think so.....dey agree wit it!!! lmao
famousCANDII144 2 years ago
What's he saying just before "... they sent the bill to me"?
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
"I thought it was awful nice of them to give stuff away for free, but I felt a wee tad differently when they sent the bill to me."
LarkenRose 2 years ago 3
Ah, knew it was something like that but wasn't sure, cheers. Some great lines in there
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
Only a complete idiotic mouth-breathing troglodyte would give the old "love it or leave it" line. It's hard to believe that people that blind to what's happening to this country still exist. Well, yes I can, thanks to our education system. Complete idiots they are.
You're gonna take your chainsaw anal rape and like it dammit!
jscott2700 2 years ago 6
So if you do not like the Socialist police state direction America is heading toward, you should move to a socialist police state. The illogic of such a statement is immediately self-evident.
joesub 2 years ago 4
I agree. It's much better to vote from the rooftops.
Tsailand 2 years ago
ThisNovember5th D0t c0m Pledge to take this country back.
fishbuc11 2 years ago
Nice smear which is very weak. I would respond further but it appears those below me responded quite well.
"Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it." Patrick Henry
Open your eyes!
fishbuc11 2 years ago 3
Great video! Cowboy Clyde "gets it". We can choose fascist (Bush) or Marxist (Obama) but forget liberty, that has redefined as unAmerican...but maybe they have schooled the America out of us by now.
Great response to that barfy Lee Greenwood song they play at 4 H events and fairs.
napkinner 2 years ago 3
No I think I will stay, thanks. Do you recognize the total lack of logic demonstrated in the act of blathering "love it or go to North Korea" to people who criticize the U.S. government for drifting toward a dictatorship like North Korea? Would you have said to Patrick Henry, "If you don't like life in the colonies, move to tsarist Russia"?
ParadiddleMcFlam 2 years ago 2
And the Grammy goes to...
Cowboy Clyde!
(Larken Rose producing)
healthhavencom 2 years ago 2
If we do leave, we're taking our taxable incomes and draft-age children with us.
implicaverse 2 years ago 5
Why should I leave? I love this country, it is the freaking government I hate. They (both major parties) are the ones who changed, not me or my kin. You are telling the wrong people to go to North Korea or China. Bush, Obama, Clinton, et al would be more at home there.
Csmallo 2 years ago 3
Because we live here; this is our land. That government is an interloper when it acts aggressively towards us. What if a burglar broke into your house and told you, "Well, if you don't like it, you can leave."
OldCottage2 2 years ago 6
well said
healthhavencom 2 years ago
Is the government a burglar who came to your 'house' (country) from elsewhere? No, it's your own goddamn misbehaving son. If you had followed the teacher in your government-paid school, you'd know that the people you elect to run your country are the same people that live there and that if you weren't a dumbass, you'd be able to run for an office yourself.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
Tell that to the Indians. Tell that to that Tories, the Mexicans, and the Southerners. All states are created and maintained through conquest and aggression. They are not us, and we did not create them. That's pure propaganda. They are the ruling class that holds power over us at the point of a gun. The magical talisman of "democracy" is a lie, a method of managing us by making us think we're free. Wake up, PrunedSamurai, and don't let yourself be duped by your slave masters.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
I never said that the US was created by anything more than aggressors, though while it doesn't justify it, they did what they thought was right. That's one reason why it should collect taxes to help out the Native Americans living in crappy conditions today. And hey, I live in a free country where I'm able to run for office (granted that I'm of proper age) and I believe US is the same. Your democracy isn't a lie, you just have to learn to use it.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
You're saying that the US govt should steal money from innocent people to pay damages to the descendants of its former victims. Whereas justice demands that the personal assets of the aggressors--Obama for example--should be stripped from them and they should be in debt bondage for the rest of their lives to pay the massive damages they owe to their victims. Democracy is a lie, lie, lie. Even true democracy could exist--and it can't--it would be tyranny of the majority.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Thanks to that damage, they are still victims. And yes you should pay for it. I personally would change a lot about how, how much and to whom any of the money would be paid out, but that's that. Not until the rest of your lives, until people in your country have equal opportunities to live their lives as they see fit. If everyone would see that purpose, your country would turn into a paradise in no time. And any state of being is the tyranny of the majority, that's inevitable.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
I should pay for it? No, because I didn't aggress against anyone. Pay yourself. You don't know what justice is. I don't care what you want me to change, to do, or to see to. I just want people who think like you to LEAVE ME ALONE. Just stop pointing that gun to my head and LEAVE ME ALONE. No, tyranny of the majority is not inevitable. In a society based on individual liberty, people who design to commit violence against others would be subject to retaliation.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
If you find yourself a nice little forest somewhere, then by all means, live there and don't pay taxes. Just don't use the public roads, built for your money, to get there. Or the education you received (or would've been able to receive, had you wanted it). Or anything else your country has provided you with. If everyone would have to willingly choose to help the poor and the needy, then they'd be much worse off. Why? Study some sociology dumbass.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
No, as I said 2 months ago, I refuse to be forced off of my legitimately-owned property because a gang of brutal, vicious mass murderers laughably claims that I , in some mystical and abstract way, signed up to have them enslave me. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be accomplished through aggression couldn't be accomplished more efficiently through voluntary interaction. And even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter, because the ends don't justify the means and aggression is always evil.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Okay, then answer this- how or from whom did you obtain that land from? How or from whom did that person obtain that land from? And so on. As I imagine you could trace it back to when the first settlers came there, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't you or your ancestors. So they had to obtain it somehow. Did they do it peacefully? If not, then how? By force? What makes that more right than the government taking it by force?
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
No one has accused my family obtained our land illegitimately. If they did and they could prove it, then we would be obligated to give the land to them. However, it can be shown that the US govt acquired its land through force. IF it had obtained its territory peacefully, it would be the actual property owner of that territory. But it didn't and it isn't. Even if it were the owner of its territory, it couldn't lock people in prisons, execute them, and start aggressive wars.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Yeah well the guys (and their children, if they had any) you took it from are long dead or living in reservations and they have no chances of proving anything (though don't take my word for it, I haven't researched your ancestry or the origins of your place of residence). That, however, doesn't make the land you are living on legally yours. If I commit a crime and no one can prove it, does that still make me a criminal? I believe so. And I guess you'd allow criminals to roam freely?
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
It's tragic that various land thefts have occurred over the centuries, but there's nothing we can do about it now. You don't have a specific victim pressing charges against a specific defendant with evidence. I'd like it if all of the money stolen through taxation was returned to the rightful owners too, but that impossible. The money's spent and gone. We can't correct all aggressions from the beginning of time, but that's no justification to embrace the ongoing aggressions of the state.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Then don't embrace it. Do something about it! Gather enough supporters and start a party if needed. Even a local one. Chew out from the inside (since there certainly won't be a revolution there, at least not a pro-anarchist one). Try to work out how the government could take less taxes and build less roads for you. Try to explain to the people that free education and public protection against fire and crime are evil. I'm sure you won't get far, but hey, that's life!
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
"Participate" in an evil system? So if I'm oppressed by the Mafia, I should JOIN them and work within the system. Maybe I'll rise to become a capo, and I'll lower the rates of protection money a little. (Of course, I probably won't get far, but hey, that's life).
No, I'd rather work on propounding how the state is evil, is a failure, and should be smashed FROM THE OUTSIDE IN.
And the fact that you use the lie about govt services being "free" demonstrates the depths of your statist delusions.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Free in the sense you don't have to pay directly for education, seesh you aren't that stupid.
Well good luck to you, gather around you everyone who thinks like you and smash the government of the USA from the outside in. I believe that if you'd gather enough smart and good people around you, they might give you a piece of land where you could try out your anarchy. In the mean time, the rest of the world keeps on living their normal lives, while paying taxes, but at the same, enjoying life.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
I'd rather pay for things I want upfront and VOLUNTARILY than have my money picked from my pocket by thieves who'll give a portion of it back in "services" I never chose nor asked for. Wouldn't you? Or are you that crazy?
No, no state is going to give up its territory to let anyone live in a stateless society. In fact, they're actively trying to force statism on the Somalis. They'll never allow an anarchist society if they could help, because it would provide what worthless parasites they are.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Yes because the Somalis have it all SO good right now.
But what about if you wouldn't have money to pay for protection. Or you could pay for protection but couldn't afford fire insurance? How would you choose from all the service providers? If there isn't anyone to regulate the market, who could assure you that their services are what they say they are? Think about it realistically for a second. Would that kind of a system function?
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
They have it better than they did under communism and better than most of the surrounding states.
How, how, how. I'd explain if I thought you were really interested, but you still can't see why states are evil. If you don't understand the why, how can you understand the how? Nonetheless statelessness doesn't mean there'd be no law and no enforcement; it just wouldn't be in the hands of a monopoly. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for the US govt's $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities?
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Oh I see why you think states are evil, I just fail to see any other possible solution. For every glimpse into your 'better' society, I can think of several things that I don't think would work there. And yes, for me statelessnes does mean that, since there would be no government imposed rules over the whole community, then the ones with brute force would actually impose rules and laws that they see better. And we'd be back in tyranny.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
We're already in tyranny, so it would be a wash at best. In fact, anarchists have long discussed peaceful ways to set up voluntary institutions to replace states. What about panarchism, in which everyone is free to sign up for one govt or another or no govt at all? You keep insisting we have to stop wasting time on YouTube and get like-minded people to promote these things; well, what do you think we're doing but fighting in the marketplace of ideas? (What are you doing on YouTube anyway?)
OldCottage2 2 years ago
I'm entertaining myself. Thought I'd learn more about the possibilities of anarchy, but all I see is people who don't really want to pay their taxes. Panarchism, though I admit I know next to nothing about it, seems difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
If you're seriously interested in details of how a voluntary society might work, you're not going find them by watching a joke video and reading 500 word comments. Read theoretical essays on market anarchy like Bob Murphy's "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?, Stefan Molyneux's "The Stateless Society," or Roderick Long's "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections." They're all online. Or watch Long's "An Anarchist Legal System" speech on YouTube.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Panarchism is simply a method of achieving a voluntary society, which is all anarchists want to achieve. We're against the state because it's aggressive, and aggression is immoral as well as inefficient. Panarchism strikes me as one of the least invasive ways of doing it, since in panarchism statists can keep their states so long as they allow us to opt out (without having to emigrate to do so).
OldCottage2 2 years ago
how about the opportunity to opt out? If a government is good, then people will support it. If it goes bad (like now) then people just opt out.
Let the cycle of revolution continue.
jimmyjoe1975 2 years ago 2
public roads: Traffic-clogged death traps
public education: State propaganda mills
anything else my country "provided" me with (with my own stolen income): Wars, big brother surveillance, worthless paper money, militarized police, prison-industrial complex, quasi-fascist economy....
help for the poor: The govt's doing such a good job with that, which is why we have a permanent, dependent underclass and 10% unemployment.
"study some sociology": Modern academia is another tool of the state.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Seeing everything in the positive light eh? So every teacher in every school is a brainwashed state-zombie? Even those who teach, say chemistry? All the policemen (who are working there from their free will, protecting your ass, tho sometimes doing a better job, sometimes worse) are a bad thing? Yeah like the government cares what porn you watch. If you don't like how things are, gather some support and run for office. Or go learn something. Or keep on sitting in YouTube, chasing wind.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
I'll say it again: there is NOTHING that can be provided through aggression that can't be provided more efficiently through voluntary interaction, and even if there was it wouldn't matter, because the ends don't justify the means and aggression is always wrong. And yes, the schools are dysfunctional child prisons, the police torture, maim, kill, and loot people people enforcing victimless crime laws, and govt does spy on people without warrant, you happy house slave.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Ok so let me get it- you'd prefer if a) schools were voluntary (or better, no schools at all); b) every single person would have to hire bodyguards (what about orphans? who'd guard the guards?); c) the government... oh wait you wouldn't like a government to look over you at all. Right, like that would make the world a better place. Anarchy won't work, no matter how. The state is the only way, the question is just how much power the state should have.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
If voluntary groups can't provide these services, why would you trust a violent monopoly to do so? It's never worked. Statism has utterly failed in every area it's been tried. "Who guards the guards"? That's the whole point! Who'll protect us from this monopolistic institution with a million guns? Are you American? Then you live under the rule of a group of people who control thousands of nuclear bombs, and you blithely trust them to protect the orphans? Hogwash!
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Because I think they do a better job than a private company that I'd have to find out about and hire myself. Because I think they'd also protect the ones who are incapable of paying for a company to protect them on the ultra-free-anarchist-market. I don't live in the US but I was in it's political life as a volunteer for 4 months (grassroot level election campaign work) and while I can point out many flaws, I'm 100% sure it does a better job than the total absence of government would do.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
A state does a better job than a private company in providing security because you don't have to find out about the state? Duh...Why would a violent monopoly do a good job with ANYTHING? And if it does do a better job than voluntary institutions, why not have it run everything as in the USSR? As for affordability, we can't afford the state now. It steals half of our income plus inflation and it still has tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Well, thank goodness it's ****free****
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Well I'm enjoying relative security in my small home town. I did so also in another small town in the US. It doesn't run everything as in the USSR, because people (the voters) believe that it only runs SOME areas better. By the way the USSR wasn't 100% bad, evil and rotten. It had good parts also. In fact, some areas were better organised than in the US today. Of course your country could be run better, but I don't think anarchy would be that 'better way'.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
I'm NOT enjoying my lack of security here in a decaying authoritarian empire. I see you have a soft spot for the totalitarian slave state that slaughtered 60 million people (not counting war) and impoverished hundreds of millions more. I'm glad you said it, so we all can see the sort of butchery you're willing to defend in the name of "law and order." But the truth is that human beings tend towards order through voluntary interaction on their own. You don't have to force them into it at gunpoint
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Sad to hear that you live in a crappy neighborhood then.
And don't put words into my mouth, I never protected the evil deeds of USSR. I just said that even those guys could run a few things (other than Gulags). My country has suffered more from the occupation of the USSR than the US could ever imagine.
And yes, human beings tended towards order through voluntary interaction and thus formed the USA. Though some descendants seem be unhappy (and unwilling to do anything to fix it).
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
"those guys could run a few things" So does communism work or doesn't it? Even if it does work (actually it doesn't, but whatever), that doesn't justify forcing it on people at gunpoint.
So you're still contending the US govt is a voluntary association, even though you agree that it gained power by driving out the Indians. But it also drove the British loyalists in Canada, stole the southwest from Mexico, and violently reconquered the secessionist south. This is a brutal, violent empire.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
No it doesn't, not like it was run in the USSR at least.
Well wasn't it you who said something along the lines, that "well the past is past, what's been done is done, we can't change that." and that we should live in the present day? The current situation is that yes, it's a voluntary association. You really can't change it unless you gather enough like-minded people. These crappy YouTube videos won't be enough.
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
No, the US govt is not now a voluntary association; it is an institution committing vast aggressions even as we speak. It commits them against its citizenry through taxation, legislative decrees, etc. We never signed up for this govt, whatever you claim; it was imposed upon us. Even if we had signed up, what voluntary organization is allowed to imprison or execute misbehaving members? And then there's the violence it's committing against foreign populations through wars, bombings, sanctions.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
Running for office solves nothing. Do you really think that the ruling classes would allow a person who wanted to dismantle their aggressive apparatus of power to be elected, say, US president? Gimme a break.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
awesome
rockhuddy 2 years ago
Damn, why'd it cut out at "false flag attack", was gettin' mighty intestin'
hagbard72 2 years ago
I have to wonder, when "PoliticalByline" gets a flat tire, does he try to FIX it, or abandon his car in a ditch and go find another car? If the plumbing in his house starts to leak, does he try to FIX it, or abandon his house? If you're so busy feeling blind nationalistic pride that you can't see how BROKEN this country is, then kindly get out of the way so those of us with principles can try to fix it. (I think if "PoliticalByline" ever read "The Iron Web," his head would explode.)
LarkenRose 2 years ago 11
You also have to love how he assumes that anyone who criticizes the U. S. gov't is a commie, and would be happier in a "socialist paradise" like N. Korea or Venezuela. What, can't traditional conservatives and libertarians criticize the gov't without being demonized as "America-haters"? As Ron Paul said, dissent from unjust gov't policy is the mark of the true patriot.
RMMHS4RP 2 years ago 5
you mean if it want to be left alone and don't want the government crimminals to rip me off(income tax) and control me as if i were a slave, i must leave? that is the opposite of freedom.
jdcow 2 years ago 13
You elect the government yourself, jackass. If you don't like it, gather some alike-minded people around you and do something to change it instead of writing witty comments on YouTube!
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
i do not elect the government myself. the majority does. do you not think there are natural rights that must be observed? if i own my own body and the property i aquire then a majority elected government can't take it away. it is theft if they can, and i think the current system could be called a form of slavery. one tip: the name calling does nothing but discredit you. happy new year!
jdcow 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why don't you leave? People like you are the ones who are screwing it up.
feeknocks 2 years ago
We love this country which is why people are trying to get the truth out. Instead of all the Joe Six packs out their that endless brainwash themselves with the propaganda spewed forth from the Main Stream News. Educate yourself. Shut off the "boobtube" and open your eyes. Don't be a sheeple!
fishbuc11 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
fishbuc11 2 years ago
Actually, Karl Marx's ideas DO naturally lead to both poverty and violence. Communism is not a good idea that wasn't done right; it is an inherently evil, destructive, animalistic, anti-human idea. If you want to know WHY that is (and it's not because flag-wavers say so), do a web search for "Obama Mania" and "Larken Rose," together. (For some stupid reason, YouTube doesn't seem to allow comments with web links in them.)
LarkenRose 2 years ago 3
Oh then why during Soviet Russia there were many areas which were run far better than in the US today (I'm not saying Soviet Russia was anything better than Anarchy, btw)?
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
brilliant
modelmark 2 years ago
so can i bash communism for all the people it helped slaughter? is that a good enough reason to hate it? i dont know the criteria so enlighten me
ekeyra 2 years ago
You're making the common error of mistaking Stalin for all of communism! He had the Nazis hell-bent on destroying the U.S.S.R., and he was a sociopath----but that doesn't mean that the ideas of Karl Marx would somehow always lead to slaughter! Communism is an economic system, not a call for mass slaughter---quite the opposite, actually.
ModernPlague 2 years ago
The only place communism will work is in a small group of committed followers such as a small religious order. In any other situation it will lead to mass murder. Can you give any example of any group other than small self contained groups where communism has worked?
Csmallo 2 years ago
Same goes for anarchy!
PrunedSamurai 2 years ago
Explain please how labor and capital goods will be allocated peacefully under communism if there are disagreements between part owners or between the individual worker and the "collective decision". What will happen to the fellow who dissents? Will the community out of motherly love sustain the economic apostates?
ParadiddleMcFlam 2 years ago 4
Understands human nature, capitalism, and is a drummer TOO!? Good man.
zambizzi 2 years ago 2
Hey thanks for the compliments, particularly that of calling me a drummer! Now I know that there is at least one other person in the world with my peculiar dispositions.
ParadiddleMcFlam 2 years ago
I hate bashing of Karl Marx, because most people who criticize communism/socialism actually know nothing about it but the U.S. propaganda they've been fed for decades.
BUT--this song makes up for it at the very end by calling 9/11 a "false flag attack", which is exactly what it was.
ModernPlague 2 years ago
Favorited!
cumatac 2 years ago
Brilliant production!
ysgeye 2 years ago
Awesome!
cumatac 2 years ago
He's already cookin' up more ideas!
What really baffles me is those "Related Videos." In what way is any of that related?
TheIronWebRocks 2 years ago
Wonderful Mr. Cowboy Clyde
hchw27 2 years ago
Rockin' ! Too bad you fade out right at the end- is there a sequel coming?
Reading "How to be a Successful Tyrant" now, and getting lots of good ideas for my hostile takeover of the Galopagus islands... "come on you Iguanas- pay up or get out!"
gordovious 2 years ago
Larken, I think you may have found a new "calling".
jamesclark830 2 years ago
Ride 'em, Cowboy!! yeeeee haw!!! More excellent than usual... Keep 'em movin!
PaxEtheria 2 years ago
All I can say is: MORE ! I want MORE !
What a perfect way to tell it like it is.
FEATHERSFLYING 2 years ago
That was great! Funny too! I hope you have more for us in the future. That was very entertaining.
V
VictoriaWarrior 2 years ago
I did, I did! This is his first venture into this genre, but he's done lots of other stuff. Maybe he'll put more of it on his channel eventually.
TheIronWebRocks 2 years ago 2
Who knew Larken Rose was a musical genius?
jimbabb 2 years ago 2
Way to go, Larken. Did you ever consider a career in country music? Not a bad voice. The lyrics are great. Hope it makes a few people think.
alvardo2 2 years ago 4
I love it!
vapatriot2 2 years ago 2
Great video!
moosegurl2008 2 years ago 2
I hope this goes viral. Maybe people will see the through humor that having a state, at any level, means accepting fascism.
Grimnir9 2 years ago 2
I loved it Larken!! Way 2 Go! I finished ur book 'The Iron Web' and I loved that too. U should be very proud and every American better listen up to what ur sayin man. Thanks for all u do.
Kimi
no1voyeur 2 years ago 3
Very well put together! It would be funnier if it wasn't so true.
leithellady 2 years ago 4
Nice work!
votefornotagainst 2 years ago 3
Has government actually served the people? My memory might be failing. God help us if they get health care in their hands. What ever they touch turns to ruin. I scratch my head and wonder how government serves me well. I'm at a loss to answer. I take solace in the fact I have no childen. Somehow I don't have faith things will improve and am relieved the utter disappointment will end with me. My God help the future generations, they will need it and more. Cowboy Clyde is quite the wise cowboy!
2cgod 2 years ago
amen bro
HeckaMega 2 years ago 2
The "swastika" on Bush's forehead is mis-inverted: to be an accurate Nazi version it would go counter-clockwise, otherwise it's just the original Kabbalistic symbol...
realbadger 2 years ago 2
Dang it! You're right, but what makes it really sad is that I even double-checked. Then I flipped Bush's face while designing the poster, which flipped the swastika and made it backwards. Gack! (I'm just obsessive enough to re-render it with that fixed... but not tonight.)
LarkenRose 2 years ago