Statism Kills by Bill Buppert

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”
– Joseph Stalin

“Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate (grundlich aufzaumen) its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention. What on earth do you want? The question is settled. There are no more Armenians.”

– Talat Pasha in a conversation with Dr. Mordtmann of the German Embassy in June 1915…

Publisher’s Note: It’s amusing to watch the Deep State exposes itself in the proverbial raincoat through the many scandals emanating from the fetid swamp in Mordor on the Potomac.

If the NSA surveillance of the domestic herd is any count, there are no missing texts, emails or any electronic communications.

If you aren’t making the time to get fit, get to the range and get your head wrapped around taking care of yourself in the future-is-now American Serbia, you are not paying attention. -BB

Government is a death cult. It is the most profound mechanism outside of planetary extinction events to rid the globe of human beings.  There have certainly been disease vectors like the plague in medieval times that wiped out significant parts of Europe but even that can be attributed to human volition to a certain extent.

The state is an exterminationist by trade, ask the aboriginal Americans.

Since the first agricultural communities attracted the government predator’s eye thousands of years ago and led to the tax accountancy records Charles Adams first pointed out to us.  Hunter gatherer communities were quite a bit more difficult to pin down and cage within the confines of a tax jurisdiction.  Tax jurisdictions are the center of gravity for governments to germinate and expand their nefarious enterprises.

All government historically leads to totalitarianism where no human transaction remains unmolested by statist interference. None.

Whether the murderous paroxysms of violence in the endless wars created by tax jurisdictions dressed in fancy bunting and flags in ancient times or today have more advanced killing machines, the mission is the same.  Government will ultimately kill you for non-compliance of a seatbelt violation if your lack of obedience and insistence on resistance continues and escalates.

The more extreme examples of bureaucratized slaughter and mayhem visited on populations by governments are illustrative of the potential of every government to do the same. That is the genius of government, not only to elevate the absolute worst psychopaths to positions of power because they seek to rule others by default but it industrializes murder machines.  How else can one explain the killing fields in Kampuchea, the bone yards in the former USSR and the mass starvation campaigns either inadvertently or intentionally launched against subject populations?  From Rwanda to Armenia under the Turks to the North American aboriginal destruction in 18th and 19th century America, governments kill.

That is their ultimate fail-safe mechanism.  If their power is threatened in any fashion, the cage and the sword and the grave are essential tools of governance.

Let’s travel down memory lane:

Beria’s Death Warrant for 20,000 Polish Officers During the War to Save Josef Stalin

Many thanks to Dr. Rummel for the research he has pioneered in this effort.

The Russian attempts to starve significant parts of the Ukraine under Stalin’s reign:

Conquest quotes the later testimony of an activist:

“I heard the children…choking, coughing with screams. It was excruciating to see and hear all this. And even worse to take part in it…. And I persuaded myself, explained to myself. I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity…. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining grain for the socialist fatherland….

Our great goal was the universal triumph of Communism, and for the sake of that goal anything was permissible — to lie, to cheat, to steal, to destroy hundreds of thousands and even millions of people….

This was how I had reasoned, and everyone like me, even when…I saw what “total collectivization” meant — how they “kulakized” and “dekulakized,” how they mercilessly stripped the peasants in the winter of 1932—3. I took part in this myself, scouring the countryside, searching for hidden grain…. With the others, I emptied out the old folks’ storage chests, stopping my ears to the children’s crying and the women’s wails. For I was convinced that I was accomplishing the great and necessary transformation of the countryside; that in the days to come the people who lived there would be better off for it….

In the terrible spring of 1933 I saw people dying from hunger. I saw women and children with distended bellies, turning blue, still breathing but with vacant, lifeless eyes…. I [did not] lose my faith. As before, I believed because I wanted to believe.”

You will note here on this page that delineates anthropogenic killing globally that it wasn’t simply the bad communists (although they get the gold medal in sheer numbers) but the UK was responsible for 4 million Indian dead in Bengal during Churchill’s little known escapades raping India during the War to Save Josef Stalin in 1943 (a passing mention of the possible 20 million dead during the Indian famines of 1876-78 and 1899-1900). Watch Bengali film maker Satyajit Ray’s film “Distant Thunder” to get a cinematic taste of Churchill’s murderous policy.

Or the 1.5 million dead during the Irish potato famine[s] in the 19th century.

The Black War (1828-32) in Australia against the aboriginals is especially terrifying because they almost managed to exterminate every man, woman and child.

I mention these western holocausts to illustrate that history’s traditional mass murderers, the Communists and Socialists, aren’t the only authors of such barbaric behavior.  Mind you, plenty of this behavior took place outside of acknowledged warfare such as Stalin and Mao’s efforts to kill the non-compliant and disobedient.

But not to exclude the necromonger all-stars:

“Troops stormed into the Preah Ket Melea Hospital, Phnom Penh’s largest and oldest, and shouted to patients, physicians and nurses alike. “Out! Everybody out! Get out!” They made no distinction between bedridden and ambulatory patients, between the convalescing and the dying, between those awaiting surgery and those who had just undergone surgery. Hundreds of men, women and children in pajamas limped, hobbled, struggled out of the hospital into the streets where the midday sun had raised the temperature to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Relatives or friends pushed the beds of patients too wounded, crippled or enfeebled to walk, some holding aloft perfusion bottles dripping plasma or serum into the bodies of loved ones. One man carried his son, whose legs had just been amputated. The bandages on both stumps were red with blood, and the son, who appeared to be about twenty-two, was screaming, “You can’t leave me like this! Kill me! Please kill me!”

– John Barron and Anthony Paul, Murder of a Gentle Land

The population of Cambodia was about 7 million. It is estimated that between two and three million died. The remainder were forced to engage in the physical labor necessary to grow rice.

The number of dead did not trouble the Communist leaders, and Ieng Sary, their foreign minister, said: “As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man.”

Pol Pot and his associates have earned the right to be called the most consistent Marxists the world has ever seen.

In the Communist program for human regeneration, killing is as necessary as the fire of the furnace is for the creation of steel.

In the end, ALL governments seek to maim and kill the non-compliant because obedience is the signal contribution of ANY citizen in a tax jurisdiction yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Keep in mind that the lion’s share of all wars in human history are armed disputes between tax plantation owners.

In America, absent the overwhelming presence of armed bureaucrats, how many of even the most brain-dead subjects in America would comply with a fraction of the thousands of intrusive and destructive laws on the books?

Your collaboration with a system that practices such barbaric behavior on a mass and industrial basis is the key to government’s legitimacy and its very ability to have fractional elements of tens of thousands of “law enforcers” cow millions of shambling sheep to be disposed of as the government wishes; especially the recalcitrant and rebellious black sheep who no longer desire the fetters and are increasingly losing their fear of the noose.

Why do you think that “officer safety” happens to prize the value of the cop’s life higher than any mere citizen or subject?  One recalls that scene in Braveheart where the King’s aristocrat declares that an assault on the King’s men is an assault on the King himself.  How romantic.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: “Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

Initiated violence is the government’s bread and butter and any active defense against its depredations is always received by the rulers rather dimly.

As my colleague Daniel H adroitly observes: “Anarchy doesn’t require everyone in a society to buy into non-aggression… just enough of them to kill anyone who attempts to form a non-voluntary organization.”

The only reason you are not yet dead is because the government has not found a sufficient reason or lacks the wherewithal to kill you. Yet.

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”

— Vladimir Lenin

18 thoughts on “Statism Kills by Bill Buppert

  1. Pingback: Statism Kills | John C. Carleton

  2. “The only reason you are not yet dead is because the government …” believes it can extract further value from your labour.

  3. As you may be listening to “Conceived in Liberty” still or have already heard this excerpt or through experience already know its truth, I’d just like to add that to me, you are an example of the following:

    “Only ideology, guided either by a new religious conversion or by a passion for justice, can arouse the interest of the masses (in the current jargon, “raise their consciousness”) and lead them out of the morass of daily habit into an uncommon and militant activity in the opposition to the state. This is not to say that an economic motive–for example, a defense of their property–does not play and important role. But to form a mass movement in opposition means that the people must shake of their habits, their daily mundane concerns of several lifetimes, and become politically aroused and determined as never before in their lives. Only a commonly held and passionately believed-in ideology can perform that role. Hence our conclusion that a mass movement like the American Revolution must be centrally motivated by a commonly shared ideology.

    “How then do the masses of subjects “acquire” this guiding and determining ideology? By the very nature of the masses it is impossible for them to arrive at such an opposition or revolutionary ideology on their own. Habituated as they are to their narrow and daily rounds, uninterested in ideology as they normally are, it is impossible for the masses to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps to hammer out an ideological movement in opposition to the existing state. Here we arrive at the vital role of the intellectuals. Only intellectuals, full-time (or largely full-time) professionals in ideas, have the time, the ability, and the inclination to formulate an opposition ideology and then to spread the word to the people. In contrast to the statist court intellectual, whose role is a junior partner in rationalizing the economic interests of the ruling class, the radical or opposition intellectual’s role is the centrally guided one of formulating the opposition or revolutionary ideology and then of spreading the ideology to the masses, thereby welding them into a revolutionary movement.

    “An important corollary: in weighing the motivations of the intellectuals themselves or even of the masses, it is generally true that setting oneself up in opposition to an existing state is a lonely, thorny, and often dangerous road. It is usually directly in the economic interests of the radical intellectuals to allow themselves to “sell out,” to be coopted by the ruling state apparatus. The intellectuals who do choose the radical opposition path, who pledge–in the famous words of the American revolutionaries–“their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” can scarcely be dominated by economic motives; on the contrary only a fiercely held ideology, centering on a passion for justice, can keep intellectuals to the rigorous path of truth. Hence, again, the likelihood of a dominant role for ideology in an opposition movement.

    “Thus, statists tend to be governed by economic motivation, with ideology serving as a smokescreen for such motives, while libertarians or antistatists are ruled by principally and centrally by ideology, with economic defense playing a subordinate role. By this dichotomy we may at last resolve the age-old historiographical dispute over whether ideology or economic interests play the dominant role in historical motivation.”

    –Murray N. Rothbard, “Conceived in Liberty” 1978

    I can imagine it’s been a hard and long road for those such as yourself. I have only recently stumbled onto this sort of thinking, finally emerging from a young and naive lifestyle, into realizing what government really is and what it does.

    Thank you for your posts, they’re always a “pleasure” to read. Thank you to all those fighting against the state apparatus and urging those that will listen to be prepared for the day when the ball drops.

  4. I’d also like to add that it was interesting to learn that the Bengal famine of 1769-1771 caused by the East India company was more of a reason for the Boston Tea Party than the opposition to a Tea Tax that Americans has been continuing to pay for a few years after the repeal of most of the Townshend acts. Opposition to a state-sponsored monopoly was a reason for revolt and disobedience, not just taxes. Cool stuff. Wish this kind of thinking were prevalent now. Not giving business to companies that murder innocent people.

  5. It’s worth stating the obvious; governments are an illusion and can only exist in the minds of those who still believe…

    Thanks Bill…

  6. Pingback: Buppert: Statism Kills | Western Rifle Shooters Association

    • At the risk of violating the old saw “Don’t get in a pissing match with a skunk”, I believe ol’ Winston’s “foray” into India was a fine example of an “escapade” by Monarchy, perhaps I am mistaken.

      Bill, I send your articles to my married children (they all concur) and read them to the ones still being homeschooled, safe (for now) against .gov education camps! Thanks for your tireless effort.

      • ODG,

        I am honored my scribbling helps home educate your children. You are contributing to keeping the Remnant alive.

        Bill

    • Steven,

      What form of government constituted the majority of protagonists in WWI?

      Have you seriously researched the vast panoply of kings and queens east and west who brought their countries to war both internally and through conquest?

      I suggest you take a look at the track record of royals in conflict between 1480-1913 in over 193 reigns and see just how just and peaceful they were.

      This essay also gives the lie to the notion that female rulers are more peaceful when donning a crown. Female rulers are 27% more likely to wage war.

      A good start for you may be The Hundred Years’ War, a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 by the House of Plantagenet, rulers of the Kingdom of England, against the House of Valois, rulers of the Kingdom of France, over the succession to the French throne. “Each side drew many allies into the war. It was one of the most notable conflicts of the Middle Ages, in which five generations of kings from two rival dynasties fought for the throne of the largest kingdom in Western Europe.”

      In the end, no state has ever existed that wasn’t busy expanding its power beyond its original germination no matter what regalia it wore.

      Please try to pay closer attention to historical accuracy.

      Lord of the Rings is not an instruction manual but a novel and cinematic renderings.

      Bill

  7. Are we better off being ruled by a Conservative, Republican, Tyranny or a Liberal, Democratic, Tyranny? Most believe one is better than the other.

    Many believe that the government must get back to the “Rule of Law”.
    We have been under the “Rule of Law” since the beginning.
    Every rule by Congress and the countless bureaucracies are LAW.
    No law is based on morality.
    If laws were based on morality, they would not have to be written.
    People in government must break every moral law in order to exist.
    How long would a government last if for one day people in governments
    were compelled to tell the truth, not steal, not kill, and not place
    themselves above a Creator God by refusing to be called Honorable?
    It would be over before the Sun set.

    Most believe that a Republic is a country ruled by the “Rule of Law” and not men.
    The people in power throughout the world know better.
    To the best of my knowledge, Plato described a Republic as a government of
    philosopher kings. In other words, a government of the ruling class of elitists
    or a ruling class of elitists controlling those in a government.
    Every country on the planet is controlled by a ruling class of elitists.
    Every country on the planet is a Republic in theory and practice.

    Belief is the enemy of knowing (from crrow777)

  8. Pingback: Part II – Police Can Justifiably Shoot A Person In the Back While Fleeing If a Weapon Is Visible – Racine WI – Sin City

  9. Pingback: WI State Rep Greta Neubauer, D-Racine Allows Taxpayer Dollars To Fund Undeclared Wars in Foreign Countries While Demanding Citizens Disarm! – Racine WI – Sin City

Let us know what you think...