Main menu

Public Taserings?

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

Dear Subscriber,

I just had a quick thought. It sounds like the victim of the latest
unnecessary tasering, who posted that video after obtaining it via
the state "sunshine" laws, intends to sue the cop. I hope this
message finds a way to that guy, because I have a fun idea, which
might actually serve as an effective deterrent to future police

If the guy wins his suit, tell the cop that he'll cut $10,000 off
the settlement (or whatever) if he can taser the fascist on live
TV. Now THAT would be an effective ratings stunt, don't you think?
"Tune in to see megalomaniac cop get zapped!"

In most cases I think revenge is a destructive thing, often to the
one who DOES it even more than the one who it is aimed at. But in
this case, I think the deterrent factor could make it worth it. So
who's for a public display of corporal punishment of a fascist?
After all, it's not lethal (usually); it just hurts a lot. And
since the cops don't seem to mind frequently inflicting it upon
other folk, how bad can it be? Heck, I'd take a zap myself if the
fascist would have to take one, too.


Larken Rose

A Majority of Imbeciles

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/22/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Some people have observed, and rightly so, that I have been more
caustic lately in my anti-statist rantings. Several have suggested
that, while such anger at tyranny is justified, I should tone it
down a bit in order to win more converts. And they have a good
point, IF converting the masses was my goal. However, it's not

I have seen enough from the masses of asses in this country that I
have no hope whatsoever in the majority ever having a clue, or ever
doing the right thing. In the battle for the hearts and minds of
the American people, the truth is absolutely doomed. The people are
stupid, and will always be won over by the empty promises of
security and free stuff offered by the tyrants. That is one reason
(of many) why the whole notion of "democracy" is bogus: it is the
mechanism whereby a majority of duped morons can, without a twinge
of guilt, forcibly impose their stupidity on the rest of us.

Luckily, changing the world for the better is always accomplished
in spite of the masses, not because of them. When I look at
history, I don't see many instances of logic and reason winning
over the general public. On the contrary, I see example after
example of the majority being short-sighted, idiotic, and self-
destructive, while a small minority fights against them to achieve
each little inch of progress. And most of the time, the stupid
masses condemn and destroy those few people able to think outside
the box.

Here is one little example of why I believe that making the
majority love freedom is a lost cause. In my last message, I sent a
link to a video of an American fascist in Utah tasering a motorist--
not for running away, or attacking anyone, but for asking
(rightfully so) "What is wrong with you?" to the power-happy psycho
with a badge. Here is the link for the video again:

After I posted that, there was an online discussion about it
somewhere, where someone asked whether the officer was justified in
tasering the guy. While some people had enough of a grip on reality
to answer "no," here are a few excerpts from what some of your
other fellow Americans had to say:

1) "The officer had every right to taser, the smart mouth, out of
control punk. Officers have be in control at all times, their job
is dangerous enough as it is."

2) "The guy was definitely in the wrong for not cooperating. So at
this point seeing the guy disobey direct orders while the officer
is outnumbered places that officer in reasonable fear of aggression
& in the RIGHT for using non lethal force."

(How does one person "outnumber" another person? Or was he talking
about the wife still in the car? And the guy showed no hint
whatsoever that he was going to attack the fascist.)

3) "Motorists who are a threat to PDs should be tasered."

There was no threat, though there was a bit of attitude: failure to
timidly bow to a control-freak Nazi, and worse yet, verbally
commenting (in a relative polite manner) on what a psycho the cop
was being.

Even one person who ultimately agreed that the fascist went too far
said that "The driver certainly should have known better than to
not do exactly what the officer said." And one self-professed fence-
sitter cited the motorist's sin as this: "The guy was given
instructions and he didn't follow them."

So there you have it. Failing to blindly obey "authority," no
matter what the command is, all by itself is justification to have
violence inflicted upon you. Notice that even the fascist-
apologists don't claim that the motorist attacked anyone, or tried
to run, but that he DIDN'T FOLLOW ORDERS, which is what the fascist
actually charged him with. ("O'er the land of the freeeeee.....!")

That is one little example of why I have no hope of ever converting
the masses of asses into being pro-freedom. They worship
"government" so deeply and profoundly that they are incapable of
seeing their delusional, cult-like superstition for what it is.
Having had political debates with literally thousands of people
over the years, I can tell you that for 95% of the people, it's a
complete waste of breath trying to explain the moral superiority of
a pro-freedom philosophy. And, in the dozens of "converts" I have
personally helped to "corrupt" over the years, I see no indication
that using more "civil" wording would have made any difference.

As I explained in a recent message about "inappropriate civility,"
for one to describe what the fascists do WITHOUT vehement
condemnation is to give the message that their point of view is
equally valid. It's not. It's horribly destructive, anti-human, and
evil. I will call thugs and fascists what they are, and NOT use the
euphemistic labels like "law enforcer" and "police officer." I have
no intention of helping with the state-worship epidemic by using
its delusional phraseology. I refuse to bend my own comments in a
way which might give any respect and legitimacy to the god-complex
lunatics who wear the label of "government." What these people
advocate, and what they do on a daily basis, is initiate violence
against people who have committed neither force nor fraud. And
everyone who legitimizes "government" violence is an accomplice.

Yes, I wish most Americans liked freedom, but they don't, and they
never will. If you prefer, you can characterize them as merely
"misguided," rather than personally responsible for the evil they
advocate. Either way, they are the problem. I have no intention of
making them feel better--of not offending them--while pointing out
the inherently evil nature of their belief system.

"The Matrix is a system Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you
are inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen,
teachers, lawyers, carpenters: the very minds we are trying to
save. Until we do, these people are part of that system and that
makes them our enemies. You have to understand that most of these
people are not ready to be unplugged and many are so hopelessly
dependent on the system, they'll fight to protect it." (Morpheus,
from "The Matrix")

Amen, brother Mo'.


Larken Rose

More of the Same

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/21/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I'm not sure what to say that I haven't said before about this. We
live in a police state. I'm not sure how much more evidence the
American people need of that. Here is a bit:

That's a fine example of what happens in this country if you don't
"follow instructions" given to you by an American fascist. And now
for my broken record question: Do you think this little worthless,
inferior-complex megalomaniac Nazi calling himself a "law enforcer"
would behave this way if NOT for the belief in "authority"? And if
he did, how long do you think he'd live? Why does anyone still
think that the belief in "authority" is a CIVILIZING influence??


Larken Rose

Good Violence / Bad Violence

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/16/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Wow, the fascist apologists in the media, pretending to be
conservatives, are shifting into high gear with their statist
propaganda. The tyrant-approved message today is one which my book,
"How To Be a Successful Tyrant," specifically talks about: the
notion that the government is allowed to use violence however it
pleases, but it is unforgivable for the peasants to even vaguely
suggest forcible resistance.

Various state-worshippers such as Glen Beck have decided to paint
Ron Paul supporters as terrorists. And it's pretty darn obvious
that spreading this lie is a very premeditated, calculated move by
the tyrant mouthpieces. The following link will give you a story
and videos all about it:

Please allow me to state the bleeding obvious: Ron Paul is trying
to win an ELECTION, and the people who support his campaign are
also trying to make that happen. He is trying to use the system to
achieve freedom. (I hate to be a party-pooper, but personally, I
think that in the long run, that is utterly impossible.) The fact
that some of his supporters organized a funding campaign on
November 5th--the day Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament--
doesn't make them terrorists.

But one line from Glen Beck's smear piece made it sound like he's
been reading my book. Basically, he acknowledged that the
"government" is corrupt, doesn't do what the people want, etc., but
followed that up by saying that us peasants are allowed to TALK
about that, but only a nasty "terrorist" would ever use VIOLENCE to
resist it. (I guess that would include Jefferson, Washington, etc.)

What do you think the feds do every DAY? They use violence for
EVERYTHING they do. Who made up the rule that it's okay for fascist
thugs to use violence, but it's not okay for their victims to
forcibly resist them? For example, I believe that when the federal
thugs were doing their armed robbery stunt of the Liberty Dollar
offices recently, it would have been perfectly justifiable to use
whatever amount of force, including deadly force, necessary to
repel the thieves. Yes, I'm saying that gunning down the FBI and
Secret Service fascists would have been ABSOLUTELY MORALLY

Of course, it would also be really dang dangerous, and in the long
run I can't imagine it turning out well for those who resisted. So
I'm not saying they should have, but I AM saying that they had
every right to. Yes, I realize that's an "extremist" viewpoint,
which, in a land of obedient pansies, makes most people wet their
pants. Too bad. And being someone who DOES believe that forcible
resistance to tyranny is a good thing, I am in a position to tell
you that that is NOT what the Ron Paul campaign is advocating.

Rather than writing it all over again, allow me to quote myself.
The following is an excerpt from "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" ( ). Remember, the book is written as if it
is addressing aspiring tyrants. Read it, and see how good a job
Glen Beck and the other statist apologists are doing following the
tyrant blueprint.


Larken Rose

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

Avoiding Revolution

Most people, whether due to being good or just being scared, tend
to avoid violent conflicts. They do not want to get hurt or
killed, but they also do not want to hurt someone else unless
absolutely necessary. As a result, you will be able to stomp on
them a lot before any significant number of them will even consider
resisting you by force. Again, as the Declaration of Independence
explains, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

However, while the peasants will tolerate a lot, there are limits
to their patience. But those limits can be all but eliminated
simply by giving them some sort of outlet (completely ineffectual,
of course) for their displeasure with you and your regime. As long
as there is some system of "checks and balances" whereby the
peasants can appeal to different levels and agencies of your
regime, they will almost never resort to violence. "You have to
work within the system." That should be your mantra, and it will
quickly be echoed by most of the peasants. Of course, working
within your "system" is never going to get the peasants freedom or
justice, but even giving them the illusion of "due process" and
some form of appeal will keep most of them forever banging their
heads against a bureaucratic wall instead of actually resisting

Force Is Uncivilized

There are certain fundamental assumptions that should be constantly
pounded into the heads of the peasants. Perhaps the most important
is this: "you can think whatever you want, but only a truly
despicable scofflaw would ever consider forcibly resisting the
commands of authority." If the peasants bicker, debate and even
complain, it doesn't matter much if at the end of the day they do
as they're told. If you can only teach your peasants one message,
let it be this: breaking the law is uncivilized. (Of course, by
"the law" is meant what you tell them to do.)

Disobedience, even completely passive resistance, can be (and
should be) characterized as "violence." Most people are so
indoctrinated into the concept of "authority" that they will accept
even truly bizarre messages, such as "those darn rebels caused the
violence [of your enforcers shooting them] because they refused to
comply with the law." Of course, the force used by your thugs is
always portrayed as "enforcing the law," whereas any resistance (by
force or not) should be characterized as the "lawless acts of
violent rebels."
Oddly, propaganda which denigrates open resistance to tyranny even
works in a country that was built upon the idea that when a
government becomes destructive of the unalienable rights of the
people, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government" (as stated in the Declaration of Independence).

"The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and
oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and
happiness of mankind." [New Hampshire Constitution]

If you even pretend to have good intentions, and even pretend to
have some sort of "due process" (no matter how shoddy or unjust) to
which the peasants can appeal, only a very few will ever have the
courage and intellectual confidence to resist you by force, and
those can usually be crushed fairly easily.

Aversion to Force

It is highly recommended that you train your peasants to abhor any
use of force, whether against you or someone else. If they see the
use of force as inherently bad regardless of the situation, they
will be easily controlled. In short, you should try to "sissify"
the peasants, so that they consider it lowly, uncivilized, and
crude even to know how to use force against someone else, whether
with fists or firearms. Spread the message: "Violence is never the

(Of course, history shows that violence is almost always the only
successful "answer" to tyranny. But if your peasants are trained
to despise any such "uncivilized" behavior as being beneath them,
then their resistance to your designs will, at most, consist of
whiny complaints. And whiny complaints never ended a tyrannical

"Our goal is to make the enemy passive." [Mao Tse-Tung]

There are three inherent human traits which can be used to train
your peasants to have a strong aversion to the use of force: 1)
their morality; 2) their immaturity, and 3) their cowardice.

Good people hesitate to use violence, as they believe that ideally
people should interact voluntarily. This morality, already held by
most of your subjects, makes them abhor the use of force except in
certain situations (usually involving self-defense). The trick is
to extend their already-existing moral belief to cover all uses of
force, by lumping together all force as "evil violence," regardless
of the context.

Most people don't want to face the harsh reality of having to take
care of themselves, and being responsible for their own actions.
In other words, they don't want to grow up. When they get old
enough, they will want to replace their parents with a new savior
and protector: "government" (you). It is easy to use this
immaturity against the peasants by convincing them that you, by way
of your "law enforcers," will protect them, so they don't need to
protect themselves (i.e., they don't ever need to use force
themselves). The success of this ploy is shown by how many
peasants today opine: "Only the police should have guns!"

Finally, peasants scare easily. If they see the world as full of
big, mean, nasty, violent, evil people, they will be scared of the
thought that they are the ones who have to do something about it.
Of course, logic dictates that if the good people will not use
force to stop the evil people (who themselves do not hesitate to
use force), then the "bad guys" win. Nonetheless, the cowardice of
the peasants can easily persuade them to give up any hope of their
being the ones who must use justified force to "save the day."
They would much rather it was someone else's job.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of
Liberty." [Thomas Jefferson]

These factors together, pushed by a heavy, constant dose of anti-
force propaganda, can train the peasants to have the desired
attitude: "I would never own a gun! I am civilized, compassionate,
and progressive. I would rather die than use violence!" And when
they would rather die than forcibly resist tyranny, they are the
perfect subjects to enslave.

(A fact that seems lost on the peasants is that everything you do
as "authority," every command you give, is backed by the ability
and willingness to use force. The "penalty" for disobedience may
only be a "fine," but the penalty for not paying the fine is taking
the peasant's property by force, and the penalty for resisting such
confiscation is being put into a cage, and the penalty for
resisting being put into a cage is getting shot. Every command,
however miniscule, can and will be escalated to deadly force if the
peasant doesn't comply. Nonetheless, the peasants will almost
never use the term "violence" to describe what your enforcers do on
a daily basis.)

Breaking News: Massive Gold Heist!

(originally launched into cyberspace on 11/15/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

(The following is based upon recently received information, which I
assume to be accurate. A message went out, claiming to be from
Bernard von NotHaus, the "head dude" at Liberty Dollar, reporting
the following. I'll let you know if I get more confirmation of its

But we neeeeeeeeeed "government" to protect us! From what? How
about from armed robbers?

Well, a dozen armed robbers just pulled off what is probably the
biggest precious metals heist in this country in a very long time.
Somewhere around a million dollars in gold, silver, and platinum
were stolen this morning by a dozen armed thugs. Unfortunately, the
crooks got away. But don't worry, the government is on the case!

Unfortunately, they're "on the case" going after the VICTIMS of
this crime. You see, the armed robbers were agents of the FBI and
the Secret Service, and the victim was the "Liberty Dollar"
organization--not to mention all the people who rightfully OWNED
the stolen property.

I probably don't have to tell you the motive: the folks at Liberty
Dollar, by offering an inflation-proof, precious-metals-backed
currency, were messing with one of the tyrants' biggest power
games: the robbery-via-"inflation" game. And in the land of the
free, this is what happens when you threaten the megalomaniacs'
power. Never mind that the Liberty Dollar is perfectly legal, as
confirmed by U.S. officials. To hell with the law; there is POWER
at stake, and you can bet that that "goddamn piece of paper" (as
Bush called the Constitution) isn't going to stop Fuhrer W. and his
jackboots from living out their little power trip fantasies.

So, are all you "limited government" Republicans proud of the
regime you created? Is this fascist empire what you wanted? Let's
see: "your" party got the House, the Senate, and the White House.
And years later, what do you have to show for it? The biggest
federal budget ever? The creation of the biggest federal
bureaucracy ever? Wow, good thing the Democrats didn't get into
power, or we'd be seeing the growth of "big government."

Wake up and smell the jackboots.

If you actually support the Bush regime, then put the damn swastika
on your sleeve and be honest about it. If, on the other hand, you
actually believe in "limited government," and you insist on
engaging in the insane ritual of voting, then how about supporting
the ONLY one in the presidential race (from either party) who ISN'T
a devout collectivist, national socialist? And I don't want to hear
any crap about "wasting your vote" on someone who can't win, or
down the road, you can proudly tell your kids how you voted for the
fascist/socialist who won, instead of the guy with PRINCIPLES who
didn't. Yeah, there's something to be proud of. Again, for those
who believe in the "election" ritual, you have two choices: Ron
Paul, or totalitarianism. I don't know how much more proof of that
you could possibly need.


Larken Rose

Confirmed: Feds Commit Mass Theft

(originally launched int cyberspace on 11/15/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Well, it was true: our wonderful protectors who work for the
federal government just pulled off a massive armed robbery. Based
on a few questions I got, I should give a little more info.

The "Liberty Dollar" is an alternative to the constantly devalued
"Federal Reserve Notes" (what most people call "dollars"). In
short, the Liberty Dollar is what all paper currency USED to be: a
representation of actual silver or gold. The Liberty Dollar comes
in coins made of precious metals, but it also comes as pieces of
paper (lots better-looking that FRN's) which represent gold and
silver. In other words, in a warehouse there is actual silver or
gold which each paper Liberty Dollar represents. So people can
trade with the paper, and they're exchanging ownership of the
actual silver or gold sitting in the warehouse.

Fed-issued currency, on the other hand, is backed by NOTHING. They
make up more constantly, out of thin air, which results in
"inflation." In short, it amounts to counterfeiting--making up new
money, which makes all the money already in circulation worth less
than it was before.

Because it is backed by silver and gold, the Liberty Dollar is
inflation-proof. In short, if we all traded in LD's, the fed would
go out of business, and inflation would disappear. And tyrants
would have a lot less power, which is why the federal Gestapo
committed armed robbery this morning on the Liberty Dollar offices:
to protect the power of tyrants.

Luckily, most of the silver and gold of Liberty Dollars is in
private hands. However, about a million dollars of the actual
silver and gold, represented by paper Liberty Dollars in the hands
of lots of different people, was stolen by the feds. In other
words, all those people holding the paper LD's were robbed of the
gold/silver which the currency represents. (So you can see why I
was more than a bit huffy in my last message.) If any lawyers are
reading this, I highly suggest an immediate, class-action motion
under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedural, to
retrieve the gold and silver owned by all those holding paper LD's.

The legal excuse for the robbery is unclear at this point, except
that a while ago the U.S. Mint made the false allegation that
Liberty Dollars might violate federal currency laws--even though
top U.S. officials have previously stated that that is NOT the
case. But the "legal" excuse is irrelevant. The real reason is the
preservation of power of megalomaniacs.

But there is another "detail" I didn't mention in my last message.
Not only does the robbery protect the Federal Reserve's fiat
currency scam, but as it happens, a rather large shipment of newly
minted Liberty Dollars, with RON PAUL'S face on them, was also
stolen. Golly gee, you don't think the Bush administration would
steal them to try to keep an ACTUAL Constitutionalist out of power,
do you? (If you don't think he would, you're an idiot.) Imagine a
TON (literally) of Liberty Dollars with Ron Paul's face on them,
circulating around the country. No wonder the federal fascists
stole them all before that could happen.


Larken Rose