Main menu

Being Reasonable

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

It seems that when collectivists run out of other excuses for their
anti-freedom agenda, they fall back on calling real limiting of
government "unreasonable" or "impractical." For example, Mona
Charen recently opined that doing away with the IRS (as Ron Paul
suggests) isn't a "serious" proposal. The underlying message is
clear: dramatic change--in fact, any change that is significant at
all--is unreasonable, impractical, and so on, BECAUSE it would be a
dramatic change.

What an odd concept. Suppose your morning ritual consisted of
getting up, taking a shower, getting dressed, having breakfast,
hammering a nail into your foot, and driving to work. And suppose
you had been doing that for all of your working career, until some
radical, wacko extremist suggested that perhaps you would be better
off if you completely removed the sticking-a-nail-in-your-foot part
of your morning routine. "Well, I can't just stop it entirely!
That's impractical! It's unreasonable! Perhaps I could use smaller
nails, or hammer them in not quite as deep, but do away with the
act altogether? Come on, be reasonable!"

Allow me to quote myself (from my book, "How to Be a Successful

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

Familiar Chains

Another huge way in which the peasants' lack of objectivity helps
you is their relativistic view of life. If they grew up in
slavery, they will think that slavery is inevitable and proper.
They will assume that whatever their rulers have always done (as
far back as they can remember), rulers always should do. They will
choose familiar tyranny over "upsetting the apple cart" every time.

Peasants fear change. Like animals that have been caged for too
long, a group of peasants that has been enslaved for decades, if
you offer to "let them out" (i.e., give them freedom), will beg to
be let back into the cage. Peasants crave whatever is predictable
and familiar, even if it happens to be tyranny. So train them to
become accustomed to tyranny, and most of them won't even want to
be free.

This cannot be overstated: the outlook of "that's just how things
are" is the tyrant's best friend. If the peasants are accustomed
to giving you a chunk of what they earn, they will think that's how
things should be, and they will literally be afraid of not being
extorted. If the "government" regulates everything, they will
assume that that is necessary and good. If they grew up in a
society in which all parents must surrender their children over to
government-controlled indoctrination centers (euphemism: "public
schools"), they will assume that it is how things should be.

Put another way, the peasants decide what things should be like
from the starting point of what things are already like. They
might want a little bit more of one thing, or a little bit less of
another, but only very rarely will a peasant come to the
realization that your entire regime, and everything it does, is
insane, unnecessary, and destructive to society. This is because
reaching such a conclusion requires both objective analysis (which
in turn requires independent thought) and intellectual confidence.

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

Republican politicians, and 99% of their supporters in the media,
don't have a shred of principle among the bunch of them. You see, a
principle is a position you take because it is what is RIGHT, even
if it's unpopular, or dangerous, or not politically expedient, or
different from what is being done today. What does it mean when
principles are outranked by what is "practical" or "reasonable"? It
means those principles are worthless.

A little over a century ago, doing away with slavery seemed to be a
pretty darn "impractical" and "unreasonable" thing to do. And it
was, but it was also the RIGHT thing to do. For that matter, having
a full-scale revolution against the British Empire was pretty darn
impractical and unreasonable, but in retrospect we applaud it. So
when did this nation become such a bunch of wimps that we won't get
rid of evil, anti-American, tyrannical abominations like the IRS,
because doing so would be "impractical"? When did "give me liberty
or give me death" get changed into "don't make waves; just go with
the flow"? Often one's choices are to make waves, or to drown. This
country is about to do one or the other, by either "making waves"
with Ron Paul, or by sinking with the latest in a long line of
"reasonable," "practical" tyrants at the helm.


Larken Rose

The Unmentionable Candidate

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/17/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Name-recognition is a huge factor in election results. In other
words, if John Q. Public walks into a voting both, sees the names
of two people he knows nothing about, but RECOGNIZES one of them,
that's who will win. And any moron should be able to see that that
is precisely why the mainstream media is paying so little attention
to Ron Paul: they don't WANT people hearing about him.

"Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the
absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative
thoughts. 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 all the people ever hear about are the two faces (Democrat and
Republican) of the one ruling class of devout socialist/fascists,
they won't even know that there IS something dramatically different
they could be supporting. (As a depressing example, during the
Third Reich, many of those who opposed German fascism were
communists, because that's the only alternative they knew about.)

Yesterday, Ron Paul made campaigning history by raising six million
dollars in one day. The media will probably mention it, but will
couch it in the constant message of "but he still can't possible
win." Mr. Paul's campaign is the best current example I can think
of of tyrant propaganda tactics. It's truly amazing to watch.

While the self-annointed, aspiring tyrants of both parties are
supported by their rich buddies, Ron Paul is supported by lots and
lots of mere "peasants." So why does the media try so hard to
ignore him, and when they do mention him, why do the constantly
denigrate and insult him? For all hoopla the talking heads and
"reporters" give about "democracy," they don't mean it. When a lot
of the people really DO want something, as is obviously the case
with Ron Paul, the elitist media show their true disdain for the
general public. Who are you stupid peasants to like someone that
the media hasn't TOLD you to support?!

No matter how much money Ron Paul raises, or how many supporters he
has, the statist propagandists will treat it like a fluke--an
insignificant anomaly which really doesn't matter at all. Both
Democrat and Republican talking heads are doing it constantly. And
if you watch closely, every once in a while you can catch a glimpse
of the terror in their eyes, when they contemplate the possibility
that someone who actually believes in the Constitution might win.


Larken Rose

(P.S. For those who keep asking, I give anyone permission to
reproduce anything I write to this list where ever they want,
including as a letter to the editor.)

Choose One Evil from Column A...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/13/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

People like Rush Limbaugh talk as if the Republican party is the
pro-Constitutional, "limited government" party. The supposed proof
of this is that the Democrat party (or rather, the "Democrat" face
of the one ruling class) wants a tiny bit MORE control and robbery
than the Republican party. (At least, that's what their empty
rhetoric indicates.)

If two crooks were in your neighborhood, and one wanted to steal
your car, and the other wanted to steal your car AND your credit
card, would you consider the first one to be your buddy? Would you
praise him as an "anti-theft" advocate? Only if you are a complete
idiot. Likewise, only if you are a complete idiot would you
characterize the Republican party as pro-freedom and anti-

I know lots of voters who have supported the Republican party
because they bought the lie that the party is for "limited
government." (I hate to admit it, but years back, I was one of
them.) Over and over again, the Republican tyrants have betrayed
their supporters, and yet many people STILL think that whatever
socialist/fascist has an "R" after his name should be put into
office, simply to keep out the socialist/fascist with the "D" after
his name.

How long is this silly trick going to work? How long is the stupid
"wasted vote" propaganda going to persuade people to vote for
people they don't WANT in office? Allow me to state the bleeding
obvious: if you support the lesser of two evils, YOU ARE SUPPORTING
EVIL. "But the OTHER guy is even WORSE!" Well golly, ever wonder
why both major parties always run people who are such psychotic
megalomaniacs that voters in both parties have to hold their noses
when they vote? And why do you support a party that keeps giving
you an EVIL as their representative?

Suppose a man came to your door, and said, "Lucky you! You have
freedom of choice! You get to choose whether I punch you in the
nose, or kick you in the stomach!" Would you be stupid enough to
choose one of those? Sure, the guy might hurt you anyway, even if
you say "neither, please," but at least you wouldn't have
VOLUNTEERED to be abused, like every single Democrat and Republican
voter has done since long before I was born.

Soon enough, I'll get back to pointing out why the cult of
"democracy" is, as its very core, utterly insane and horribly
destructive. But for now, I'll just point out how insane it is that
most American voters admit that they vote for people they DON'T
LIKE, in the hopes of keeping someone ELSE they like even less out
of office. Is THAT what makes you proud to be an American? Because
you have the right to decide which of two dishonest, psychotic
crooks is not quite as bad as the other? Does that make you feel
empowered? Does it make you feel represented?

Since your vote is statistically worthless to begin with, why would
you compound the silliness by voting for someone you don't even
like? If Ron Paul supports what you support, and you insist on
engaging in the ritual of elections, then vote for him. (Duh.) And
if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, vote for him anyway.
And if, in doing so, you destroy the Republican party in the
process, you will have done the world a great favor. There are
enough people in this country who actually WANT totalitarianism
(e.g., everyone who would for a second consider voting for Hillary
Stalin Clinton); it would be nice if the people who actually like
freedom stopped voting for the lesser of two fascist collectivists.


Larken Rose

The Anti-Change Brigade

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/10/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Watching the mainstream talking heads "interview" Ron Paul is a
combination of hilarious and infuriating. Every "question" is a
thinly-veiled accusation or insult. "So, Dr. Paul, some people--not
ME, mind you--say you're an extremist, wacko, fringe nutcase. What
do you say to that?" Just how stupid is the general public? Can
they not see that every such "interview" is designed to demean and
insult Dr. Paul? The most recent example (of many) was Dr. Paul's
"interview" with Howard Fineman (whose no fine man in my book). It
was nothing more than an inquisition, trying to find fault with one
point of Dr. Paul's position after another.

But what's really amazing is that, though time and time again he is
subjected to such biased, malicious interrogations, every
inquisition ends up making Dr. Paul look GOOD. (That's got to annoy
the status quo mouthpieces.) Still, if the general public has a
brain cell or two, it should be patently obvious that there is no
such thing as mainstream "reporters" anymore. The pro-establishment
agenda is so obvious that even the dullest spectator shouldn't be
able to miss it. (But then, I've underestimated the stupidity of
the American public before.)

Mind you, I'm not even in agreement with everything Dr. Paul says.
(I'm in the 0.00001% of the country who wants MORE freedom than Dr.
Paul advocates, such as NO "taxes," ever, for anything.) But to
watch the verbal combat between a man who has principles and
believes in something (Dr. Paul), and the unthinking conformist
automatons that pass as "reporters" these days, is truly amazing.

What does EVERY politician say he advocates? "Change." But when's
the last time any politician OTHER than Dr. Paul was actually
suggesting any change that would be even slightly significant?
Well, there was the 1994 "Republican Revolution," which consisted
of lots and lots of "limited government" rhetoric, followed by a
Republican House and Senate which did exactly NOTHING to reduce the
size or power of "government."

The establishment tyrants and their lapdog pundits use the "change"
term constantly, because they know that the American people are fed
up with the system as it is today. But do they actually want a bit
of change? Hell, no. They want to pontificate, posture and preach,
and then do what they've always done, because the system as it is
gives them all of their power and prestige.

For example, various congresscritturs and presidential hopefuls
have, for years, talked about doing away with the IRS. Did ANY of
them mean it? Other than Ron Paul, of course not. Just watch the
total panic the establishment goes into when someone says it AND
MEANS IT. The talking heads knew full well that every other
politician promising real "change" and "reform" never had any
intention of doing anything of the sort. The only "change" they
wanted was for THEM to be the one with the power and prestige. But
the dead giveaway that the mainstream media KNOWS that Ron Paul is
the genuine article is the blatant panic they display when HE talks
about "change."

Because they know he means it.


Larken Rose

My Mom&#039;s Country Pie

(originally launched into cyberspace on 12/04/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

When I was younger, my mom used to make an outstanding "country
pie," which was one of my favorite dishes ever. And, amazingly, it
achieved that status without me ever seeing a single commercial for

There is a big difference between what someone decides on his own
that he likes, and what someone has to be bludgeoned into "liking"
by constant advertising. There's nothing inherently evil about
advertising and trying to persuade someone, but obviously the
people who do the selling have something to gain. Likewise, if a
friend tells you that the joint down the street has the best
burgers, you're far more likely to believe him than a commercial
made by people who are PAID to say nice things about someone's

And so it is with politicians, too. It's not often that people
actually get excited about a candidate. Most people who want power
have to spend MILLIONS of dollars trying to persuade people to like
them. Why? Because there's nothing genuine about them worth liking,
so they have to perpetually advertise themselves.

Do you think anyone who knows Hillary Clinton personally would ever
say, "Gee, I want HER running my life!"? Not unless they DID inhale-
- -a lot. How about Rudy Giulliani? Let's see what that supposedly
great leader thinks, by considering his own words.

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again,
for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with
authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it
comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is
that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they
want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom
is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to
lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
(Rudy Giulliani)

So who on earth would get excited about THAT fascist lunatic
obtaining lots of power?

Mitt Romney? John McCain? Any of the other stuffed suits? If you
knew them in your daily lives, would you ever have said, "Gee, you
should run for President!"? Pretty darn unlikely. (Maybe, "Gee, you
should be a used car salesman.")

And then there is Ron Paul. Lots and lots of people WANT him to be
President--I mean genuinely want it, not because commercials told
them to, or because of slick propaganda and advertising, but
because, on their own, they can see the value of what he advocates.
They like what he says, and they want what he wants: freedom. And
those are the people now driving his campaign.

Day in and day out, all the status quo puppets who pass themselves
off as pundits tell you who you SHOULD support. And many of them
don't even bother to hide their utter contempt for the people's
choice: Ron Paul. It's obvious that they find it disgusting that
someone they DIDN'T push on you is getting any attention at all.
They are perpetual advertisers for the status quo, and to them, for
the lowly peasantry to come up with our own suggestion, is a slap
in their faces.

Well, keep on slapping. My mom's country pie was better than
anything I've ever seen advertised in a slick, expensive
commercial. And Ron Paul is better than anyone the establishment
would ever try to pawn off on you. While the various would-be
tyrants kiss up to their fellow rich, influential megalomaniacs, in
order to get the money to try to convince YOU to elect them, Ron
Paul is pushed by the "peasantry," while being resisted by the

In short, all the candidates running for office say they care about
you. Only one of them means it. And that is why only one is being
pushed by lots of regular Americans, instead of by establishment


Larken Rose

Leader of the Misfits

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/23/2007)

Dear Subscribers,

Yes, the title of this e-mail refers to Ron Paul, but before you
get all riled up, read the rest of it.

I like to keep an eye on what both sides of a disagreement have to
say. In fact, I find studying opposing views a lot more fun and
informative than looking at what my allies say. So, in that spirit,
I keep an eye out for critics of Ron Paul, to see what they can
come up with. And it ain't much.

One critic whined that Dr. Paul is getting the support of white
separatists, who never support anyone else in either party. From
that, we're supposed to conclude that we should be scared of Ron
Paul because (supposedly) nasty people support him. Nothing like a
little guilt-by-association to use in place of logic and evidence.
In that same vein, the status quo mouthpieces love to say that Dr.
Paul is supported by various kooks and wackos--fringe types who
just don't fit in. Well, why might that be?

What is a "misfit"? Someone who doesn't "fit in." In other words,
someone who isn't like everyone else. Well, I hate to break it to
all those people who consider "misfit" to be an insult, and who
take pride in their own normalcy, but I can't think of ANYONE in
history who made any real positive contribution to society who
WASN'T a misfit. And that is to be expected: it isn't all the sheep
who think the same things and do the same things who are going to
change anything; it's the people who go AGAINST the grain, who go
in a different direction--and usually such people are despised, and
often attacked, by the conformist sheep.

Well, guess what. There's a REASON for "misfits" to be pro-freedom:
because it is those who DON'T conform with the herd who are most
often oppressed. There are two reasons why "misfits" get involved
in politics: 1) to get "the law" to forcibly give them special
treatment (like all the various pieces of the Democratic base do);
or 2) to try to get "authority" to leave them alone. The latter is
what the "misfit" Ron Paul supporters want.

Unfortunately, people are so indoctrinated into state-worship that
they are incapable of distinguishing between "I don't like that"
and "government should use violence to stop that." And the tyrants
use that to constantly fuel their "divide and conquer" methods,
pitting one group against another, as a means to increasing their
own power. Here are a few examples:

1) Many people, myself included, think it's a bad idea to
excessively use mind-altering substances (including alcohol).
Nonetheless, I have no right to FORCIBLY control (by myself or by
way of "government") what someone else drinks, smokes, or shoots up
in his own house. They own themselves. I don't own them. So while I
may criticize their choices and behaviors, I will NEVER advocate
the initiation of violence against them. In a free society, we
could both coexist peacefully.

2) Some people, myself NOT included, think that races should stick
with their own, when it comes to where we live, who we marry, who
we do business with, etc. There are black "separatists" as well as
white (and lots of other colors). If people want to freely
associate that way, it their RIGHT to do so. If some guy--black or
white--only wants to hire people who are the same race, it is his
money, and he has every right to make that choice, no matter what
anyone else thinks of it. In a free society, racial separatists and
the rest of us can coexist peacefully. We don't go onto their
property and tell them who they can hire, who they can fire, and
who they can associate with, and they let us do what we want on our

3) Many people, myself included, think prostitution is extremely
unhealthy--mentally even more so than physically--for both "seller"
and "buyer." Nonetheless, I do not have the right--by myself or by
way of "government"--to forcibly interfere in a mutually voluntary
business deal, however distasteful I may find it. Once again, in a
free society, we can coexist peacefully.

4) Many people, myself included, consider the term "marriage" to
mean a certain kind of relationship between a man and a woman. Some
people, however, think two men, or two women, should be allowed to
get married. The "government" answer is the usual "divide and
conquer" tactic: half of the tyrants promise to use FORCE to stop
two people of the same sex from having a wedding ceremony.
Meanwhile, the other half promises to FORCE everyone to acknowledge
the validity of "same sex marriages" and to treat them just like
the usual kind of marriage. In a free society, two people can say
and think whatever they want, and I can say and think whatever I
want to about it. If two men want to have a ceremony and say they
are "married," I have no right (by myself or by way of
"government") to forcibly stop them. On the other hand, they have
no right to force anyone else to accept the legitimacy of their
"marriage." Once again, we can coexist peacefully, if we accept the
premise of individual freedom.

5) Many people, myself NOT included, don't think normal people
should own firearms. (For the moment, we'll ignore the fact that
statist indoctrination is the main reason anyone thinks that.)
Those people can say what they want, and think what they want, but
they have no right--by themselves or by way of "government"--to
forcibly disarm those who want to own firearms. And, not that it's
a big problem, but the rest of us have no right to FORCE anyone
else to own a gun. (There is at least one town in which this was
done.) Again, if we accept the value of FREEDOM, we can coexist
peacefully. If you don't want to come into my house when there are
guns here, fine. And if you want to tell me I can't come into your
house with a firearm, that's fine too. (I know a couple who are
devout pacifists AND strongly against victim disarmament (aka "gun
control"), because they understand the principle of individual

In one sense, the "Golden Rule" all by itself demolishes the entire
political game. If you don't want authoritarian thugs telling YOU
what you can say, what you can read, what you can watch, what you
can eat, what you can drink, what you can smoke, where you can
live, who you can work for, who you can hire, etc., then DON'T
be forcibly robbed via "taxation" to fund things YOU don't like,
how about not voting for people who will do the same to other

Those deemed "misfits" are merely the ones whose preferences and
beliefs are not in the majority. Whether their views are better or
worse than the majority, they tend to be the oppressed ones. As
such, it should come as no surprise that they would support a
candidate who believes in FREEDOM--their freedom, as well as
everyone else's.

The masses have been so trained to view the game of politics as a
great contest to decide WHICH viewpoints and behaviors should be
forcibly destroyed, and which should be rewarded, that most
Americans are incapable of considering the possibility that aside
from acts of force or fraud, NOTHING should be condemned OR
rewarded by the control freaks calling themselves "government." I
know it's a radical extremist viewpoint, but maybe we should leave
each other alone. But the statist indoctrination of the majority
has been so effective that most people assume that if you want to
leave someone in FREEDOM to do something, you must CONDONE what
they choose to do with that freedom. That's just bad logic. You
see, this is how peaceful society can exist:

I can say to the pothead, "You shouldn't fry you brain," and at the
same time say to the DEA thug, "You have no right to break into his
house, drag him away, and put him in a cage." I can say to the
prostitute, "You really shouldn't be doing that," and at the same
time tell the "vice squad" fascists that they have no right to
forcibly interfere. And so on. In short, I can have lots and lots
of very vehement differences of opinion with lots of different
that I don't own them. That is why, as Ron Paul's campaign is
proclaiming, the cause of freedom unites us; it does not divide us.
So, aside from whatever other differences we may have, I don't at
all mind being on the same side with all the other "misfits" when
it comes to opposing unjustified "government" violence.

In the Declaration of Independence, it says that ALL people, which
would include the "misfits," have inalienable rights. All those who
condescendingly scoff at the pro-freedom "misfit" lobby now
supporting Ron Paul apparently believe otherwise. I guess they
think rights are only for the average, conformist sheep.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Of course, all the people who are NOT "misfits," but who are
being "taxed" and "regulated"--i.e., robbed and controlled--to
death, also benefit from freedom. While the "misfits" get stomped
on the most by tyrants, just about everyone gets a substantial
amount of stomping in one way or another, so we'd all benefit from
a reduction in totalitarian "stompage.")