Main menu

Freedom Feens Interview

Hash: SHA1

Dear Subscriber,

This is just to quick let you know about an interview I did for
Freedom Feens which, for the moment, is on their front page, here
(click on the green arrow to listen):

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

A Huge (Belated) Thank You!

Hash: SHA1

Tessa and I want to throw out a huge, heartfelt (albeit belated)
"thank you!" to all those who helped us out recently, when we were
getting desperate. Beyond just the help it is for us personally,
it's also good to know that many people find value in what we do.
As many of you know first hand, challenging conventional wisdom is
often a thankless job, and can feel overwhelming at times. Maybe
this time around, those of us out there advocating freedom and self-
ownership won't have to wait a few hundreds years before it has a
positive effect. In a lot of ways, I see an amazing acceleration in
the spread of the principle of "voluntarism," or self-ownership, or
whatever you want to call it. And with the U.S. empire in the early
stages of complete collapse, I think it's never been more important
for people to grasp and embrace real freedom. I think the collapse
is inevitable, but what matters is what people will do on the other
side--whether they simply look for a new master to bow to, or
whether they start to construct a sane, moral society, based on the
non-aggression principle. (I'm sure there will be some of each.)

Anyway, once again, thanks a zillion for making it so I can
concentrate on trouble-making (the good kind) without starving to
death in the process. There are a bunch of articles and videos in
the works right now, and as usual, I'll tell this list about them
first, whenever they're ready for publication.


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

Why They're Fascists

Once upon a time (back in 1994), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum
pretended to believe in freedom. I'd even hold out the remote
possibility that to some extent, they really did almost believe in
freedom. So, assuming they weren't completely lying from the
beginning (a big assumption), why are they being war-mongering,
control-freak fascists now?

Those who seek positions of power almost always do so because
they're already narcissistic control freaks, who just can't wait to
dominate and control their fellow man. Who else would want the job
of bossing everyone around? But let's pretend that a good person,
with good intentions, ran for Congress, and won. What would happen?

Politicians get a lot of attention, a lot of money, a lot of fame,
a lot respect, and so on. They get called the "honorable" so-and-
so, and are treated like royalty. All of that can obviously make
someone conceited and self-centered, just as rock stars and movie
stars get that way. But why should it turn people into fascists?
Well, consider what the job of a politician entails. He and his
fellow politicians enact "laws," which are then forcibly imposed
upon the rest of us by armed mercenaries known as "law
enforcement." For all of their posturing, pontificating and
propagandizing, ultimately that's all that politicians do: threaten
and control people. That's their "job"--insane, evil, and horribly
destructive as it is. All of the attention they get, the money they
get, the power they get, comes from exercising their (imagined)
"authority" to control their fellow man, via the "political"
system. So how should we expect them to act when someone advocates
real freedom?

The reason fascists like Santorum and Gingrich (and Obama, for that
matter) have such tantrums against people who actually want freedom-
- -calling them indecent, extreme, dangerous, traitorous, fringe,
absurd, and so on--is because the underlying message to
politicians, from those who want freedom, is: "We don't need you
and we don't want you; go away and leave us alone." It's no more
complicated than that. Most of the time it has nothing to do with
principles, or actual philosophy. Fascists like Santorum and
Gingrich want perpetual war-mongering, the "war on drugs," and the
rest of their megalomaniacal agendas, because, in their minds, it
makes them important. They have to exert violent control over their
fellow man (via "government") or they become irrelevant, impotent
nothings. What would be the point of acquiring power, and then
doing nothing with it? What great historical "leader" ever said,
"Hey everybody, do whatever you want, and I won't interfere"?

Even Ronald Reagan, who so often bashed "government," ended up
pushing fascism forward through the "war on drugs." Why? Because
damn near no one can have the "Ring of Power" in his clutches and
not use it. And to use it means forcibly dominating one's fellow
man, even if the intentions for doing so are allegedly good. What
every politician wants to convey is, "I'm important, and great and
noble, because look how I use my power for good!" How well would
that work for them if they didn't use the power at all? "Look at
me, I'm not doing anything!" Great, but who cares? What prestige,
glory and adoration (not to mention wealth) would that bring them?

Since the two-hundred-faced Mitt Romney changes his "beliefs" every
five minutes, let me use him as an example. What do you suppose
would happen if tomorrow he decided to have another philosophical
reinventing, and it went something like this?:

"If elected President, I will leave you alone. I won't tell you
what to do or take your money. I will be irrelevant to your life.
You will have no reason to pay any attention to me, or care what
I'm doing. You'll have every reason to forget my name, and forget
that I ever existed. So will everyone else. I will end up as an
unknown, ignored and irrelevant nothing."

Is it any wonder that politicians so zealous despise the idea of
freedom, and those who espouse it? "Political" agendas are the
antithesis of leaving people alone. The interests of the
politicians are always diametrically opposed to the interests of
those they dominate, or their will wouldn't have to be inflicted
via violence. When it comes to politics we remember those who
dramatically exercised their violent control over others (FDR,
Lincoln, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). We don't remember those who did
little or nothing with their alleged "authority," whether it was
because they didn't want to or because their subjects didn't let
them. Politicians hate the idea of freedom, because it renders them
completely powerless and unimportant.

Okay, now let me say what I know a lot of you are screaming by now:
"What about Ron Paul!?" If you ask me, Dr. Paul is a mutant freak--
and I mean that in a good way. How anyone could have walked the
halls of power for that long, and still have any integrity and
honesty, is a mystery to me. (Maybe Ron Paul is the reincarnation
of Frodo.) Ironically and bizarrely, he really has achieved fame
and adoration by NOT trying to control his fellow man, which is
almost unheard of in politics. In truth, as he points out, it is
the idea of freedom that people are getting excited about, and he
just happens to be a symbol of it right now. In many ways, it
really does seem as if he wants to acquire power in order to NOT
use it. How strange.

And you can see how much the establishment control freaks hate him
for it. When the politicians are out there screaming that it would
be the end of the world if we give up war-mongering, drug
prohibition, mass extortion, and all manner of other centralized,
authoritarian domination, I don't think it's even because they have
some deep philosophical belief in anything. I suspect this was true
of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the rest of them, too. Whatever
philosophical beliefs they had, or pretended to have, were
secondary to their own desire to feel noticed, important and adored
(or at least feared). They wanted attention, and they wanted to
feel powerful. That's why Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and the rest
of them want to be elected, too. And it's why they shouldn't be.
Those who seek attention, fame, power and wealth by way of
dominating and subjugating their fellow man--and that includes
street thugs and politicians alike--are the last people in the
world who should ever be given a scrap of power over anyone else.

The next time you see a politician (left or right) babbling on
about his supposedly noble plans and agendas, keep in mind that his
agenda is all about forcibly controlling you, and that he knows
that if he stopped trying to control you--if he stopped playing the
game of "politics" and just left you alone--he would become an
unknown, powerless, irrelevant nothing.

Well, unless he decided to turn around and do something useful and
productive instead, but how often has a politician done that?

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

Part-Time Libertarians

Hash: SHA1

Dear Subscriber,

I just had to quickly put a rant together about a pet peeve of
mine: people who say they are libertarian on SOME (but not all)
issues. The good news is, it has becoming more fashionable and cool
to be libertarian, after a few zillion years of being ridiculed and
demonized for having principles.

The bad news is, a lot of statists are trying to hijack the term,
in the hopes of making themselves sound learned and principled.
When anyone says, "I'm libertarian on certain issues," he's either
demonstrating his ignorance, or intentionally lying. Libertarianism
is a philosophy, based on the non-aggression principle, which says
that it's wrong to initiate violence against someone.

To say that someone is fiscally libertarian but socially
conservative, or socially libertarian but fiscally liberal, doesn't
mean anything. Adhering to a "sometimes-aggression" principle,
which ALL statists do, doesn't make someone a libertarian. Claiming
to be a part-time libertarian is equivalent to saying, "I'm a
vegetarian, except when I eat meat," or "I'm a pacifist, except
when I beat people up."

Anyway, I just posted a short rant about this on YouTube, and
here's the link:

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

(P.S. By the way, I totally used to do this myself, trying to mix
the label of libertarianism with condoning a giant, coercively-
funded state military. I'm just as annoyed that I was ever stupid
enough to do that, as I am that so many others still are.)

Last Nag about Christmas Music

Hash: SHA1

Dear Subscriber,

Thanks to my webmaster, there's now a way for people to listen (for
free) to the entire Christmas CD my brother and I just made. You
can also download songs, or the whole album, for a few wimpy
dollars (but you can listen to the whole thing for free). Here's
the link:

Or, for those old fashioned folks like me who still use actual
disks, you can fling me an e-mail, and I'll send you one, and then
hope you send me $10.


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

(P.S. Okay, now I'm done with this shameless self-promotion of our
Christmas CD.)

A Change of Pace

Hash: SHA1

My extremist rabble-rousing has been quiet for a few weeks, as my
brother and I were finishing up ... (drum roll, please) ... a
classical instrumental Christmas music CD.

Yeah, I know that may seem a little weird coming from me, given
that most of you folks "out there" don't know me for anything
musical. (People in the town where I grew up won't be quite as
shocked.) I just posted a very short video at the following link,
with some sound bites of the new CD that my brother and I just
finished, in case any of you radicals out there might want a copy
(or two):

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