Politicos Attacked for ‘Liking’ CopBlock.org Post
Written with George Sand and Paula Parmeley Carter
The saying goes, “It’s NOT real if it’s not on Facebook.” That’s how South Carolina Republican Party officials feel about comments made by Cory Norris (see image below) – a local (Republican) party official- and Jeff Mattox – a local party chairman in the state – which showed support for Larken Rose’s post (featured on CopBlock.org) titled, “When Should You Shoot A Cop.” According to the Ben Smith at Politico:
South Carolina’s Republican Party is distancing itself from two local party officials who appeared endorse violence against police officers on Facebook — a position that seemed to take anti-government conservatism too far for South Carolina’s Tea Party-heavy GOP. The party’s top brass called for their resignation from local party committees Monday night.
“Public servants deserve our utmost respect, and approval of such despicable acts against them in no way reflects the South Carolina Republican Party’s platform and core principles. South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad Connelly has called on these party officials to resign immediately. Their actions are unacceptable,” GOP executive director Matt Moore said in an email to POLITICO.
I wonder which part of Larken’s post Chad Connelly found “despicable” or if he even read it at all? Larken’s post was a philosophical argument about when it is okay to use violence against tyranny. Here’s the main point, IMO, of Larken’s post:
If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
All the zombies foaming at the mouth over the violence allegedly espoused in this article either didn’t read it carefully, didn’t understand it, or believe human beings should be trampled, manipulated and subjugated like slaves. Rose rightly points out that 1) there is no slight resistance against law enforcement officers. If you do not obey their commands, they will first yell at you, then grab you, then taser you, and eventually shoot you if you do not comply. 2) If you have a right to do something, then you have a right to defend that right with deadly force if necessary. For instance, if you have a right to not be raped, this means that when a rapist comes to grab you, you first have a the right to shake them off. If they try to hit you to subdue you, you have a right to hit back. If they then draw a weapon, you have a right to shoot them to fight off rape. If it is seen as radical, wrong, or violent to shoot a rapist in this scenario, then you don’t truly have a right to not be raped. If you are required by law to respond passively, endure the rape, and let the courts take care of punishing the rapist, then you do not have a right to not be raped.
As applied to “rights” such as, say, freedom of speech, if an officer tries to shut you up, you have a right to keep talking. If he grabs your arm, you have a right to shake it off. If he tasers you, you have a right to fight back, and if he draws a gun, you have a right to shoot back in defense. If you do not have the right to fight back in this kind of situation, then it’s not a right. If you have no right to defend your so-called rights, and must first submit to harassment, beatings, torture, or violence, and seek redress only through the courts, then you have no rights. If you have no right to fight off a cop who is committing robbery against you, you have no right to property. If you have no right to shoot a cop as he is trying to rape you, then you have no right to be free of rape. If you have no right to shoot a cop as he is trying to murder you, then you have no right to live. If you have none of these rights, then you are a slave.
The South Carolina GOP’s Platform mentions the founding fathers fondly in the the very first sentence of their preamble. An article written in 1796 titled “When Should You Shoot a Redcoat” most likely would have read very similarly to Rose’s article and if Facebook existed at that time, I am sure you would have found some founding fathers who “liked” the article. Wasn’t it the founding fathers who advocated and carried out violence in defense of their “unalienable rights”? Rose’s post is clearly about unalienable rights and the right to defend them against tyranny and initiatory violence. Rose’s article advocates defense of natural rights.It speaks to defending oneself against tyranny and abuse. The entire article is written in the context of abuse of power. If “liking” Rose’s article doesn’t, as Chad Connelly said, “reflect the South Carolina Republican Party’s platform and core principles”, then maybe they should not speak so fondly of the founding fathers, men who didn’t just blog about using violence to defend their rights, but actually carried out that violence.
In a phone interview with Cory Norris, who is on a first name basis with the local sheriff and serves on the sheriff’s advisory council, he stated that in no way does he advocate the initiation of force on anyone, in fact he said, “I’m oppose to unjust treatment of anyone, including cops.” He went on to say that the state officials within the Republican Party are upset that Cory and his friends are making an impact locally within the party. The fact that Norris and most of his associates are more libertarian than Republican, adds fuel to Connelly’s determination to root Cory and friends out of the party. Norris believes that this is nothing more than a tactic to, “demonize [us] even more.” The party leaders were looking for any reason to root out these terrible libertarian infiltrators, who dare try to convince people that they in fact have human rights and are not cattle.
It is important to remember that the article is not about peaceful, competent or righteous cops. It is about abusive ones. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Despite this, people who advocate self-defense against abusive cops are perceived as violent terrorists, but the police who actually commit the tyranny and abuse of power garner sympathy and support. Those who have abuse visited upon them by police (gods, apparently), are supposed to just take it, while police violence is completely ignored in the dialog.
Who are the real advocates of violence? People who would blindly support the violent actions of police officers in the name of “law enforcement” and call for the caging of thousands, even millions of peaceful people for any number of victimless crimes or pro-police accountability bloggers who use words and video cameras in an attempt to end such violence?
(Author’s Note: Chad Connelly and his office (803.988.8440) refused to comment and had no official statement prepared for media request as of 10 am eastern time)