Main menu

True Colors Shining Through

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

Dear Subscriber,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Larken Rose

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

A Blog By Any Other Name...

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

Dear Subscriber,

A bunch of people keep urging me to start my own blog, to make it
easier to spread my extremist rantings far and wide. Actually, I've
had a "blog" for ages, but: 1) I keep forgetting to tell people
about it, and; 2) being an old-fashioned, non-hip guy, I call it an
"archive," instead of a "blog."

Everything I've sent to the list since I got back from my wrongful
incarceration--with the exception of a few really recent messages--
is already posted there. So for those who want it, here you go:;f=21

(Incidentally, lest you think me web-savvy or something, be advised
that the archive isn't on my web site, and I don't even know how to
post stuff to my own web sites--I have someone else do it. In the
future I hope to remedy that pathetic situation.)

Anyway, there is the archive, so instead of having to cut and paste
a bunch of text in order to offend and anger your statist friends,
you can do it with an easy link to whichever extremist diatribe you


Larken Rose

[ September 18, 2007, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]

Protect And Serve

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/14/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

There's a reason I call the belief in "authority" "THE MOST
DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION." We neeeeeeed it to protect us, right? We
need the "law" to keep us civil, right? Otherwise we would be
assaulting each other, right? Watch and listen to the video on the
following page (but be warned, it includes nasty language), and
then tell me that the belief in "authority" is a CIVILIZING
influence on society:

There you have a deluded lunatic Nazi piece of excrement (I mean
that in a nice way), with the power to destroy lives for the fun of
it, put people in cages, etc. This is a fine example of why NO ONE
should ever be viewed as having rights that everyone else doesn't
have. If anyone OTHER than a "law enforcer" behaved like this, he
would very quickly get exactly what he deserves. It is the monster
of "government" backing him up that makes resisting these
delusional Gestapo psychos nearly impossible to do.

Tell me again how this is the land of the free, and not a police


Larken Rose

But How Will it Work?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/13/2007)

My Fellow Earthlings,

When faced with the suggestion of society without an authoritarian
command structure (i.e., "government"), most people--having been
indoctrinated into the bogus idea that obedience to authority
prevents mass chaos, mayhem, death and destruction--instinctively
react by asking how things will work without "government."

The reason I rarely address that question is quite simple: because
it is logically 100% irrelevant to WHY I believe in a stateless
society. Most anarchists I've heard reached their beliefs by
deciding that society would work better without a ruling class.
That is NOT how I got here. I ended up where I am by realizing that
"government" is NEVER legitimate; it cannot have the right to rule
me, any more than my neighbor has the right to rule me. It's
"authority" is completely mythical, and the idea that anyone has a
moral obligation to obey its "laws" is nothing but an irrational

Again, I compare it to telling someone that Santa Claus isn't real,
only to have him respond, "But how will Christmas work without
Santa?" How should I know? What difference does that make to
whether Santa exists or not? He's not going to magically come into
existence because Christmas would be inconvenient without him.
Likewise, "authority" is not going to magically become legitimate
and real because we don't know what to do without it.

One way to summarize the insanity of the myth of "authority" is
like this: Man is morally obliged to do what he believes is
immoral. Why? Because if "authority" is real--if someone has the
RIGHT to rule us, control us via "law," and if we therefore have
the moral obligation to obey their commands--then when our own
judgment conflicts with the commands of "authority," we are morally
obligated to do what we believe to be the WRONG thing. It's a
little weird to have to say this obvious truism, but here goes: One
cannot be morally obligated to do something immoral. As obvious as
that may seem, that simple concept rules out ALL possibility of
"authority." Like Santa Claus, it simply cannot be, no matter how
necessary or useful anyone insists it is.

Again, we can debate how to handle Christmas without Santa, but
NOTHING we say will have the slightest relevance to whether Santa
actually EXISTS or not. Likewise, I usually refuse to talk about
how we can survive, and live in relative peace, without
"authority," because such a discussion has NO bearing on whether
"authority" CAN exist in the first place.

There's another reason why I don't usually bother with such
discussions. In the authoritarian mindset, there are constantly top-
down, micro-managed, legislated "solutions" to all kinds of things.
They rarely if ever WORK, but at least an authoritarian can say,
"Here is the plan I want to impose on all of you!" An anarchist, by
definition, can do nothing of the sort. If you ask me how some
aspect of society will work without "government," I could GUESS, or
I could make SUGGESTIONS, but I couldn't say "Here is the solution
which will be imposed under my system." Why? Because there would BE
no "system" of centralized control. Ironically, lots of people ask
me questions which begin with, "Under your system, how would...?"
I'm not suggesting a system. I'm not running for the position of
Emperor of Anarchy. I'm suggesting we rid ourselves of an insane,
horribly destructive delusion. That's all. I have no new and
improved delusion to replace it with. How people will deal with
life without the delusion is up to six billion individuals to
decide. No one, including me, will be imposing any system on them,
and I highly doubt they're all going to come to ME to ask how to do
everything. (I hope they don't, because I have neither the desire,
nor the ability, to figure out how to make all of society work.)

Notwithstanding all of the above, and with great reluctance, I
decided to send to all of you a link to a story that shows a real-
life example of society without "government." But again, while it
shows that "anarchy can work," to me that is besides the point. If
"authority" is an illusion, a self-contradictory superstition (and
it is), discussing how we live without it, while interesting, is
logically irrelevant. Nonetheless, since so many people simply
refuse to even THINK about whether "authority" is real or not,
until someone paints for them a picture of life without it, well...
here you go:


Larken Rose

From Tessa (2 of 2)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/12/2007)

>From Tessa Rose:
More thoughts on the subject of “Innocents Betrayed”:

Something that really struck me about that movie was a common
thread running through every mass atrocity: the obedience of the
victims and the brutality of the murderers in the face of helpless

It seems to be in the nature of humans to meekly obey, and to trust
those who deserve trust the least. It has long been said that
“power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If
everyone knows this, why don’t we live by it? Why, century after
century, do we continue to give some people power over others when
we know it makes them into monsters? And why do people trust those
monsters, time and again?

It seems to me that there must be something evolutionary here.
Perhaps in Australopithicine society, authority and obedience had
strong survival value, and this behavior is encoded forever in our
genes. Humans seem to have a propensity to worship something, to
give their total trust and devotion to something larger or stronger
than themselves, and this propensity is fairly impervious to reason.

People who see the origin of government in some kind of rational
social contract may be missing an important point. Government has
never been anything so benign or useful as a contract or a tool.
Rather, government springs from deep emotional, perhaps biological,
needs for domination and surrender. People do not surrender
themselves to government for rational reasons. If you doubt this,
just listen to what people say: Government represents the people;
it IS the people; it is the best of ourselves. Government leads us
all into the future; it gives us our goals and values; it cares for
us. We belong to it. Our very lives are a privilege granted by
it. Government is god and parents all rolled into one. We owe it
our love, our devotion, our trust, and our lives.

But there is a problem with giving such devotion to an earthly
institution comprised of human beings, and that is that the human
beings who become a part of it are corrupted by the worship and
power given to them. Megalomaniacs rise to the top of the power
structure. People who lack identity and self-esteem flock into the
ranks, finding identity and esteem as part of a larger-than-life
organization. Those who possess an anti-social lust for domination
of others find a socially-sanctioned outlet for this socially
destructive lust.

The more time people spend being part of government, the more they
are corrupted by it. As part of an institution that owns and
dominates people, they begin to see themselves as the rightful
owners and the rightful dominators of others. As part of an
institution that is worshipped, they begin to see themselves as
deserving the worship of others. Humans outside of government seem
less and less human to them.

It is important to note that people in government are likely to
have very little sense of self; that is often why they are there.
Consequently, they may feel intense hatred toward those who DO have
a sense of selfhood, purpose, and meaning apart from government.
When such unfortunate people are granted a holy mandate to destroy
the lives of those others, they will do so, as viciously as
possible. They care nothing for law, except as a weapon against
those they hate. (I speak from personal experience here.)

It is vitally important to understand that these people will go as
far as society allows them to. I truly believe (and this movie
graphically demonstrates) that the only thing standing between us
and genocide is the presence of firearms in a vast number of
American homes.

Ultimately, however, these peons are not the enemy, and armed
resistance is at best a temporary and tragic solution. The real
enemy is the concept of authority and authority-worship itself. If
authority-worship is indeed ingrained in our genes, our ultimate
survival as a species may depend on our ability to understand and
resist this propensity.

The moral and civic education of our children must stress the high
value of every individual life, and utmost respect for the
“otherness” of others. They must learn that both sides of the
authority coin - meek obedience as well as the lust of domination -
are the deadly enemies of this value, enemies which must be fought
within each and every one of us. Only in this way can we build a
society that is truly social, being a network of mutually
beneficial relationships between millions of human beings.

Love to All,

Tessa Rose

Must see: Innocents Betrayed (Aaron Zellman)

Must read: How to be a Successful Tyrant (Larken Rose)

Must pester Larken to finish writing:
The Most Dangerous Superstition

There Have To Be Rules!

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/11/2007)

"There have to be rules!"

Okay, here they are:

Rule #1: People with red hair get to take whatever they want from
anyone who doesn't have red hair.
Rule #2: No one is allowed to listen to music which doesn't have at
least three instruments and more than four chords in it.
Rule #3: People who wear falling-down pants will be shot on sight.
Rule #4: No one is allowed to say anything bad about me.

There, now we have rules, so we can all feel safe now and live in

What's the matter, you don't like my rules? Oh, so you didn't just
mean you wanted any old rules; you mean you want CERTAIN rules.
Maybe something along the lines of "Don't go around robbing or
murdering people." (I kind of like that one myself.)

But wait a second. Who are YOU to say that my rules aren't good
enough? I'm the (self-appointed) rule-maker around here; who are
YOU to decide that my rules are stupid? You think YOU can decide
for yourself which rules you have to follow?! What are you, some
sort of ANARCHIST?!?!

Of course, you (and all people on earth) DO have not only the
right, but the moral obligation to decide which "rules" you should
and shouldn't obey. (Or, as the radical extremist Thomas Jefferson
put it, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it,
he is OBLIGATED to do so.") We don't look kindly on the people who
just followed the rules of people like Stalin, Mao and Hitler, do
we? No, we insist that as human beings, it was their obligation to
DISOBEY the rules, when the rules went contrary to humanity and

"The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at
any time what I think right." [Henry David Thoreau]

But how does that fit the idea that "There have to be rules!"? The
statement obviously implies a centralized rule-maker, to which we
all must be subservient, in order to avoid the supposed chaos and
mayhem which would otherwise ensue. But if each of us has not only
the right, but the DUTY, to judge right and wrong for himself, and
to do what we believe to be right, what's the point of having
someone else making up "rules"?

And WHO should make these "rules"? If we're so scared that, without
a centralized rule-maker, our neighbors would be assaulting,
robbing, and murdering us, why do we think that those same
neighbors--actually, the WORST among them--should be put into
positions of power where they can make up "rules," and impose them
on the rest of us by force? If people are evil, why on earth would
you expect them to make good "rules"? And since it's pretty darn
obvious that politicians are MORE malicious, devious, corrupt, and
evil than the general public, how silly is it to insist that
society depends upon THEM making up and imposing rules on the rest
of us? "There will be chaos unless the biggest crook in town tells
us all what to do!" Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

Frankly, it's a self-contradictory, insane "solution" that EVERY
statist--everyone who believes in "government," however limited--
MUST believe in: that as mere mortal individuals, human beings will
be selfish, violent and vicious, but when put into positions of
great power, will suddenly be benign, wise, and just.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not
safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of
these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their
appointed agents also belong to the human race?" [Frederic Bastiat]

"If man is not fit to govern himself, how can he be fit to govern
someone else?" [James Madison]

What makes such a notion even more looney is how obviously and
constantly history shows the exact opposite: people who are
imagined to have the right to rule (i.e., those in "government")
commit assault, robbery, and murder on a scale far beyond what
"private" crooks and thugs every have, or ever could. (And,
incidentally, they usually commit their atrocities "by the rules"--
rules which they made up.)

"But we neeeeeeeeeeeed rules!" People who say that desperately want
an absolutely impossible magic trick: for an imperfect, often
careless, sometimes malicious human race to create a perfect,
compassionate, benign system of controlling everyone. They want
something ABOVE all of us imperfect humans, to keep us in line. But
what is that "something" made up of? Aliens? A giant pink
armadillo? The tooth fairy? No, it's made up of a bunch of
imperfect humans--in fact, about the LEAST perfect humans around.

The truth, though it should be painfully obvious to anyone who
opens his mind and thinks about it for two seconds, scares the heck
out of most people: on this planet, imperfect people is all we
have. And since you're a person, NOTHING (on this planet, at least)
is above you--no "authority," no "rule," no Constitution, no
legislation, NOTHING. You don't know everything, and your judgment
won't ever be perfect, but it's ALL YOU HAVE to distinguish right
from wrong. It is both insane and horribly destructive to try to
surrender your own, personal judgment, in favor of obedience to
some "authority."

"But someone has to be in charge!"

Yes, and it's you. You're in charge. It's up to YOU to decide what
is right, and to decide what to do about it. No one is above you.
Attempting to surrender your own moral judgment over to some
"authority" is not only the ultimate act of cowardice, it is a sign
of insanity--it is an attempt to rid yourself of that which makes
you human: your free will. It is an attempt to shirk your
responsibility to think, to judge, and to act; it is an attempt to
reduce yourself to an unthinking slave, a mere tool of someone else
(usually someone really nasty).

Sadly, people by the billions do it--choosing obedience over
thought--and they do it with pride. And then they wonder why the
outcome is so horrible. Yes, there are "rules" humans should live
by, and most of the time they are in direct conflict with the
"rules" which come from politicians and other pretended
"authorities." If you shirk your personal duty to discover and
judge for YOURSELF what the true, legitimate "rules" are, then you
are a coward of the highest order, and a traitor to humanity.

Have a nice day.


Larken Rose