Main menu

Mentioning the Unmentionable

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/07/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Since I've been sending out so many apparently pro-Ron Paul
messages lately (actually, more anti-anti-Ron Paul messages), I
want to keep throwing in reminders that I'm no limited statist, and
Ron Paul is no anarchist. Because he advocates far LESS
authoritarian coercion than anyone else, however, I would much
prefer to have him at the helm of the inherently illegitimate
federal machine.

But what I think is the REAL benefit of having him in the race,
even if he loses, is the fact that, unlike ANY other candidate, he
dares to talk about underlying principles and philosophy. I just
came across the following article on his web site:

Imagine a presidential candidate admitting that ALL "government" is
force, and that "democracy" is not freedom; absence of "government"
coercion is freedom. Elsewhere, he even quoted Frederick Bastiat,
saying that if you and I have no right to use violence, than
neither does "government." Holy smokes!

Yesterday I watched a tape of a recent New Hampshire "debate"
between Republican candidates. As always, all of the cloned
statists glossed over the fact that all of their "plans" and
"programs" for various things (energy, health care, etc.) are based
on state COERCION. That's all "law" is: threats of force used to
coerce people into to doing (or not doing) things based on what
politicians think is best.

The collectivists are safe as long as the public "debate" deals
only with what KIND of centralized "government" coercion and
oppression we should have. But when someone like Ron Paul starts
calling a spade a spade, and pointing out the coercive nature of
ALL "government," it's no wonder the power elite want him ridiculed
and excluded. Nothing messes up their power game more quickly than
someone who wants to question the underlying philosophical
assumptions upon which ALL statist rhetoric is based. Every
candidate pretends to be for "change," and pretends to want an open
discussion of ideas and issues. And every one is lying through his
teeth, except for Ron Paul.


Larken Rose

Frank the Carjacker

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/03/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

Frank is a carjacker. But unlike most, he's a swell guy. You see,
he doesn't steal cars. If you pay him a few bucks, he'll change
your car's oil for you. He's also good with tune-ups and filter
changes. He's a good, honest guy, and charges very reasonable
prices for quality work.

What do you think of Frank so far? Well, you might be thinking, "If
he doesn't steal cars, why do you call him a carjacker?"

Good question.

Now that you've met Frank, I would also like to introduce you to a
local government. But it's not your usual bunch of control freak
politicians and their hired guns. No, these guys never violate
anyone's individual rights. In fact, all they do is defend people's
rights. If you choose to pay for their services, they can do
investigations, arbitration, track down and capture thieves and
murderers, and so on. They don't rob you, or boss you around
(unless you're robbing or assaulting someone else), or do anything
else obnoxious or oppressive.

What do you think of them so far? Well, if you thought about it for
a while, you might think to ask, "Why do you call them

Good question.

The Declaration of Independence says that governments are formed to
defend the rights of individuals. With all due respect to Thomas
Jefferson, that's a load of bullpoop. You might as well say that
carjackers are instituted among men to help them keep their cars
running well. If someone doesn't steal cars, he's not a carjacker,
and if a certain group of people does nothing more than defend
individual rights, they are NOT a "government."

What would a purely defensive organization look like? Well, it
wouldn't "tax" you, for starters. Nor would it pretend to have any
rights that YOU don't have, like the right to tell you what you can
eat, drink, smoke, watch, say, produce, sell, build, etc. And since
we ALL have the right to defend ourselves and others, it would need
no constitution, no legislation, no elections, and no political
process at all to do what it does: defending individual rights. It
also would have no right to forcibly deter competing defense
organizations, so it would have no monopoly. There could be (and
probably would be) dozens of such organizations competing for your
business. It would have no rights that YOU don't have, so it's
commands wouldn't be "law" any more than your commands are. It's
agents would have no "authority" that you don't have. It would not
be above you in any way, shape or form, and you would be under no
obligation to treat its agents any differently than you treat
anyone else.

Does that sound like "government" to you? Such an organization is
no more "government" than the above-mentioned Frank is a carjacker.
If it doesn't claim the right to rule you, at least in a limited

What the Constitution describes, on the other hand, IS a
"government," and is NOT a purely defensive organization. It
pretends to have the right to "tax," for example. Would you like me
to come and "defend your rights" by forcing you to give me some
money? The contradiction should be obvious, despite the nonsensical
civics propaganda we've all been fed.

You can either have an organization that just defends individual
rights, OR you can have a "government." By definition, the two are
mutually exclusive. If it has the right to rule, control, and rob
me--even in a limited manner--then it's not my DEFENDER. I almost
feel silly pointing that out, since it's so patently obvious, but
since we've all been trained to believe the ridiculous, the truth
needs to be said. The Constitution is a document which pretended to
bestow upon Congress rights that you and I DON'T HAVE. So to
pretend that the system described therein is merely one for
protecting individual rights is utterly absurd. However limited and
reasonable you try to make it, "government" (by definition) is
ALWAYS a ruling class, and therefore is ALWAYS the enemy of
liberty. To pretend otherwise is to deny the obvious.


Larken Rose


(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/02/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I almost didn't want to publicly post this, but it's not like the
tyrant establishment doesn't know any of it, so here goes.

The Republican party has a bunch of presidential hopefuls: one
actual constitutionalist, and a whole lot of socialist/fascist
clones. What little enthusiasm there is for any of the plastic
neocon crooks is the result of superficial rhetoric and a bit of
salesmanship. There is no significant substantive enthusiasm for
ANY of them. And why should there be? What are they all offering?
More of the same collectivist central control we've had for the
past century. Who is insane enough to be excited about that?

And then there is Ron Paul. He actually believes in something, and
it's something significantly different from the status quo. (Every
politician pretends to want "change," but Ron Paul actually means
it.) True, it's different enough that is may scare a lot of the
American sheeple, who tend to be emotionally attached to their
familiar chains, but it's something that a lot of people actually
WANT, not because it's slightly less evil than the other choice,
but because it's something actually GOOD. It's called "freedom."

Anyway, my prediction is this. In the first few primary elections,
Ron Paul will do far better than any mainstream polls are
indicating. Why? Because the people who support him REALLY support
him, and will show up to vote. Meanwhile, the public support for
the self-appointed establishment control freaks is not only weak,
but it is split half a dozen ways. Really, who would bother to show
up (in a primary, especially) to vote for "Generic Tyrant #4,"
instead of "Generic Tyrant #2"? What's the point? It's kind of like
getting excited about deciding whether to get hit in the head by a
wooden bat or by an aluminum bat. And since the numbers show the
LEADER having percentages in the low twenties, and since turnout
for primaries is often low anyway, it wouldn't take much of a
turnout of Ron Paul supporters to upset the apple cart.

(Here is a little statistical example, even using the probably-
bogus mainstream media stats. Suppose 6% of Republicans support Ron
Paul, 25% support Fuhrer Giuliani, and 25% support Mr. Totalitarian
Huckabee. Now suppose 50% of those Ron Paul supporters actually
show up to vote, and only 10% of other supporters show up, which is
about normal. Guess who wins. Ron Paul.)

Then, after Ron Paul starts looking like a real threat, the true
nature of the self-serving system will shine through. You will see
several of the establishment-appointed megalomaniacs dropping out
of the race, in an effort to keep Ron Paul from having a chance to
win. Though each of those in the collection of would-be tyrants
wants to hold the reins of the machine, their first priority is to
preserve the system of power. They would rather drop the entire
facade of "democracy," and have all but the chosen tyrant drop out,
than let Ron Paul have a shot at the White House. You will see the
candidates drop out, one by one, each throwing his support behind
anyone OTHER than Ron Paul.

The good news is, the modern American tyrant, while plenty vicious
and power-happy, seems to be rather stupid. The general public
distrusts and dislikes both major political parties, which is the
result of bad tyrant propaganda. (A competent tyrant can oppress
people AND make them love him at the same time.) And the current
tyrants just might be stupid enough to waste enough time fighting
over the throne that someone who doesn't WANT to run everybody's
life will sneak through. Hey, I can dream, can't I?


Larken Rose

To Be Free, Or Not To Be Free

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/02/2008)

(Note: The following rant was prompted by a private exchange I had
with someone about the idea that someone can be pro-freedom AND for
forced morality.)

Dear Subscriber,

Imagine how much I could help you if I had the RIGHT to forcibly
control you. If my respect for your self-ownership and your
individual rights weren't in the way, just think of how much better
I could make your life through the use of violence and the threat
of violence. Here are just a few things I could do:


I would force you to work harder, work longer hours, etc. This
would result in more promotions, and you earning more money. I
would also eliminate any of your expenditures which I deemed to be
unnecessary (which would be a lot), and force you to save a lot
more, and invest wisely. No more cable, no drinking, no smoking, no
fancy cars, etc. I could both increase your income and drastically
reduce your expenditures.


I would force you to get enough exercise every day, at gunpoint if
necessary. I would also force you to adopt a healthier lifestyle--
more fruits and vegetables, no sweets, no smoking, no drinking, no
drugs. I would do your grocery shopping for you, and put you on a
strict regimen to best serve your health.


I would force you to refrain from activities I deem harmful or
immoral. No extramarital or "deviant" sex, no smoking, no use of
any mind-altering substances (including alcohol), no gambling, no
swearing, only G and PG movies, etc. I would also force you to give
to the charities I deem most worthy. I would coerce you into being
a good spouse, parent, and/or child (whichever applies), and being
polite and charitable to everyone.

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

Wouldn't that be swell? It is unquestionable that, if I had the
unlimited ability and right to forcibly control all your choices
and actions, that there would be dramatic improvements in your
financial and physical well-being. (The same would be true if
someone could impose the same things on me.)

There's only one small problem: using violence, or the threat of
violence, to impose such choices on you, even if it would BENEFIT
you, is absolutely immoral. Why? Because you own you, and I don't
own you.

It's not a very complicated concept. You own you, and so I have no
right to use force to make your choices for you. (The only time I
DO have the right to use force against you is to STOP you from
forcibly interfering with someone ELSE'S right to own himself and
make his own choices.)

The principle is pretty darn simple, don't you think? Trouble is,
99.9% of the the population (at least) does NOT believe in that
principle. If, for example, you support the "war on drugs"--the use
of state VIOLENCE to control what people choose to put in their own
bodies--then you obviously have no respect for the self-ownership
of every individual. The same is true if you want prostitution
"outlawed" (forcibly prohibited). The same is true if you believe
in ANY kind of "taxes," to fund ANYTHING, including those things
listed in the Constitution.

In short, your choice is simple: be an anarchist, or abandon the
idea that every individual owns himself. And if you abandon the
very simple principle of self-ownership, on what basis can you
possibly complain about the totalitarian agenda suggested above?
If, for example, it's justifiable for "government" to tell people
they can't smoke a certain leaf, why, in principle, would it NOT be
justifiable for "government" to make people eat a healthy diet? If
it's okay to use coercion to FORCE people to fund a military (for
their own good, of course), why, in principle, would there be
anything wrong with FORCING them to spend carefully, invest wisely,
or exercise regularly?

In short, you can't have it both ways. If you advocate that
"government" force your neighbors to do, or to not do, ANYTHING
(except in defense of someone else's freedom), then you have
accepted the premise that individuals do NOT have the right to make
such choices for themselves; in which case, what right do you have
to complain about totalitarianism? If you want your neighbor
"taxed" to fund a police force, or a military, or a welfare state,
or a school, or a retirement system, or anything else, then how can
you on principle oppose the "government" robbing YOU to pay for
things that you don't want to support?

There's a reason "government" always grows, and oppression always
increases, until something really unpleasant (e.g., revolution or
economic collapse) "reboots" society. It's because once you accept
"government" AT ALL, you have accepted the notion that politicians
have the RIGHT to impose their choices on us by FORCE, and you
therefore have abandoned the notion that each of us owns HIMSELF.
Once the principle is gone, what is there to prevent eventual
complete tyranny? Not a darn thing. How many more times does
history have to prove that, before people get the PRINCIPLE right,
and stop bickering over irrelevant details about what flavor of
slavery we should have? (And how long will those few who get the
principle RIGHT be condemned as "extremists" by all the anti-
freedom proponents?)


Larken Rose

Retroactive Unretracting

(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/01/2008)

Dear Subscriber,

I hereby un-retract my second-to-last e-mail. (Did that make
sense?) It turns out that Fox "News" DID decide to EXCLUDE Ron Paul
from a January 6th event--though it was a "forum" rather than a
"debate." Now the New Hampshire GOP is saying they want Ron Paul
included, which I tend to think means, "Well, we don't ACTUALLY
want him there, but we don't want to look like the establishment
insider's game that we really are."

Incidentally, why do they call them "debates" at all? There is
basically no back-and-forth. I would love to see Ron Paul be
allowed to ask the other candidates questions. THAT would be a
"debate," and would actually be entertaining. Of course, then
actual IDEAS might be discussed, and the status quo brigade certain
can't have THAT happening in public!

Here are a few questions that I think would be fun to ask:

1) Mr. Politician, what level of taxation do you think would
justify forcible resistance? 50%? 90%? 100%? Or do you believe that
if government demands every penny we earn, we should comply?

2) Mr. Politician, do you believe that when a government becomes
the violator, rather than the protector, of individual rights, that
it is the right and duty of the people to forcibly overthrow that

3) Mr. Politician, please list for me five things which the
"commerce clause" does NOT authorize the federal government to in
any way regulate or control. (With the exception of Ron Paul, good
luck finding anyone in DC who thinks there is even ONE thing.)

4) Mr. Politician, do you believe that the Second Amendment was
written so that, if you bastards get too tyrannical, we can blow
your damn heads off?

Well, now you know why they won't be asking ME to be a presidential
debate "moderator" any time soon.


Larken Rose

Pravda West

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/30/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

As most of you have no doubt heard by now, Fox "News" and the New
Hampshire Republican party have decided to exclude Ron Paul from
the upcoming New Hampshire presidential debate. Lots of people
(including me) have told the Fox "News" propagandists what they
think about this. And if you want to do so too, here's one e-mail
you can use:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As I describe in my book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant," the key
to being a successful tyrant is to not LOOK like a tyrant. Making
it look as if "the people" are choosing their leaders (a complete
joke), and making it look as if the "system" actually gives due
process and justice (another joke), and making it look as if the
system provides checks and balances, and means by which the people
can accomplish change THROUGH the system (an even bigger joke), are
essential to maintaining a successful, oppressive regime. The
reason for this is simple: if the people stop believing that they
are "ruling themselves"--an absurd notion to begin with--they tend
to get really angry.

Well, apparently the tyrant mouthpieces, not just at Fox "News" but
everywhere else, are scared and desperate enough that they aren't
trying very hard anymore to appear objective. For example, the
presidential candidate who has raised more money in a single day
than anyone ever, and who has more money and WAY more supporters
than many of the so-called "front-runner" Republican candidates,
and the only one who has anything that is at all different from the
other statist clones, is being excluded from the "debates." Well
duh, what is there to "debate" if the only people involved are all
state-worshiping, nationalist/socialists?

And that, of course, is the point. The Republican party, and their
mouthpieces at Fox "News" and elsewhere, don't want anyone who
actually believes in the Constitution to be heard, because it would
make the rest of them look like what they are: a bunch of
unprincipled phonies, who have no intention of limiting government
at all.

Please allow me to once again quote myself (from my "Tyrant" book, )

- -------------< begin quote >---------------

Control the Choices

Rather than trying to squelch all disagreement (which you will find
to be impossible), focus instead on controlling the "spectrum" of
ideas discussed in public; define the limits of what kinds of
beliefs are "civilized" and "reasonable." For example, a public
debate on whether you should rule all the peasants is unacceptable,
but a public debate on the particular manner or degree of your rule
is not only allowable but desirable. If your subjects are arguing
over whether you should take 60% of what they produce or 70% of
what they produce, you have already won, since both "sides" are
implicitly conceding that you should take at least 60% of what they

The reason such a "debate" is desirable is that it keeps the
peasants thinking they have some say, and that they are
knowledgeable and "involved," without actually providing them with
any means to achieve freedom. Without this type of outlet, they
may end up openly resisting you.

As another tactic, do not vary the amount of oppression, but vary
its justification. For example, you can win followers by
suggesting that the peasants should be extorted to "help the poor,"
instead of being extorted to finance a war (or vice versa). Of
course, ideas such as "Don't extort us at all" must be kept out of
the public debate entirely. Let the peasants find release in
arguing over what flavor of oppression they will have, but never
over whether they will be oppressed at all.


Comparative Oppression

Remarkably, if you give the peasants a choice between your desired
level of control and something even worse (if there is anything
worse), they will see you as a pro-freedom hero. Peasants tend to
be remarkably unobservant, forgetful, and not at all objective. If
you offer only to punch them in the nose rather than shoot them,
they will praise you for it. If you promise to kick them in the
head twice a day rather than three times a day, they will vote for
you in droves.

A classic example of such "comparative oppression" can be seen in
the so-called "two party" political system now in place in the
United States. The party which promises to cut the levels of
federal extortion back to 50% of what an individual produced are
praised as being for "limited government." Of course, by any
objective measure, they are advocates of oppression. Only by
comparing themselves to something worse can they dupe the peasants
into believing they are in any way pro-freedom.

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

And a little bit more:

- -------------< begin quote >---------------

Influence, Not Censorship

In addition to controlling the "education" (indoctrination) system,
one 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."
Otherwise, the peasants will openly resist the censorship, will not
believe your message, and may even create their own "underground"
media to combat it. But if the media appears to them 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 muzzled. If the CEO or owner of the "Anytown Daily Newspaper"
is an elitist buddy of yours, and supports all of your power-grab
plans, it is only natural that his publication will reflect that
mindset. The underlings will know that to write something the boss
disagrees with is to write their own pink slip.

"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my
paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The
business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie
outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and
to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. ... We are
the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the
jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance." [John Swinton
(New York Times Chief of Staff)]

Infecting Existing Media

Making your own media from scratch is both difficult and
unnecessary. Publications like Pravda, which are well known for
being mouthpieces for governments, are not very effective because
the people know not to trust them. It is far better to use your
influence to take over (not openly, of course) already existing
media outlets that already have many viewers, listeners or readers,
and that have a certain level of credibility. With a little
patience, it is not difficult to transform a relatively "objective"
organization into a perpetual advertisement for your agenda.

People in the media like attention and like to feel important. It
is standard operating procedure for politicians to talk only to the
reporters they like, meaning those who don't give them problems,
contradict them, make fools of them, etc. Those who kiss up to
politicians will hold their positions as "reporters" on government
affairs. The others don't get interviews, have nothing to
"report," and so have no jobs. Again, there is no need for a
conspiracy; human nature will do the work for you.

Having "connections" with the management of media outlets is the
best route, since you can easily have any reporter fired (or worse)
if he writes something unfavorable about you. As with any
industry, if you implement all manner of "regulation" of the media,
then you always have some "legal" way to hurt an organization that
spreads messages harmful to your agenda.

"The majority of Americans get their news and information about
what is going on with their government from entities that are
licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very
government." [Neal Boortz]

But aside from the occasional uppity reporter who needs to be put
in his place (a coffin, perhaps), it is far more effective to avoid
confrontation and simply use your ill-gotten wealth and influence
to mold the media outlets into what you want them to be. Any
company that achieves top status will be afraid of losing it, and
so won't want to anger someone with as much power as you have at
your disposal. People with something to lose tend to become docile
and don't "make waves." (To wit, you can count on one finger all
the strongly libertarian "reporters" who can still be seen on the
mainstream American "news.")

Spectrum of Discussion

One effective method of propaganda does not deal with what is said
but with what is not discussed. The range of opinions the
peasants are exposed to has an enormous impact on what they will
perceive as reasonable. Peasants have few ideas of their own, so
if they are exposed to only two "different" views, both of which
support your plans for control, they will almost certainly think
only about which pro-tyranny viewpoint they like better, rather
than being original enough to decide that neither of the presented
viewpoints makes sense.

"In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a
multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who
are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their
own." [Alexis de Tocqueville]

The peasants must feel they have a choice of what to believe, so
the message must look like a "debate" instead of a sermon.
However, the "debate" should be so limited that anything even
approaching an anti-tyranny opinion must be seen as outside the
realm of rational debate.

"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other
possibilities." [Alan Bloom]

If the accepted public discourse about some government
redistribution scheme is nothing more than petty bickering over
details, then someone who comes out and suggests doing away with
the scheme entirely can easily be painted as an extremist crackpot.

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

I can't imagine how Fox "News" and the Republican establishment
could have given a more perfect example of these propaganda
techniques. However, even when they do it right in the open, they
know that most Republican voters will keep voting Republican
anyway. Will YOU? If so, you deserve what you get.


Larken Rose