Main menu

One Eye Closed

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/21/2007)

It seems that almost everyone in the country has one eye closed.
Half the country has their left eye closed, and the other half has
their right eye closed. Conservatives who bashed Clinton as being a
corrupt, dishonest, war-mongering socialist (which he was) seem
unable to see all the same qualities in THEIR chosen tyrant du
jour, George W. Bush. They don't even notice that in most cases,
their own complaints about Clinton could be used, word for word, to
justifiably criticize THEIR megalomaniac of choice.

And it goes the other way, as well. The following is a link to a
video of a talk given by Naomi Wolf, regarding the end of America.
She gets a lot right, regarding the historical pattern of how
countries turn into fascist dictatorships. But what struck me most
about her talk, though it was very subtle, was the fact that she
SUPPORTS the American left-wing tyrants, and even fails to notice
that they are the SAME THING as what she now paints as Hitlers-
waiting-to-happen. Here is the link to her speech:


She is a Democrat, and talks about "restoring liberty." When has
the Democratic party ever been about individual liberty? When it
tried to confiscate more from everyone? When it tried to
nationalize/socialize health care? When it tried to disarm all its
victims? (I found it very odd that disarming the populace was NOT
one of the ten points Ms. Wolf discusses, since it is such an
obvious one.) BOTH parties--or both faces of the one ruling class--
are ALWAYS expanding their power in any way they can. And yet Ms.
Wolf spoke of having a resolution signed by all the Democrat
tyrants in Congress as something to prevent a police state. Good
grief. (That's like saying a letter signed by all the Cryps,
denigrating the Bloods, will reduce gang violence.)

Does she not remember Waco, where the jackbooted thugs of a
DEMOCRAT administration murdered nearly a hundred men, women and
children? How about Ruby Ridge? How about the Clinton regime using
the IRS to harass its political opponents--plainly a symptom of an
out-of-control, lawless police state? How about the dozens of
"mysterious" deaths in Arkansas, when King Clinton reigned there?

Oddly, people are so accustomed to the "two party" view of the
world, that when I bash THEIR party's tyrant, they assume I like
the OTHER party's tyrant. I bash Bush, and Republicans assume I'm a
Democrat. I bash Clinton, and the Democrats assume I'm a
Republican. Apparently the only political question most people are
capable of considering is WHICH tyrant should oppress us all,
rather than asking WHETHER we should be oppressed by anyone. And
now, I will quote myself (from my "Tyrant" book):

- ---------< from "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" >-----------

Choosing Their Own Tyrant

These days the most popular illusion of "peasant power" is the
voting both. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by
offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years." [Lysander Spooner]

No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and
oppressed by "elected" tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant
is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will
continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that
another "election" is their only civilized recourse to any
government-imposed injustice they see.

"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into
complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand
that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure
freedom." [F. A. Hayek]

People would think it insane to have an election to choose a
carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference
between that and choosing a "ruler" comes from the now deeply
ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential
to society (a delusion you should reinforce constantly). The
question must always be which person or group of people should have
the power to rule everyone else; the question must never be whether
anyone should have such power.

"We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two
bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between
Tweedledum and Tweedledee." [Helen Keller]

If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them,
their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving
their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender
their freedom to.

- -------------< end of quote >---------------

I don't know how people like Naomi Wolf can be so perceptive and so
completely oblivious at the same time. And the "selective
blindness" afflicts all statists, Democrats and Republicans alike.
And when some fringe wacko suggests that NO ONE should be
oppressing us, BOTH groups of pro-tyrant folk can be counted on to
lash out against him as the biggest threat in the world. Go figure.


Larken Rose

Thought Control 101

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/20/0207)

Dear Subscriber,

An accomplished tyrant does his propaganda in such a way that it
doesn't get noticed. And if not for the internet, the American
tyrants, and their mouthpieces in the mainsteam media, would be
getting away with it. Check out the following YouTube video,
unmistakably demonstrating statist propaganda disguised as "news,"
following by an excerpt from my book, "How To Be a Successful
Tyrant." Think they've been reading my book?

First, the video clip:

Now for the quote.

- ----------< from "How To Be a Successful Tyrant": >----------

Fake Popular Opinion

If you can't dupe a majority of the people into actually supporting
your agenda, just lie about it: tell your peasants that most people
support your agenda. Make up or badly distort "poll" results. ...
Unless they bother to do a poll of their own, they will never know
that you lied.
Even if the support is completely fabricated, as long as most
peasants believe it exists, violent resistance will be very
unlikely. Even vocal opposition will be reduced, as peasants are
usually too insecure to voice opinions they believe are unpopular,
even if in reality they are not. ...

People, particularly the weak-minded, want to "fit in" more than
they want to know the truth. If 100 peasants believe "A," but you
can convince each one of them that the other 99 believe "B"
instead, very few will still publicly state A. And if only 10 dare
to speak out in favor of A, the other 90 will each assume that only
ten other people believe in A. Each will believe himself to be in
the minority, and will therefore censor himself, rather than
risking saying something he thinks is unpopular. In this manner,
it is fairly easy to shame most of your peasants into either
supporting you or at least not publicly criticizing you.

Only the rare peasant will be self-confident enough to be the one
to stand up and say, "The emperor has no clothes!" The few who do
should immediately be targeted with demonization and slander
campaigns (discussed more below), to convince all the other
people—who each privately agrees that "the emperor has no
clothes"—that only a wacko, fringe kook would think such a thing.

This technique can even become self-sustaining because most
peasants, in order to fit in and feel accepted by the mainstream,
will repeat your bashings of the alleged "radical fringe" beliefs,
even if they themselves actually share the belief in their private
thoughts. As a result, you may have 100 peasants who believe "A,"
while telling each other that they believe "B" for fear of public
scorn and ridicule.

For purposes of faking popular opinion, you should also manufacture
"adoring masses" for yourself. Whenever you give a speech, fill
the place with paid supporters (such as the people who work for you
anyway), and instruct them to applaud wildly at every inane comment
you make. The image of cheering throngs, giving the appearance
that you have widespread, enthusiastic support, will give a
subconscious suggestion to the conformist tendencies of the
observing peasants about how they should react to your tripe.
After all (your subjects will think), if all those people adore
you, you must be a good guy.

- ----------< end of quote >------------

Note, the laws against censorship apply to the "government," not
the media. So the collectivist lapdogs can spin, lie, cover up,
slander, fabricate, etc., on behalf of their statist buddies in
"government," and get away with it.

Now, if you want to see the fear-mongering government propaganda
distilled down to it's basic essence, check out this hilarious clip:



Larken Rose

Feel Safer?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I feel much safer knowing that federal fascists are "protecting"
me. If anyone thinks the "Department of Homeland Security" and the
TSA have ANYTHING to do with making us safe, let's do a little
"compare and contrast":

1) Yeah, I look at this girl, and the first thing I think is,
"Terrorist! Please protect me from her!"


2) Oh well, if fascist, police state harassment, warrantless
searches, assault and constant surveillance are the price for our
safety, then yippee! And just look how hard the TSA is working to
keep us safe!:


Incidentally, to the people of Phoenix, if you were hoping to win
the "Sleezeball Mayor" of the year award, I think you did it. Could
Phil Gordon possibly look any MORE dishonest, slimy, condescending,
and arrogant? Heck, in comparison he almost makes Mayor Street
(Philadelphia) look like something other than the crook he is.

All the "national security" bunk has ONE goal: to train us to be
subservient and obedient, and to put up with all manner of
unjustified intrusions, interrogations, searches, and harassment.
If you think it has ANYTHING to do with "fighting terrorism," you
need to watch less mainstream media and search YouTube for "TSA."


Larken Rose

(P.S. Based on the last flight I took, several years ago, I believe
I am on the TSA's "list" of people to give a little extra attention
to. Don't criticize the American tyrants, or you might get on the
list too. Personally, I don't fly anymore, because I doubt my
ability to humbly and quietly put up with the fascist oppression
that "good" Americans seem to take in stride.)

JPFO Article

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

It looks like I'll be contributing a diatribe here and there to the
JPFO's web site. Click here to to read the first:


For those who don't know, the JPFO is an organization which is very
serious about individual liberty, and in particular firearm
ownership--a lot more so than the NRA, for example. The JPFO put
out the excellent (though disturbing) "Innocents Betrayed" video,
as well as "The Gang" (which I'm eager to see myself). Despite the
name of the organization, you don't need to be Jewish to join. (I'm
not, and I did.)


Larken Rose

(P.S. In case anyone on my list is laboring under the
misapprehension that being Jewish means being pro-tyranny, check
out the www.jpfo.org web site, and then you'll know better.)

Pro-Tyranny Propaganda 101

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/16/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I think the writers for the St. Petersburg Times (in Florida) have
been reading my "Tyrant" book. I can't resist using a recent
article on Ron Paul as a prime example of how tyrants use
propaganda to control what people think, and what people do. First,
here is the link for the article:


Let's consider some of the tyrant tricks used in that "story." I'll
simply include a few clips from the story, along with excerpts from
my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant." (Remember, the book is
written from the point of view of telling people how to be tyrants.)

1) First, the pieces is disguised as a "news story," written by an
objective "journalist."

>From my book: "Almost as important as getting your message out is
getting it out in such a way as to give the impression that the
message is not coming from you. ... In this way, your message,
delivered to the masses via someone perceived as an independent
thinker, can get mass support for your agenda, without it looking
as if you were the one pushing for more power. ... [O]ne of the
best ways to ensure that your subjects are getting a daily dose of
your indoctrination is to control the 'news' they are exposed to.
Of course, just reporting significant facts and occurrences
provides no opportunity for thought control, but deciding which
facts to mention, which facts to ignore, which 'facts' to make up,
and how to spin the facts, while throwing in opinion-shaping
messages disguised as 'reporting,' can give enormous control. The
skillful tyrant controls the message, not by blatant censorship and
state-owned media, but by more subtle means of 'influence.' ...
[I]f the media appears to [the public] to be a neutral and
objective 'free press,' your ability to control their thoughts and
beliefs will be enormous. ... Like any other business, 'the press'
can be controlled and manipulated without the use of open force.
If you can get people of like mind (i.e., elitists who think they
have every right to rule the 'unwashed masses') to hold the highest
positions at the newspapers, TV stations, etc., they will push your
agenda for you, without the need of a conscious conspiracy. ... In
any hierarchical organization, all you need to do is have an ally
at the top, and the underlings will naturally 'evolve' to match
your agenda. Think of it as 'trickle-down tyranny,' where those who
see eye to eye with the top dog will get promoted, will have job
security, etc., while those who see things differently will
naturally want to leave, or will get fired, or will at least get

2) The first time the article mentions Ron Paul, it describes him
as "a gaunt, grumpy, 10-term congressman." Later it mentions that
Dr. Paul has "personal wealth" of between 1.5 and 4 million dollars.

>From my book: "In addition to belittling the opinions of your
opponents, be sure also to frequently demonize those who hold those
opinions. The moment you question people's motives, they will
almost always shift to defending themselves instead of arguing
their original point."

3) The article says Ron Paul's speeches "resemble an economics
lecture, not graceful oratory."

>From my book: "If the average peasant has to choose between 'free
goodies for all!' (your message) and an academic explanation of the
long-term benefits of free market economics, he will almost always
choose free stuff. When the peasants view you as an all-powerful
Santa Claus, they will hate anyone who attempts to rid them of
their childish delusion. ... Your average public 'debate' (on any
subject) usually consists of a battle of personalities, with the
most arrogant, assertive, and condescending winning out, and the
timid and unsure (or even just polite) caving in. Actual substance,
proof and logic usually have very little to do with who 'wins.' It
is far easier to browbeat the peasants into agreeing with your
tyrannical plans (or at least refraining from speaking out against
them) than it is to present a rational argument for why they would
be better off enslaved by you than free (because no rational
argument supports such a claim)."

4) The article quotes one Republican (who ran against Ron Paul) as
saying that people are seeing Dr. Paul "for what he is now, and
they are alarmed," and quotes another saying that Dr. Paul is a

>From my book: "As mentioned before, you must demean and vilify
[your opponents] so that the rest of the peasants won't want to be
associated with them or even listen to their 'fringe extremist'
(anti-you) beliefs. Constantly characterize their ideas as absurd,
ridiculous, and even dangerous. ... Use whatever nasty stereotypes
and demonization tactics you must to make the group look
distasteful to the other peasants. Paint them as dangerous,
mentally unstable, paranoid and delusional."

5) The article then lists Ron Paul's supporters as "people who want
prostitution legalized, taxpayers who oppose paying taxes, a white
supremacist running for the Florida state House, and those who
think the Sept. 11 attacks were a government conspiracy." The
article also says that Ron Paul's "rugged honesty" is "endearing
him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs."

>From my book: "You can paint a detailed (though inaccurate) picture
of your opponents in such a way that no one wants to be associated
with them, and therefore no one wants to oppose you for fear of
being associated with the unpleasant stereotype that you
fabricated. ... The message should always be clear: 'You either
support my plans or you're a despicable low-life.'"

6) The article says that Ron Paul's views "have earned him a
cultlike following, particularly online."

>From my book: "Because people can express opinions anonymously [on
the internet], they can say what they really think without fear of
ostracism, and can see other, like-minded people saying the same
things. About all you can do is vilify the lot of them, and even
impugn the internet itself as the place where the wacko crazies
talk, as opposed to the sources of information you control, which
are where the informed, civilized people talk."

7) The article repeatedly pushes the idea that Ron Paul cannot
possibly win because he has no mainstream support, saying that he
is "what pundits always thought he would be--an also-ran," adding
that "History says he has no shot," and saying that Ron Paul should
be "a presidential afterthought by now."

>From my book: "If you can't dupe a majority of the people into
actually supporting your agenda, just lie about it: tell your
peasants that most people support your agenda. Make up or badly
distort 'poll' results. ... Unless they bother to do a poll of
their own, they will never know that you lied. ... People,
particularly the weak-minded, want to 'fit in' more than they want
to know the truth. If 100 peasants believe 'A,' but you can
convince each one of them that the other 99 believe 'B' instead,
very few will still publicly state A. And if only 10 dare to speak
out in favor of A, the other 90 will each assume that only ten
other people believe in A. Each will believe himself to be in the
minority, and will therefore censor himself, rather than risking
saying something he thinks is unpopular."

- ----------------------------------------

So, in summary, like a good tyrant mouthpiece, the "journalist"
pushed the points that Ron Paul is an unpleasant, fringe nutcase
whom only unsavory people would support, and that he has no real
support from "normal" people and so has no chance of winning.
Therefore, resistance is futile, so you should give up now. (That's
also what the leftist media said about the conservatives, just
before the 1994 "Republican Revolution," and then they feigned
surprise when it happened anyway.)

Now for the worst news: Most Americans fall for such idiotic
propaganda--hook, line, and sinker. They will follow what they
think is popular. "Popular opinion" is simply MANUFACTURED, and
then the braindead sheep follow along, proud to be "in the know,"
and in the mainstream. They eagerly "fit in," while advocating
their own enslavement. It's pathetic how well the same old tyrant
tricks still work on the unthinking public.


Larken Rose

(P.S. No, I still don't advocate voting for anyone, including Ron
Paul. I still think it does more damage to legitimize "democracy"
by participating in it, than providing any possible benefit. The
term "wasted vote" is redundant.)

(P.P.S. In case you doubt the top-down, pro-tyranny agenda of
mainstream papers, the above article was in the same St. Petersburg
Times which was all set to run my "Please Prosecute Me" thing, as a
paid ad--for a lot of money--when the higher-ups intervened and
said it couldn't run. That even surprised the advertising guy at
the Times.)

Inappropriate Civility

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/08/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

People often lament the lack of "civil discourse" when it comes to
political matters, and suggest that we should all just "agree to
disagree," and respect each other's opinions.

For most topics of discussion, I would whole-heartedly agree. For
example, people ought to be able to disagree on who the best NFL
quarterback is without getting into fist-fights, or debate the
zoological classification of the panda bear without having a

However, there are actually times when "civility" is a BAD thing.
For example, if someone said to you, "In my humble opinion, your
family should be murdered," would you merely "agree to disagree"?
Perhaps, if he was only opining what he thought SHOULD happen, you
could just politely ignore him. But if he actually advocated your
family's extermination, and set about trying to make it happen,
should you deal with him "civilly"? Hell, no. When he decided to
advocate the initiation of violence, HE ended any hope of civility.

And so it is with almost ALL modern political discussions. For
example, almost everyone in the country advocates that I be
forcibly robbed to pay for things THEY want. (The Democrats and
Republicans differ somewhat on WHICH things they want my stolen
money to fund, but they are completely in agreement that I should
be coerced into funding things that I don't want to fund.) While
that's not as bad as advocating the murder of my family, it's still
pretty darn bad. To treat their "opinion" civilly is to give it a
level of respect that it doesn't deserve, which is an indirect way
of CONDONING the evil they suggest.

Their "opinion" is not equally valid. It doesn't deserve respect.
Their "opinion" is the advocacy of VIOLENCE, and to treat it as
anything else is an affront to justice. I'm constantly amazed how
many people suggest that I should be robbed, controlled, extorted,
harassed, insulted, and possibly imprisoned or killed, only to then
get offended when I call them NAMES (like "fascist"). So I'll make
this offer to everyone: if you don't advocate the initiation of
violence against me (and against lots of other people), I won't
call you a fascist, or a statist, or a collectivist, or a Nazi. (In
other words, if you stop BEING those things, I'll stop CALLING you
those things.)

Amazingly, people treat "political" opinions as if they are of no
more consequence than a personal preference: whether you prefer
chocolate or vanilla, or whether you prefer classic music to rock.
But a "political" opinion, by definition, is about what VIOLENCE
you believe "government" should use against everyone, including me.
Don't advocate my enslavement or oppression, and then get offended
if I call you names as a result.

Again, it would be an insult to justice NOT to react with
condemnation and castigation to those who advocate unjustified
violence. (Would you tell a Nazi who is advocating mass murder,
"Well, your opinion is equally valid"?) I have no intention of
letting anyone feel like it's OKAY for him to hold the "opinion"
that innocent people should be terrorized, robbed and harassed. But
since pro-tyranny, anti-freedom sentiments are so popular these
days, people get shocked when I verbally "attack" them for holding
such views.

Well, get used to it. I believe that anyone who actually values
freedom OUGHT to condemn evil, no matter how popular or mainstream
the evil may be. The only other option is to treat anti-human,
unjust, pro-violence, statist tripe as if it's an okay view to
hold. It's not.

So before you whine about the lack of civility in my messages,
check to see if the ones I'm being "uncivil" to are advocating my
forced enslavement. If so, I couldn't care less if I offend them.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Just for fun, I did a web search for "inappropriate
civility," and sure enough, it appears nowhere. I'm proud to be the