Main menu

Fred and Chuck

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/16/2008)

Once upon a time there was a guy named Fred. One night Fred was
having trouble sleeping, and went to the kitchen for a snack.
Before turning on the light, he happened to glance out the window,
and see some movement in his neighbor's garage. As he watched,
Chuck, another of his neighbors--not the owner of that house--
walked out carrying some garden tools. Fred glanced at the clock,
which said 2:15 a.m. Fred grabbed his camcorder, which happened to
have night vision, and kept watching and filming as Chuck crept
from one house to another, sneaking into any open garages, and
carrying off various items.

Though he couldn't imagine an innocent explanation, the next day
Fred decided to confront Chuck, as politely as possible, about what
he had seen, before mentioning it to the neighbors. So he strolled
over to Chuck's house and knocked on his door. Chuck opened the
door, wearing his usual friendly smile. "Um, I don't quite know how
to say this," began Fred awkwardly, "but I saw you last night,
taking stuff out of other peoples houses. I didn't want to say
anything before talking to you about--." His words were cut short
by a rather vigorous punch in the nose.

"You'd better shut up if you know what's good for you," said Chuck,
and slammed the door, leaving Fred standing there, dazed and with a
bloody nose.

Several hours later, after his nose had stopped bleeding, and had
returned more or less to its normal size, Fred decided he had to
speak to his neighbors about what had happened.

The first neighbor Fred went to just responded with, "That's
impossible. Chuck is a great guy. He would never do that. And if he
were doing something like that, someone would have noticed by now.
I don't believe you. Go away." The neighbor shut the door in Fred's
face, before Fred could even mention the videotape.

As soon as the second neighbor opened the door, he said "Chuck
warned us that you're telling lies about him. He says the
accusation is ridiculous, absurd! So go away." Again the door
slammed before Fred could mention the videotape of Chuck's dirty

The third neighbor also started talking as soon as he opened the
door. "Chuck says you're the crook, Fred, that you steal stuff, and
that you gossip about all of us. I want nothing to do with you."
The door was again slammed in Fred's face.

The fourth neighbor, though seeming suspicious and less than
friendly, let Fred say a bit, just enough to mention the videotape.
Somewhat begrudgingly, the neighbor watched the video. At the end,
however, all he would say was, "Well, when you brought it up, you
got a punch in your nose. So who cares whether what you say is true
or not?"

Fred almost went home then, but decided to try the last house he
had seen Chuck take stuff from. The fifth neighbor answered the
door, and Fred quickly summarized the situation, hoping to get it
all out before being punched or having the door slammed in his
face. This time, however, the neighbor listened quietly and
intently, and then asked to see the videotape, which he watched
quietly and intently. After a few more moments of silence, the
neighbor said, "Thank you for letting me know. I'll have to think
about what to do about it, if anything, but I appreciate you
letting me know."

Walking home, Fred felt content. The problem hadn't been solved,
and most of his neighbors had been thick-headed dunces, but at
least one person wanted the truth and got it. And, for the moment
at least, that was good enough for Fred.

The End.


The above story may seem unrealistic. After all, people wouldn't be
so dense that they wouldn't want to know if someone's taking their
stuff, right? Well, it depends upon who the accused thief is.

My "Taxable Income" report, in all its manifestations since 1998,
my "Theft By Deception" video, my web sites, etc., all boil down to
a simple message: "I have proof that you've been robbed, by Uncle
Sam no less." Now you might think, whether they believed that
accusation or not, that people would at least wonder whether it was
true. Oddly, most of them DON'T. In fact, most of the people in the
"tax honesty movement" also DON'T. Consider the most common
responses to the "861 evidence" (which correspond to the various
neighbors in the above story):

1) "That can't be true. Our government would never do that, and if
it did, someone would have noticed." Of course, this says nothing
about the evidence, since people who think like that never LOOK at
the evidence. But what makes that common response especially looney
is the claim--and I've heard people say this on many occasions--
that if that were true, someone would have discovered it, and told
them about it. Um, someone did, and someone did. I guess what they
mean is that someone ELSE would have known about it, and would have
told them SOONER. Well, others tried, and they didn't listen then,

2) "The courts say that's frivolous." So people appointed by the
accused crooks, and paid by the accused crooks, assert that the
accused crooks aren't crooks. And apparently that's good enough for
a LOT of people. What about the evidence? Do the courts have an
explanation for it? No, but apparently they don't need one, as far
as most people are concerned. The mere ASSERTION (called a "ruling"
when a "judge" does it) that the issue is bogus is enough to
dissuade most people from ever considering the evidence.

3) "The government says that this is a tax fraud scheme, and you
were convicted, so you're the criminal." Demonizing an accuser is
nothing new, and the reason it's been around so long is because it
often works quite well.

4) "Well, all it got you was trouble, so I don't want to hear about
it." This response comes not only from the general public, but from
a lot of people in the "tax honesty" movement. In short, if they
aren't spoon-fed a sure-fire, risk-free means of resisting the IRS,
they don't CARE what's true and what's not.

Thankfully, there are some people who want to know the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even if it's unpleasant,
and even if they don't know what to DO about it. It amazes me how
few of such people there are, even in the "movement." Maybe it's
because they really DON'T believe it could be true, and so they
don't want to examine the evidence too closely. Well, for those who
want to look closely, my new book "Kicking the Dragon"--which shows
one way to stand up for the truth and get hurt for doing so--gives
all the evidence you'll ever need. So far, however, less than one
person in ten on this e-mail list has ordered the book. It makes me
wonder, how many people REALLY want to know the truth, and how many
are just playing the wishful thinking game? The number of weird,
baseless arguments in the "movement," and the number of people who
blindly accept them as the gospel truth, is an indication to me
that lots of people WANT a snake oil cure, not the often bitter
truth. Bummer. Well, for the few weirdos like me who value the
truth simply because it is the truth, I wrote "Kicking the Dragon."


Larken Rose

Small Hornets' Nest

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/11/2008)

I admit, I was stunned by the response to my message about me not
"supporting the troops." No, it wasn't a wave of hate mail that
stunned me--that's what I fully expected to get. It was how FEW
negative comments I got, and how many notes I got that agreed with
my fringe wacko opinion. The "hornets' nest" I stirred up was a lot
smaller than I expected. In fact, I got about three times as many
messages saying "Right on!" as those saying "You're an idiot!" That
does not bode well for the tyrants of the world, but it gives me a
shred of hope.

Nationalism and pack mentality are constantly drilled into our
heads by the media and the "education" system from the day we're
born. School divides us by classes, governments divide us by
"countries," and then all mainstream political propaganda divides
us by religions, incomes, sex, education, race, and any other way
the tyrants can think of. And this all drastically affects how
people view the world.

Consider this statement: "We fought off Hitler." I don't think
there's anyone for whom that statement would be literally true.
What people MEAN by that is: "People who get bossed around by the
same club of people--though not the same actual people--who boss me
around, militarily defeated people who Hitler bossed around." It's
long-winded and awkward, but accurate.

"We" aren't fighting Iraq. First of all, Iraq is a PLACE. You can't
fight a place. Second, "we" is a term that refers to the first
person plural, which includes the speaker (among others). I've
never been to Iraq, and neither have most of you. So why would you
say "we" did anything, when you weren't there? Because we're
trained to think in terms of packs. (Heck, people even call their
local sports teams "we," even when NONE of the players are from
their city.)

When it comes to rights, they aren't about packs--they are about
INDIVIDUALS. "The Japanese deserved to be nuked." All of them? The
young mother, not to mention her baby, in downtown Hiroshima, who
had never even thought a political thought, "deserved" to be cooked
alive? Is that what people mean? No, they mean the PACK deserved
it. Well a pack can't deserve anything. A lot of individuals can
deserve something, or be guilty of something, or deserve credit for
something. But being born somewhere, or living somewhere, or having
a certain genetic make-up, cannot by itself make you deserve credit
or blame for anything.

For all the indications that people are as stupid and gullible as
ever, there are some hints that we really are evolving. Millions of
Americans cheered when they heard that several hundred thousand
civilians had been killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't
believe Americans will ever again cheer for such an atrocity. I
also don't believe an involuntary military draft could ever happen
again in this country (though I certainly think the American
tyrants might TRY it). Blind nationalism is slowly fading, and good
riddance to it.

What war mongers hate the most is when those they target for
killing are seen as HUMAN. All militaries very intentionally and
carefully demonize and dehumanize the enemy that they want their
underlings to kill. Why? Because good people simply won't kill
someone else unless they can either hate him, or at least not think
of him as a PERSON. But Americans can watch documentaries about the
suffering in Japan after the nuclear attacks, and feel sorrow and
compassion. And some of us can even do that with innocent Iraqis
right now. (Imagine that.)

Yes, the war-mongering propaganda machine continues at full speed,
but it's just not working the way it did a few short decades ago.
People aren't lining up in droves to go righteously slaughter the
enemy du jour. Even some people who volunteered for the military
have come to the realization that oppressing and killing people
isn't automatically okay just because a politician somewhere calls
them "enemies of America."

I should add that I believe that most American soldiers, and most
American cops, even most IRS agents, probably BELIEVE that,
overall, what they are doing is good and righteous. That's one of
the main things that makes the belief in "authority" so dangerous:
it persuades basically good people to do evil things. But every
once in a while--and it's happening more often now--people actually
pause for a moment before doing whatever "authority" tells them to.
It's not nearly as often as I'd like (if it were, there would be no
IRS, for one thing), but even the occasional capacity to question
authority is a good sign.

Here's a weird thought. Could it be that all the police brutality
that is being exposed now is, in a very twisted way, a GOOD sign? I
think fewer and fewer decent people can stand being cops anymore,
and I've have quite a few former cops tell me exactly that. Might
it be that the reason authoritarian thugs are getting more vicious
is NOT because there are more bad people, but because only bad
people will take the jobs these days? For example, I doubt the
Third Reich actually made that many more evil people appear; it
merely provided a way--a very destructive way--for those who love
dominion to do what they love.

Another strange positive result is that the general public no
longer blindly assumes that the police or "the troops" must always
be the good guys, or that the targets of government violence must
always be bad. Consider how many movies today have rotten cops or
corrupt politicians as the bad guys--a LOT. A few decades back,
making a movie like that would be considered blasphemy. Despite the
current push for open fascism, maybe blind authorianism really is
on its last legs. If you measure freedom by how nasty those in
power are, we're in deep trouble. But if you measure it by how many
people are really angry about what those in power are doing...
well, there may still be hope. For example, do you know anyone who
does NOT have at least a reason or two to dislike, distrust or fear
the government?

Larken Rose

Cumulative Effect of Truth

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/03/2008)

Just as some toxins (like mercury) can build up over time in one's
body, until they eventually cause a noticeable effect, it seems
that the truth can also wear away at someone's mind, even if there
are no outward symptoms for a long time. In other words, being
repeatedly exposed to a truth can slowly drag someone's mind,
albeit often kicking and screaming, from a state of ignorance to a
state of understanding. It can be a slow and frustrating process,
if you're the one trying to wake your friends up, but you may be
making progress even if it doesn't show yet.

I'm happy to report that several people who assumed that the 861
evidence must be not only invalid but "frivolous"--because the
government said so, and because I was convicted--after reading
"Kicking the Dragon" have changed their tune. What many people have
commented on about the book is how it delivers a constant stream of
high-dose absurdity--from my meetings with the IRS, the letter-
writing campaigns, and everything else, up through my trial--to
such a degree that by the end, no one with a brain can say "Nothing
seems suspicious there."

I'm also happy to report that some people who already were on
board, having read the book, now dare to bring up the subject to
family and friends, when they hadn't dared before. I, and many of
you, know first hand how frustrating, infuriating and fruitless it
can be to try to get anyone to begin to question things he has
always assumed. Well these days, I can just say "Read this," and
fling a copy of "Kicking the Dragon" at them. And I know others are
doing the same. (Don't fling too hard; it's a big book; you might
kill them.) While it's true that many people will just plain refuse
to read anything that even MIGHT go against their comfortable
beliefs, those who DO read it get a toxic overdose of reality from
which they will never fully recover.

Consider how many truths, that now seem obvious to us, had to
needle their way into peoples' heads over a long period of time.
The world was flat, and the sun went around it, until several
hundred years of nonconformist wackos claiming otherwise. Slavery
was viewed as natural and legitimate for millenia, until after
several hundred years of nonconformist wackos saying otherwise. And
the way people view all sorts of government nastiness has changed
over the years, too.

I admit that when it comes to the federal "income tax" deception,
it often feels hopeless, like the lie will outlast the truth. But
it won't. And as dense as people seem, and as viciously as the
parasite class rails against those who tell the truth, it's still
worth telling it. And some day, our grandkids will look back, and
wonder why it took this country so long to recognize the most
massive financial fraud in history. Maybe they'll find an old,
dusty copy of "Kicking the Dragon" in the attic, and then they can
reminisce on the days before the country realized the fraud, before
the truth had worn down the lie.


Larken Rose

Par for the Course

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/05/2008)

Well, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, at long last, ruled
on the appeal of my conviction. They have decided that the First,
Fourth and Sixth Amendments don't really mean what they say.
They've decided that it's perfectly okay for the feds to steal
every copy they can find of a perfectly legal video. They've
decided that it's perfectly okay for the feds to do a giant fishing
expedition, under the guise of a "search warrant," without
bothering to limit the search to evidence of supposed "crimes," and
without even alleging the existence of any evidence or information
not already in the government's possession. They've ruled that it's
perfectly okay, in a trial hinging entirely on a defendant's
beliefs, to prohibit the defendant from showing the jury anything
he ever said or wrote.

Am I surprised? No. The "referees" are all appointed and paid by
the other team. How fair and objective would anyone with a brain
expect them to be? It's nice timing, though. Since "Kicking the
Dragon" just came out, it makes a nice example of what a joke the
"justice" system is. Now people can read the whole ridiculous
story, and then say, "Wow, three appellate court judges thought all
of that was just fine." Like I've said before, control freaks
perform a very valuable service when they drop the facade of
fairness and justice, and expose themselves for the god-complex
crooks they are. That's all this ruling does.

It would have be nice to get my $10,000 fine back (especially right
now), but other than that, if I had won, all the government would
do is say, "Oops, you're not convicted after all; sorry we locked
you up for a year." I would get no compensation for that anyway. So
on a practical level, it doesn't make much difference for me. And
as a matter of exposing the fraud, it makes for another fine
addition to the already astounding array of examples of people in
power lying, cheating and stealing, ignoring the law, the truth,
and justice, in order to maintain their power. Par for the course.

Larken Rose

Getting Them to Look

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/02/2008)

In the little town where I grew up, I expect that most people by
now have heard of my "adventures" with the IRS, at least to some
degree. I know there has been plenty of gossip, no doubt based 99%
upon false assumptions and baseless assertions (just like
everywhere else). Yet even there, almost no one has shown any
interesting in reading what actually happened, as laid out in
detail in my new book, "Kicking the Dragon."

Why is that? Well, if they just didn't care at all, that would be
one thing, but since I KNOW that people have been talking about it,
that can't be it. Why jabber and gossip about something, and then
avoid finding out what you're talking about? Simple: Because most
people don't want to endanger their preconceived notions by seeing
what the FACTS actually are.

"Oh, he's that guy who wouldn't pay his taxes, and went to jail for
tax evasion, right?" No, and no, but that's a very comfortable
belief to hold. It's a lot more comfortable than finding out what
really DID happen. And my own little adventure isn't at all unique
in that way. Whether it was Waco, or 9/11, or the (misnamed) Civil
War, or how the U.S. government treated the American Indians, or
your everyday example of police abuse, or a zillion other things,
people WANT there to be some pleasant, simple explanation which
doesn't upset their world view, and they are willing to shut their
eyes to all sorts of contrary evidence in order to maintain their

My case is pretty puny and insignificant on the grand scale of
things, but it makes an outstanding example of "conventional wisdom
versus evidence," because it is so thoroughly documented. I
challenge anyone who reads the book to afterwards say, "Yeah, I
don't see anything suspicious about any of that." No one honestly
could. In fact, I'm happy to report that a lot of people who knew
little or nothing about the issue or my own little story, have
since told me, after reading the book, how they were truly stunned
to learn how our government actually behaves.

But most people avoid being stunned, shocked and offended by using
the time-honored method of intentionally remaining uninformed.
People don't WANT opposing views, and if they inadvertently get
exposed to some, they want a quick and easy excuse to dismiss them
out of hand, without actually thinking about it, or even looking at
the evidence. And that right there is the main problem that pro-
freedom folk face: getting the common man to even LOOK at things
that don't already match his beliefs and assumptions.

And believe me, that's no small task. One person who knows just a
little about my case declared, to my face, after looking at the
outside of the book and handing it back to me, "I already know all
I..."--I had to finish the sentence: "all you WANT to know about
it?" The person walked away. Wow. They know me personally, are
friendly with me, know I spent a year in prison for doing something
I believed in, and yet went out of their way to NOT FIND OUT what
actually happened. Why do you suppose that is?

The ignoramuses of the world have a weapon that no amount of
evidence, logic, words and images can overcome: "willful
blindness." It took me a long time to come to grips with the
gruesome truth of the matter: these people aren't clueless by
accident; they are clueless by CHOICE. You can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make it drink. And it's clear that most
Americans would rather die of intellectual thirst than have to
question what they've always believed.

So the good news is, "Kicking the Dragon" seems to make a real
impact on the people who actually read it, even if they knew little
or nothing about me or the issue beforehand. The bad news is, most
people aren't going to read it, unless they are bribed and/or
tortured into doing so. I'm not sure what to do about that. Any
former federal thugs out there who could contribute some of their
water-boarding skills to the effort?

Larken Rose

Wolfeboro (NH) Talk

(originally launched into cyberspace on 07/15/2008)

Okay, here's the deal. This Friday, July 18th, beginning at 7:00
p.m., I'll be giving a talk entitled "The Illusion of Legitimacy"
(about political stuff, not the tax thing). It will be at the Moody
Mountain Farm barn--the same place the Wolfeboro Folk Festival
happens--which is located at 100 Pork Hill Road, in Wolfeboro, New
Hampshire (40 miles northeast of Concord, 50 miles north of
Manchester). The following link gives the exact location and
driving directions:
(Notice that they have two locations, but the one you want is the
Moody Mountain Farm.)

You do NOT need to order tickets or get reservations for my talk,
or even tell us you're coming. Just show up. Again, we might
pathetically beg for a two- or three-buck donation at the door, but
even that is optional. After the talk, we'll have questions,
discussion, and general hanging around for a while. I'll have both
of my books there, and will be selling them at slightly below the
normal cost, and signing them for people who like that sort of

And again, while radical "extremists" are always welcome, I'd love
to also have some people there who AREN'T already steeped in pro-
freedom issues. So if you can, drag along a devout statist or two.
And while there should be refreshments and snacks there already,
feel free to bring your own, too. Hope to see you there.


Larken Rose