Main menu

Inappropriate Civility

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

Dear Subscriber,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Larken Rose

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

Outgunning the Nasties

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/07/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Why do we need "government"? Most people respond with something
like, "To protect us from bad people." To that end, we need
(supposedly) to have "authorities" who have MORE power than the
rest of us. In other words, we want the good guys to outgun the bad
guys. (I know I want that, but I don't see "government" as the way
to make it happen.)

Here's the authoritarian plan in a nutshell: we get a bunch of good
guys together, and put LOTS of power in their hands (more power
than the rest of us have), so they can protect us. Trouble is,
those who become police officers are only PEOPLE, some of whom are
nasty bullies, and some of whom--at least to begin with--are "good
guys." What happens when those people with extra powers turn out to
BE the bad guys we need protecting from? Well, here's one thing
that can happen:
(In short, a cop went on a killing spree.)

Now, in that case, wouldn't it have been convenient if the cop
WASN'T more heavily armed than his victims? Wouldn't it have been
better if some average Joe had been carrying a gun, and stopped the

(One thing about the story I found ironic is that it said the guy
killed several people "before authorities fatally shot him." Didn't
they mean "before OTHER authorities" shot him? The murderer was,
after all, a representative of "authority." He is one of the
protectors that, in theory, has the job of PROTECTING us from the
nasties of the world.)

People who are determined to make the myth of "government" work
keep trying to come up with new ways to make "authority" be the
good guys. We have elections, and constitutions, and courts, and
appeals, and so on. But no matter what we do, cops are still only
PEOPLE. Add to that the fact that their supposed "authority" grants
them societal PERMISSION to do things the rest of us aren't allowed
to do, and it's no wonder "government" ends up being a perpetrator
more often than a protector. (Compare, for example, the amount of
theft COMMITTED by "law enforcement" under the guise of "taxation,"
to the amount of theft PREVENTED by it. It's not even close.)

Good people don't delight in the idea of killing anyone, even when
it's necessary. Nonetheless, here's the unfortunate truth of the
matter: if you're a good person, and you want to do something to
make the good guys outgun the bad guys, by far the best thing you
could possibly do is GET A GUN and LEARN HOW TO USE IT. Lots of
people don't want to do that. They don't want the responsibility
and they don't want the trouble--they want it to be someone ELSE'S
job to use necessary violence. Meanwhile, the street criminals are
EAGER to be armed, as are control freaks who gravitate towards
positions of "authority."

Suppose one day you're unfortunate enough to actually be there when
a situation like the one described above happens. Which of the
following would be better?: 1) To watch others die--and maybe die
yourself--while thinking "I hope somebody stops him"; or 2) to BE
one of the "good guys" who is able and willing to stop the "bad
guys"? If you want the good guys to outgun the bad guys, stop
voting and whining for "legislation," and start visiting a shooting


Larken Rose

Bad Intentions

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/06/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

How's this for a cynical statement?: Even on those rare occasions
when the government does something apparently good, it's always for
the wrong reasons.

This is something the people hate to acknowledge about the tyrants
in their own country. People like to feel attached to a pack, a
club, a team. Americans like to say "WE defeated Hitler!" But they
don't add, "and then WE gave Stalin half of Europe." Pack mentality
makes most people want to be proud of their "side," and feel some
comradery with their fellow countrymen. When people celebrated the
end of Saddam Hussein's reign, they WANTED their "team" to be the
good guys. They WANT the war to be about liberty and justice for

It's not. War is never about anything other than preserving or
increasing the power of the people who started it. To the soldiers
it may be about something noble, and to the people watching from
home it may have some righteous meaning, but to the people who make
war HAPPEN, there is, and has always been, only ONE agenda:
maintaining or increasing their own power.

The "Operation Northwoods" documents give a fine example of control
freaks having an agenda, and creating a plan to mislead and
manipulate the peasants into supporting their agenda (in that case,
a military invasion of Cuba). And Castro was so easy to hate, and
kicking his butt seemed so worthy a goal, that had the plan
succeeded, the American "team" wouldn't have WANTED to ever
question the motives of the American tyrants.

And so it is with those who support the war in Iraq. Saddam was a
butthead of the highest order, and I'm glad he's dead. And doing
the right thing is probably why many American soldiers fought
there, but it is NOT why they were sent there. In short, the
American tyrants had their agenda, and came up with a good lie to
dupe the American public into supporting that agenda. If you doubt
this, take a peek:

As my "Tyrant" book explains ( ), this is one of
the most effective tyrant tricks there is: using the GOOD
intentions of the people to increase authoritarian control. When
the tyrants promise to help the poor, or fight illegal immigration,
or improve education, or fight drug abuse, or make our country
secure, or fix health care, or reduce crime, or defeat a nasty
tyrant (a non-American one), or anything else they EVER say, their
real goal is ALWAYS their own power.

Amazingly, in our one-party-with-two-faces system, half of
Americans can see through the propaganda of one side, and the other
half can see through the lies of the other side. But they can't see
through the lies of their own preferred politician. Republicans
WANT George W. Bush to have good motives. But he doesn't. He is an
evil, megalomaniacal lunatic who will commit extortion, terrorism,
torture, and mass murder if it gives him the glory and power he
craves. When he claims to be doing those things in the name of some
appparently noble goal, HE IS LYING.

The same is true of Bill Clinton. The leftists really WANTED to
believe that he meant well. He didn't, nor does his psychotic witch
of a wife. These are EVIL people. Good people DON'T WANT to rule
everyone else. Love of dominion is the best mark of EVIL there
could possibly be, and it is the driving motivation of EVERY
politician in Washington... with one possible exception.

After the 1994 "Republican Revolution" (back when I was still a
recovering statist), I was thoroughly convinced that the newly
elected "conservatives" really did have the goal of REDUCING the
size and power of "government." Well, if any of them actually went
in with that agenda (which I doubt), they lost it very quickly.

(If you want an example of why I'm a bit cynical about the supposed
heart-felt, genuine beliefs and principles of politicians, look no
further than that great champion of "family values," Senator Larry
"Romance-in-the-Restroom" Craig. How many people fell for his
disingenuous, vote-fishing tripe?)

Politicians don't seek positions of power in order to NOT use it.
Even Ronald Reagan, one of the most outspoken "limited government"
advocates ever, turned around and built up the heinous, fascist
police state under the guise of the "war on drugs." As for
politicians who have NOT changed their tune once in office, I can
count them on one finger. They're all named "Ron Paul." (No, I
still don't advocate engaging in the cult ritual of elections,
though I sympathize with those who knows it's a farce but do it
anyway as a form of self defense.)

There is a very real, very valid "us versus them," and it is
completely missed by almost all Americans. It's not rich versus
poor, or black versus white, or American versus foreigner, or
Republican versus Democrat. The only "us versus them" worth
mentioning is: those who value individual freedom, and those who
don't. With that one really weird exception, the latter category
includes EVERYONE currently in the House and Senate, and EVERYONE
who has been President in the last two centuries (at least). It
feels silly to have state something that is so painfully obvious,
but about 300,000,000 Americans still fail to recognize it.


Larken Rose

O'er the Land of the Freeeeeeeee...

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/05/2007)

I hate to be a broken record, but...

EVERY "law" is backed by the ability and willingness to use
violence. One of the most heinous examples of the modern police
state idiocy is the concent of a "curfew": a time after which the
mere peasants aren't allowed to be "on the streets" (i.e.,
outside). Often it's only a certain category of peasants, based on
age, but it's still asinine and immoral.

Want to see what happens in this lovely country when someone makes
the mistake of walking around like a FREE PERSON, at a time when
our rulers say we're not allowed out?

The cop, of course, was only doing his job, like a good little
Nazi. What's really sad is how many people in this country would
blame the girl, for not calmly and quietly accepting the oppression
being imposed upon her.

(Incidentally, if this had happened to my daughter for being out
after the government-approved time, the cop would have more than a
lawsuit to worry about.)


Larken Rose

The Matrix Has You

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/01/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Psychological denial is a creepy thing. And when a group of several
hundred million people have it all at once, that's REALLY creepy.

Several weeks ago (at least) a story broke that I didn't forward to
this list, because I figured most of you would have heard about it
anyway. Then I learned that at least some of you hadn't. The very
fact that ANYONE in the country hasn't heard about it just shows
how firm a grip the matrix has on the American public.

I've mentioned before the "Northwoods" documents, in which the U.S.
military was developing a plan to orchestrate terrorism campaigns,
including in the U.S., so they could blame it on Cuba, thereby
getting public support for a military overthrow of Castro. NBC
broke that story just three months before 9/11/01.

And never mentioned it again.

Just what level of denial can the American people sustain, in order
to AVOID seeing a reality they don't want to see? "Our" government
is the enemy. It is the enemy of freedom and justice--in fact, it
is the ONLY significant enemy to OUR freedom in this country. ALL
of the other things they keep TELLING us to be scared of are either
completely mythical, or exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. The
"protector" government is the thing we MOST need protection
AGAINST. It's sad that hardly anyone can see that.

In the Northwoods documents, the U.S. military described in great
detail elaborate plans designed to DECEIVE the American public, in
order to manipulate the public sentiment. No one is disputing the
authenticity of those documents--it was the U.S. government that
RELEASED them (though I expect that that was not entirely
intentional). And yet I would bet that not one person out of 100 in
this country would recognize the term "Operation Northwoods."

The message of those documents is very simple: "Here is how we'll
TRICK the American public into believing things that AREN'T TRUE,
so they'll support the military agenda WE want to carry out." But
people STILL listen to press conferences by "government" parasites,
and their buddies in our "free press." Why? Are Americans really so
stupid that they STILL believe what the TV tells them to believe?

Funny thing about that...

On September 11th, 2001, the BBC told its viewers what to believe:
that the Salomon Brothers building (aka "building 7"), as a result
of structural damage from being hit by the debris from the twin
towers collapsing, had itself collapsed.

There was just one problem...

The BBC reported it over 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse actually
occurred. Best of all, the propagandists were stupid enough to have
the person reporting it sitting in front of a big plate-glass
window, with Building 7 STILL STANDING behind her. Oops. She went
on and on for several minutes talking about the collapse, with the
thing standing in plain sight behind her. Check it out:

The first time I heard this, I thought maybe it could have been a
mistake: maybe it was some OTHER building standing behind her, and
someone just thought it was building seven. So I waited for the
official response.

I'm still waiting. As far as I know, the mainstream media still
hasn't made a peep about it.

In short, if the MAINSTREAM media doesn't say something, most
people never hear about it, and if they DO hear about it from
somewhere else, they won't believe it. "If that were true, we would
have heard it on the news!" It reminds me a lot of the 861
Evidence: if the powers that be, and their lapdogs in the media,
just remain silent, or occasionally toss out a false allegation,
the truth won't get very far.

There's a reason I NEVER have the TV on in my house. We choose what
to watch (via rentals). Why would I ever volunteer to have the
propaganda of tyrants and thieves piped into my own living room?
Those pretending to "report" the news obviously have an agenda, and
individual freedom and the spreading of truth is NOT IT. (I learned
that first hand in my own case.) Hilariously, though the technology
has changed, not much else has.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man
who reads nothing but newspapers." [Thomas Jefferson]

My book, "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" ( ),
goes into great length about how to use so-called "news" to
indoctrinate the peasantry. But one thing it also advises for the
would-be tyrant is this: Don't get CAUGHT blatantly lying to the
public. Well, I guess that isn't so important after all, because
when they DO get caught, they just pretend it didn't happen, and
most people never hear about it.


Larken Rose

It's Not "Our" Government

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/30/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Rulers don't serve their subjects. They serve themselves. I don't
know how anyone could possibly believe otherwise.

The following is a REALLY good documentary, illustrating what "our"
government is really doing. Those of you who have read "How To Be a
Successful Tyrant" (linked at the bottom of this message) will
recognize a whole lot of tyrant tactics covered in the documentary.

In case there are any government "lists" I'm NOT on yet, this ought
to fix that: I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all,
and pledge perpetual opposition to the Republic of the United
States, and to the control and tyranny for which it stands.


Larken Rose