Main menu

Business As Usual

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/21/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Suppose electronic video cameras and the internet existed back in
1940's Germany. And supposed some malcontent, anti-authoritarian
extremist like myself kept publicly posting video evidence of just
what the "law enforcers" of the day were really like, and what they
were doing on a daily basis.

Well, since the American Nazis can't seem to stop torturing people
on video, I'll just keep right on posting it for all to see:


Notice in particular how casual and non-emotional the fascist is.
Just like an SS robot herding the Jews onto the trains. That is
precisely the type of person who should NEVER be given power over
anyone else. Ever.

And what is his punishment for being a sadistic, abusive fascist
scumbag--and getting it caught on tape? Well, he's on
"administrative leave," while the fascist club "investigates" him.
Golly gee, they might even fire him from his job of oppressing and
torturing the rest of us (but probably not). Poor him.

What is most depressing about the video is the group of spectators
in the background, doing nothing and saying nothing. I'll leave you
with this really sad thought: had the woman being tased been a mere
spectator instead of the victim, would she have done anything, or
said anything? I doubt it. "First they came for the..." Well, you
know the rest.


Larken Rose

Corrected Link to Sliminess

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Apparently in my last message the link to the story of the super-
slimy federal prosecutor wasn't "clickable." So try this one


If the above link shows up as two lines in your e-mail, copy BOTH
lines of it (the whole address) into your browser's address window.
That should work.

(Again, it's not at all a pleasant story, so you if you want to
just skip it, that's fine too. It's about a federal prosecutor
doing something about as disgusting as you can get.)


Larken Rose

A Civilizing Influence?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/19/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Examples of the American fascist police state are rolling in
quicker than I can forward them. Here is one that I'm sure many of
you have heard about already, concerning an admittedly obnoxious
guy asking John Kerry questions--and getting tackled, tasered, and
arrested as a result:


(Incidentally, if they chose to, the private owners of the place
where this happened had the right to tell the guy to shut up and
get out, even forcibly remove him if necessary--but not the right
to taser him or put him in a cage. Instead, this was the
"government" police doing their power game, showing us all who's

Even better, here is the story of a 70-year-old woman who was
handcuffed and hauled away for--brace yourself for this heinous
crime--having a brown lawn:


Remember, we're supposed to think that "the law" is a civilizing
force, which reduces violence and ensures justice. (Because us mere
mortals would never behave ourselves without a ruler--or so we're
supposed to think.) Both of the above stories make good examples of
how "authority" ADDS violence to society. In both cases, the people
who ended up being the victims were doing something that could be
construed as at least impolite. The guy asking the questions was
both obnoxious and an attention hog, and I expect that the
neighbors of the elderly lady didn't like having an ugly, brown
lawn in their neighborhood.

The question is, what did "law" and "government" add to the
equation? In a society that actually values individual rights, what
would have happened? Someone may have pulled the plug on the
somewhat obnoxious guy, or they could have just waited for him to
finish his question/rant. (Actually, in a free society, it wouldn't
have happened at all, because no one would pay any attention to
people like John Kerry.) It's pretty likely, however, that no one
would have felt the need to violently tackled the guy, taser him,
and then drag him away and put him in a cage. *

Likewise with the old lady. Her neighbors might complain at her--
heck, they might even offer to water her lawn for her (heaven
forbid), if they want it to be green--but it's pretty darn unlikely
that anyone OTHER than those pretending to be "authority" would put
her in handcuffs and forcibly remove her from her property
(bruising her and bloodying her nose in the process).

"Authority" means the RIGHT to rule--the right to FORCIBLY control
everyone else (even if only in certain ways or certain situations).
And since it is mostly used in cases where you and I would NOT feel
justified using violence ourselves, what "government" amounts to is
and several million not mentioned--demonstrate that quite plainly.

If you do a search for "police brutality" or similar terms on
"www.YouTube.com," you can spend all day watching videos of just
how much of a civilizing influence "authority" really is. (And, of
course, most of the time oppression and authoritarian injustice
occurs, it is not captured on tape.) Those who haven't been on the
receiving end of authoritarian tactics like to cling to the
baseless belief that "laws" make us more civilized. Those who have
been "legally" oppressed, extorted, robbed, terrorized, assaulted,
cuffed, beaten, and/or locked up know better. (I was going to add
"murdered" to the list, but it's hard to say whether those people
know better or not.)

Almost all of would LIKE there to be some magic ingredient to make
society more peaceful, more fair, more civilized, and more just.
But "government" isn't it. It does the exact opposite.


Larken Rose

(* Though the "taser" is praised as a great "non-lethal" tool for
the fascists--I mean, "law enforcers"--dozens of deaths are thought
to be related to people being "tased." In addition, though I
haven't experienced it myself, I'm told it HURTS LIKE HELL!
However, because it LOOKS nicer than pounding someone into
submission with night sticks--though it amounts to the same thing--
the police don't seem to mind doing it fairly often.)

P.S. Incidentally, what I'd love to see somebody do--and maybe
somebody already has, and I just haven't heard of it--is use FOIA
and the state "sunshine" laws to get the names of the fascists who
do this stuff, and post them all on one web site (something like
"American Fascists Hall of Fame"). I don't have time, or I'd do it

All my past anti-political rants can be found here:

President Wacko Extremist

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/19/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

If I was a tyrant, I would have killed this guy:



Larken Rose

(I can find plenty in JFK's politics to complain about, but like
Ronald Reagan, he said things that I'm sure most tyrants of the day
didn't at all like.)

Wanted: Power-Happy Control Freak

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

(Preface: I was already in the process of writing a blurb about
something, when someone sent me a very appropriate, albeit very
sickening, example--included below--illustrating the point.)

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "goodness-o-meter"? We could run
everyone through it, and only let the good guys have guns, or we
could put a label on the really bad guys to warn the rest of us. In
fact, if there was some magic way to tell who the smart,
benevolent, justice-loving people were, then "government" might
almost make sense (but not quite). We could make sure the good guys
had all the power, so they could protect us from the bad guys. And
that's the premise behind the desire for "government": the hope
that the people who become lawmakers, police, prosecutors and
judges are better than average guy. (If they're as bad as the rest
of us, giving them special powers obviously wouldn't improve the

Trouble is, when you offer a job which includes having power over
others, good people very rarely apply. You see, good people don't
WANT to rule anyone else. Good people respect others, and so want
to leave them in freedom. It is almost always the megalomaniacs--
those who love dominion over others--who apply for authoritarian

One of the premises of the belief in "government" is the feeling
that we, the masses, are so unpredictable, negligent, and/or
malicious, that we need the best among us to get together, form a
government, and thereby keep us average folk in line. Trouble is,
the best among us don't want that job; the worst among us do.

I recently posted a link to a video capturing the antics of a
certain power-happy, god-complex fascist with a badge who works for
the St. George, Missouri police department. (Apparently CNN
reported it--after I did.) Yes, society needs to be protected from
the really nasty people, but when appointing authoritarian
"protectors," if you accidentally choose a nasty person--the kind
who usually seek positions of power--and you give him a badge, a
gun, and powers the rest of us don't have--well, you can see the
outcome. Yes, we'd all hope that people with power will not misuse
it, and the statists insist that we need a government of good guys,
in which case it's okay--necessary, in fact--to give them lots more
power than the rest of us have. It's for our own good, right?

Consider, for example, Mr. Atchison--an experienced crime-fighting
prosecutor down in Florida, working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the Department of Justice. He's the kind of guy who protects us
from the low-lifes of the world! He's the kind we need to give
extra power to, in order to keep our children safe! Well, actually,
as it turns out, he's the kind of low-life our children need to be
protected from.

(Warning: Even though the following is a mainstream news story,
it's quite disgusting and revolting, so feel free to skip it. Just
know that this federal prosecutor was apparently caught attempting
to do something exceedingly repulsive and evil--something he said
he has done before.)


What struck me about the story, however, wasn't just that one
person in a position of power got caught, or even the mention of
another Florida prosecutor getting in trouble for something
similar. It was the comment in the story, quoting from those who
investigate such crimes, saying that it's gotten to the point where
they are "almost unfazed when they discover prominent community
figures" engaging in such extreme sliminess.

I guess those investigators found out what I keep saying: people
who crave power (sometimes called "prominent community figures")
are not good people. The public desperately wants a group of good
guys to be in charge, and to have at their disposal the necessary
power to make sure justice prevails. So they hallucinate a
"government," and hope like heck that somehow righteous heroes will
take the job, and will use the power to rid the world of evil and

But they don't. Thieving, demented, callous, sadistic control-
freaks get the job instead. But that doesn't deter the statists,
who then cry, "Well NEXT time we'll get someone GOOD in there!"
(When has that ever happened?) Again, righteous, good people--who
care about freedom and justice--don't WANT the job of forcibly
controlling their neighbors. It is an inherently IMMORAL job which
naturally attracts only those who don't mind using violence against
innocent people. It's not just bad luck that slimeballs and
lunatics always get into power; they're the only ones who would
WANT the job. If you had elections to choose a local car-jacker,
how many GOOD people do you think would apply?

Only nasty people--or unthinking puppets--WANT a job that includes
controlling everyone else, and this is true despite the fact that
cops and prosecutors sometimes use force to stop people who DESERVE
to be stopped--like (ironically) the federal prosecutor mention
above. A cop or prosecutor is not allowed to choose which "laws" to
enforce. It's his job to enforce them all, including the completely
immoral ones (any "law" that initiates violence against someone who
has committed no force or fraud against anyone else--which includes
most "laws"). The fact that sometimes he uses justifiable force
doesn't justify all the times he uses immoral force. Someone who
becomes a cop with good intentions will find that he is often
required to enforce unjustified commands, at which point he either
quits, or betrays his good intentions. Bad guys, on the other hand,
thrive in such a situation, as it gives them societal "permission"
(from statists, at least) to intrude, harass, extort, assault, and
murder in the name of the "law."

And, as lots of people have learned the hard way, once you give a
bad guy lots of power, it's not easy to take it away from him
again. When you find yourself at the mercy of some dishonest, power-
happy authoritarian psycho--whether it be a cop, a prosecutor, or a
judge--then you know just how important it is to NOT let nasty
people get those positions. But since nasty people are almost
always the only ones who ever APPLY for those jobs, what are we to


I know, I know: That's too extreme! We neeeeeeed super-human
protectors! No matter how often the ones we put there show
themselves to be slimeballs of the highest order, people still keep
hoping that having a ruling class (aka "government") will improve
society. How ironic that peoples' fear of the nasty and
irresponsible folk among us is what leads to those same nasty folk
acquiring enormous power over all of us. We fear a small monster,
and create a HUGE monster to protect us from the little one. And
when the huge one turns against us--as it always has and always
will--all that most of us can think of is what new, even bigger
monster we might try to replace it with (if it lets us). Meanwhile,
those crazies among us (anarchists) who say "Um, we don't need a
monster," are called extreme. Go figure.


Larken Rose

True Colors Shining Through

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

A lot of people think it's exaggerating or being melodramatic to
say that EVERY command from "government" is a threat of violence,
backed by the ability and willingness to use deadly force. The main
reason it doesn't look that way is because most people immediately
cave in and comply with government demands ("laws"), so the
violence backing it up is never seen.

Imagine an armed car-jacker using the following defense when put on
trial: "Hey, I didn't ever shoot anyone, or even hit anyone. I just
said some words, and they all GAVE me their cars! I didn't use
violence." If the words he used were "Give me your car or I'll blow
your brains out," I think we'd all agree that that constitutes
violence. The THREAT of force--stating that you WILL use violence
if someone doesn't do what you say--is by itself a form of
violence. No one with a brain would claim that car-jacking is
perfectly fine if the crook has never ACTUALLY shot anyone (but
only threatened to).

Nonetheless, the violence inherent in ALL involuntary "taxation"
goes unnoticed by most people, simply because in most cases, the
violence never actually occurs--people "comply" in order to AVOID
the nasty things threatened by the feds. However, for a reality
check, it's helpful for people to be able to see, every once in a
while, the true colors of so-called "tax collectors," and that only
happens when someone resists.

I was merely put in prison for a year, but even that is a very
deceptive indicator of how vicious and violent the "law enforcers"
truly are. I went along with being put in a cage in order to avoid
the ultimate "trump card" behind EVERY "law" or EVERY "government":
murder. If you doubt that, you need only look to an example of
someone who DIDN'T go along with the federal terrorists. I'm
speaking, of course, of Ed and Elaine Brown.

Does anyone need machine-guns and tanks in order to ask nicely for
a voluntary contribution? Are SWAT teams and sneak attacks required
to collect "donations"? No. The IRS, the ATF, and all "tax
collectors," are gangs of armed robbers, willing to murder those
who do not give in. Again, we rarely SEE the true colors of these
gangs of inhuman monsters, because almost everyone caves in quickly
in order to AVOID having the really nasty stuff happen to them.

I have heard that there are indications that the feds are
escalating their "presence" near the Browns' house. Setting aside
authoritarian euphemisms, what that means is that they are getting
closer to using overt violence to either capture or kill the
Browns. And since Ed Brown has made it clear that he won't go
quietly, it's pretty darn obvious that if they go in, the feds have
every intention of MURDERING him.

For what? For not giving them a piece of his paycheck. Let's
pretend for a minute that the Browns legally owed the "taxes" in
question, and let's even pretend that the Browns THOUGHT they owed
the tax (neither of which is true). Even if they said "Yeah, we owe
it, but we're not paying," would that make it okay to MURDER them?

In his brilliant writings, Lysander Spooner constantly described
government agents as "bands of thieves and murderers," which to
most people would seem a little harsh and over-the-top. But the
Browns are performing the public service of PROVING that that is
EXACTLY what authoritarian "law enforcers" are: people who forcibly
rob people, and who are willing to commit MURDER against those who
resist. Of course, if no one ever resists, we never get to actually
SEE just how evil the parasite thugs really are.

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
[John Hay]

Whatever someone thinks of Mr. Brown personally, or of any
unorthodox tax-related beliefs, it is good for Americans to be
forced to face the question: Is it okay to MURDER people for not
paying the government's "protection" fees? If you say "yes," you
deserve any level of enslavement and oppression "authority" can
impose upon you. If you say "no," then ALL "taxation"--however many
layers of euphemisms and platitudes the truth is buried under--is
an intolerable evil.

Some people are going as far as volunteering to use defensive force
to try to prevent the murder of Mr. Brown. Amazingly, those people
are then publicly demonized--and when possible, arrested--by the
hypocritical, power-happy, murderous, machine-gun-toting fascists
who are willing to COMMIT the murder. Mr. Brown is in his house,
surrounded by a bunch of heavily-armed enemies, who are there with
the obvious goal of capturing or killing him (knowing that the
former is extremely unlikely), but when someone tries to come to
the aide of Mr. Brown, to protect him from the aggressors, that
person is arrested for being a nasty criminal. This shows just how
insane the belief in "authority" can make people: armed robbery and
murder are okay because they're (supposedly) "legal," but using
defensive force against thieves and murderers is evil (if they call
themselves "government").

Well, if that is the case, then I'm proud to be rooting for the
evil side. Only the belief in "authority" can brainwash people so
thoroughly that they can see the guy who is being ROBBED as the
criminal, and the ROBBERS as the good guys. Such is the power of
the most dangerous superstition.

Not surprisingly, the thieves and murderers want things happening
quietly, which is why they've cut off the Brown's phone lines and
internet. Personally, I'd love to see a thousand eyes all around
the place, always watching, always recording, always spreading the
truth. If the U.S. Marshals, the New Hampshire Sheriffs, and any
other "authorities" involved actually believe that THEY are the
good guys, wouldn't they WANT lots of people watching? Wouldn't
they WANT the whole thing to be open and public, so their nobility
and righteousness would be plain for all to see? They are the
criminals, and they know it. They just want the rest of the country
to remain so indoctrinated and clueless that the Browns will look
like the "criminals"--dead criminals, if "government" once again
has its way (as it did in the cases of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gordon
Kahl, and many others most people have never heard of).

Not surprisingly, most people don't really want to go up against
the most powerful regime the world has ever known. But at least let
he who has eyes SEE what is going on, and once again the "law
enforcers" will be shown for what they are: as Lysander Spooner put
it, "a band of thieves and murderers."


Larken Rose

(P.S. I have no idea what the physical layout of the surrounding
area is, but if Mr. Brown's house is visible from anyone else's
property, I hope they have 24-hour video surveillance going--
infrared if possible.)