Main menu

Too Monstrous

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/22/2007)

Being evil has its advantages, one of which is that good people,
who don't think like deranged psychos, can be taken off guard
because they imagine others to be like them. For example, consider
the ever-popular plot for a horror movie: the kind-hearted soul
who, out of pity, picks up the rain-soaked hitchhiker (who also
happens to be an axe murderer). Us good folk don't WANT to suspect
everyone of being a villain, and we don't EXPECT them to be,
either. And when you're talking about "respected" people in
positions of great power, then we REALLY don't want to consider the
possibility that they may just be well-dressed axe murderers. But
if we are incapable of considering the possibilities of what evil
people might do, what kinds of things they are capable of, then we
allow ourselves to be vulnerable.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a
conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." [J. Edgar

As a result, when someone brings up some "conspiracy theory,"
suggesting that people in "our" government have committed theft,
torture, murder, etc., part of us doesn't WANT it to be true. We
WANT to be able to dismiss it as nonsense, rather than face the
possibility that there are some people with a LOT of power who
don't at all mind torturing and killing other people.

Recently a story broke--though not very loudly in the mainstream
media--that six nuclear warheads had been "accidentally" flown from
North Dakota to Louisiana. ("Oops, how did that get in my
suitcase?") Some have argued that that simply can't happen
"accidentally," and have gone on to suggest that the nukes may have
been intended to be part of a surprise nuke-attack on Iran. (The
feds say the nukes were about to be "decommissioned.") Well,
someone in the Air Force spilled the beans, and the military higher-
ups feigned shock and outrage, and said the matter would be

By itself, that story could be a toss-up: was it something devious
or was it incompetence--each of which the government has plenty of?
However, several air force folks from the two involved bases (Minot
in North Dakota and Barksdale in Louisiana) have since turned up
dead. Oh, and that was all "accidental" too. The following link
lists those who have died, with links to the "mainstream" stories
about the deaths.

Now, there are two ways people can react to all this:

1) Um, it must just be coincidence--are you alleging some sort of
conspiracy!? Are you saying OUR government would kill Air Force

2) There is no way that's a coincidence, but what does it mean?

The second is the rational response, while the first is wishful
thinking bordering on insanity--and it's probably how most
Americans would react. If those in power can kill off several
people with obvious ties to a recent, serious "incident" WITHOUT
causing widespread public suspicion and outrage, well, then this
country deserves to be enslaved.

If people won't LET the rational part of their brain function,
because of what it might conclude, we're in really bad shape. I'll
give an example, which is pure speculation. I'm not pretending to
have a shred of proof or evidence that the following happened; my
purpose is merely to suggest the possibility, so you can see how
YOU instinctively respond.


In an unheard-of "mistake," several nukes--warhead and trigger
together (though not "armed")--get flown across the country.
Shortly thereafter, several Air Force personnel from the two bases
involved then die in different "accidents." If they were killed--
which seems pretty likely--WHY were they killed? Well, it could be
that it was for exposing a blunder--moving the nukes improperly--
but that seems pretty unlikely. What's the point of killing people
AFTER they spill the beans, especially if they can be identified as
the ones who did the bean-spilling?

It seems more likely that folk would be killed to STOP them from
saying something. But saying what? It can't just be the "accident,"
because someone already exposed that. Might it be that the Air
Force folk were about to publicly complain about the U.S. planning
to nuke Iran? It's possible, but really darn unlikely. First of
all, the possibility of an attack on Iran is being widely discussed
already. Exposing such a plan wouldn't surprise anybody. Second, it
would be a huge "breach of national security" for a soldier to
release such information, and he would be locked up for a very long
time (or possibly executed for treason). Third, folks in the
military believe in chain of command, and pride themselves on their
loyalty to "authority"--it takes a LOT to have them disobey orders.
Would they do it to expose a possible strike on Iran, which would
probably just happen anyway?

So what would make several Air Force folk say something the powers
that be REALLY didn't want said--something serious enough that the
"government" would murder its own to keep it quiet? And remember,
it wasn't just ONE guy, and to make a bunch of different military
folk publicly "squeal" would take something pretty darn bad.

How about plans to nuke a U.S. city? That's pretty bad.

Like I said, I'm making a wild guess here, for the purpose of
testing what YOU are willing to consider, and what you dare to
think about. So I'll leave you with two questions:

1) On a scale of one to ten, how likely is it that U.S. officials
would be willing to nuke a U.S. city to get public support for
another war, declaring martial law, or something of that nature?

2) What is the basis for your answer to the first question?

Too many people throughout history have naively declared, "That
can't be happening in MY country! MY government--my countrymen--
wouldn't do THAT!" And so they chose to remain blind to the horrors
of "authority" in action. And, in all likelihood, the American
public will do the same.


Larken Rose

Business As Usual

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/21/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Suppose electronic video cameras and the internet existed back in
1940's Germany. And supposed some malcontent, anti-authoritarian
extremist like myself kept publicly posting video evidence of just
what the "law enforcers" of the day were really like, and what they
were doing on a daily basis.

Well, since the American Nazis can't seem to stop torturing people
on video, I'll just keep right on posting it for all to see:

Notice in particular how casual and non-emotional the fascist is.
Just like an SS robot herding the Jews onto the trains. That is
precisely the type of person who should NEVER be given power over
anyone else. Ever.

And what is his punishment for being a sadistic, abusive fascist
scumbag--and getting it caught on tape? Well, he's on
"administrative leave," while the fascist club "investigates" him.
Golly gee, they might even fire him from his job of oppressing and
torturing the rest of us (but probably not). Poor him.

What is most depressing about the video is the group of spectators
in the background, doing nothing and saying nothing. I'll leave you
with this really sad thought: had the woman being tased been a mere
spectator instead of the victim, would she have done anything, or
said anything? I doubt it. "First they came for the..." Well, you
know the rest.


Larken Rose

Corrected Link to Sliminess

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Apparently in my last message the link to the story of the super-
slimy federal prosecutor wasn't "clickable." So try this one

If the above link shows up as two lines in your e-mail, copy BOTH
lines of it (the whole address) into your browser's address window.
That should work.

(Again, it's not at all a pleasant story, so you if you want to
just skip it, that's fine too. It's about a federal prosecutor
doing something about as disgusting as you can get.)


Larken Rose

A Civilizing Influence?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/19/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Examples of the American fascist police state are rolling in
quicker than I can forward them. Here is one that I'm sure many of
you have heard about already, concerning an admittedly obnoxious
guy asking John Kerry questions--and getting tackled, tasered, and
arrested as a result:

(Incidentally, if they chose to, the private owners of the place
where this happened had the right to tell the guy to shut up and
get out, even forcibly remove him if necessary--but not the right
to taser him or put him in a cage. Instead, this was the
"government" police doing their power game, showing us all who's

Even better, here is the story of a 70-year-old woman who was
handcuffed and hauled away for--brace yourself for this heinous
crime--having a brown lawn:

Remember, we're supposed to think that "the law" is a civilizing
force, which reduces violence and ensures justice. (Because us mere
mortals would never behave ourselves without a ruler--or so we're
supposed to think.) Both of the above stories make good examples of
how "authority" ADDS violence to society. In both cases, the people
who ended up being the victims were doing something that could be
construed as at least impolite. The guy asking the questions was
both obnoxious and an attention hog, and I expect that the
neighbors of the elderly lady didn't like having an ugly, brown
lawn in their neighborhood.

The question is, what did "law" and "government" add to the
equation? In a society that actually values individual rights, what
would have happened? Someone may have pulled the plug on the
somewhat obnoxious guy, or they could have just waited for him to
finish his question/rant. (Actually, in a free society, it wouldn't
have happened at all, because no one would pay any attention to
people like John Kerry.) It's pretty likely, however, that no one
would have felt the need to violently tackled the guy, taser him,
and then drag him away and put him in a cage. *

Likewise with the old lady. Her neighbors might complain at her--
heck, they might even offer to water her lawn for her (heaven
forbid), if they want it to be green--but it's pretty darn unlikely
that anyone OTHER than those pretending to be "authority" would put
her in handcuffs and forcibly remove her from her property
(bruising her and bloodying her nose in the process).

"Authority" means the RIGHT to rule--the right to FORCIBLY control
everyone else (even if only in certain ways or certain situations).
And since it is mostly used in cases where you and I would NOT feel
justified using violence ourselves, what "government" amounts to is
and several million not mentioned--demonstrate that quite plainly.

If you do a search for "police brutality" or similar terms on
"," you can spend all day watching videos of just
how much of a civilizing influence "authority" really is. (And, of
course, most of the time oppression and authoritarian injustice
occurs, it is not captured on tape.) Those who haven't been on the
receiving end of authoritarian tactics like to cling to the
baseless belief that "laws" make us more civilized. Those who have
been "legally" oppressed, extorted, robbed, terrorized, assaulted,
cuffed, beaten, and/or locked up know better. (I was going to add
"murdered" to the list, but it's hard to say whether those people
know better or not.)

Almost all of would LIKE there to be some magic ingredient to make
society more peaceful, more fair, more civilized, and more just.
But "government" isn't it. It does the exact opposite.


Larken Rose

(* Though the "taser" is praised as a great "non-lethal" tool for
the fascists--I mean, "law enforcers"--dozens of deaths are thought
to be related to people being "tased." In addition, though I
haven't experienced it myself, I'm told it HURTS LIKE HELL!
However, because it LOOKS nicer than pounding someone into
submission with night sticks--though it amounts to the same thing--
the police don't seem to mind doing it fairly often.)

P.S. Incidentally, what I'd love to see somebody do--and maybe
somebody already has, and I just haven't heard of it--is use FOIA
and the state "sunshine" laws to get the names of the fascists who
do this stuff, and post them all on one web site (something like
"American Fascists Hall of Fame"). I don't have time, or I'd do it

All my past anti-political rants can be found here:

President Wacko Extremist

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/19/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

If I was a tyrant, I would have killed this guy:


Larken Rose

(I can find plenty in JFK's politics to complain about, but like
Ronald Reagan, he said things that I'm sure most tyrants of the day
didn't at all like.)

Wanted: Power-Happy Control Freak

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

(Preface: I was already in the process of writing a blurb about
something, when someone sent me a very appropriate, albeit very
sickening, example--included below--illustrating the point.)

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "goodness-o-meter"? We could run
everyone through it, and only let the good guys have guns, or we
could put a label on the really bad guys to warn the rest of us. In
fact, if there was some magic way to tell who the smart,
benevolent, justice-loving people were, then "government" might
almost make sense (but not quite). We could make sure the good guys
had all the power, so they could protect us from the bad guys. And
that's the premise behind the desire for "government": the hope
that the people who become lawmakers, police, prosecutors and
judges are better than average guy. (If they're as bad as the rest
of us, giving them special powers obviously wouldn't improve the

Trouble is, when you offer a job which includes having power over
others, good people very rarely apply. You see, good people don't
WANT to rule anyone else. Good people respect others, and so want
to leave them in freedom. It is almost always the megalomaniacs--
those who love dominion over others--who apply for authoritarian

One of the premises of the belief in "government" is the feeling
that we, the masses, are so unpredictable, negligent, and/or
malicious, that we need the best among us to get together, form a
government, and thereby keep us average folk in line. Trouble is,
the best among us don't want that job; the worst among us do.

I recently posted a link to a video capturing the antics of a
certain power-happy, god-complex fascist with a badge who works for
the St. George, Missouri police department. (Apparently CNN
reported it--after I did.) Yes, society needs to be protected from
the really nasty people, but when appointing authoritarian
"protectors," if you accidentally choose a nasty person--the kind
who usually seek positions of power--and you give him a badge, a
gun, and powers the rest of us don't have--well, you can see the
outcome. Yes, we'd all hope that people with power will not misuse
it, and the statists insist that we need a government of good guys,
in which case it's okay--necessary, in fact--to give them lots more
power than the rest of us have. It's for our own good, right?

Consider, for example, Mr. Atchison--an experienced crime-fighting
prosecutor down in Florida, working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney
for the Department of Justice. He's the kind of guy who protects us
from the low-lifes of the world! He's the kind we need to give
extra power to, in order to keep our children safe! Well, actually,
as it turns out, he's the kind of low-life our children need to be
protected from.

(Warning: Even though the following is a mainstream news story,
it's quite disgusting and revolting, so feel free to skip it. Just
know that this federal prosecutor was apparently caught attempting
to do something exceedingly repulsive and evil--something he said
he has done before.)

What struck me about the story, however, wasn't just that one
person in a position of power got caught, or even the mention of
another Florida prosecutor getting in trouble for something
similar. It was the comment in the story, quoting from those who
investigate such crimes, saying that it's gotten to the point where
they are "almost unfazed when they discover prominent community
figures" engaging in such extreme sliminess.

I guess those investigators found out what I keep saying: people
who crave power (sometimes called "prominent community figures")
are not good people. The public desperately wants a group of good
guys to be in charge, and to have at their disposal the necessary
power to make sure justice prevails. So they hallucinate a
"government," and hope like heck that somehow righteous heroes will
take the job, and will use the power to rid the world of evil and

But they don't. Thieving, demented, callous, sadistic control-
freaks get the job instead. But that doesn't deter the statists,
who then cry, "Well NEXT time we'll get someone GOOD in there!"
(When has that ever happened?) Again, righteous, good people--who
care about freedom and justice--don't WANT the job of forcibly
controlling their neighbors. It is an inherently IMMORAL job which
naturally attracts only those who don't mind using violence against
innocent people. It's not just bad luck that slimeballs and
lunatics always get into power; they're the only ones who would
WANT the job. If you had elections to choose a local car-jacker,
how many GOOD people do you think would apply?

Only nasty people--or unthinking puppets--WANT a job that includes
controlling everyone else, and this is true despite the fact that
cops and prosecutors sometimes use force to stop people who DESERVE
to be stopped--like (ironically) the federal prosecutor mention
above. A cop or prosecutor is not allowed to choose which "laws" to
enforce. It's his job to enforce them all, including the completely
immoral ones (any "law" that initiates violence against someone who
has committed no force or fraud against anyone else--which includes
most "laws"). The fact that sometimes he uses justifiable force
doesn't justify all the times he uses immoral force. Someone who
becomes a cop with good intentions will find that he is often
required to enforce unjustified commands, at which point he either
quits, or betrays his good intentions. Bad guys, on the other hand,
thrive in such a situation, as it gives them societal "permission"
(from statists, at least) to intrude, harass, extort, assault, and
murder in the name of the "law."

And, as lots of people have learned the hard way, once you give a
bad guy lots of power, it's not easy to take it away from him
again. When you find yourself at the mercy of some dishonest, power-
happy authoritarian psycho--whether it be a cop, a prosecutor, or a
judge--then you know just how important it is to NOT let nasty
people get those positions. But since nasty people are almost
always the only ones who ever APPLY for those jobs, what are we to


I know, I know: That's too extreme! We neeeeeeed super-human
protectors! No matter how often the ones we put there show
themselves to be slimeballs of the highest order, people still keep
hoping that having a ruling class (aka "government") will improve
society. How ironic that peoples' fear of the nasty and
irresponsible folk among us is what leads to those same nasty folk
acquiring enormous power over all of us. We fear a small monster,
and create a HUGE monster to protect us from the little one. And
when the huge one turns against us--as it always has and always
will--all that most of us can think of is what new, even bigger
monster we might try to replace it with (if it lets us). Meanwhile,
those crazies among us (anarchists) who say "Um, we don't need a
monster," are called extreme. Go figure.


Larken Rose