Main menu

Principles versus Mush

(orignially launched into cyberspace on 03/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

What are the fundamental philosophical principles of the Republican
party? I don't mean the window-dressing and the rhetoric; I mean
what is the foundational basis for the party's existence? Put
another way, what is the Republican party's ultimate view on
government's proper role in society? What is the ideal system they

If you're having trouble finding an answer, it's because there
isn't one. The Republican party has ABSOLUTELY NO underlying
principles. Not a one. (To be fair, I'm speaking now of the
politicians rather than the voters, some of whom actually have
foundational beliefs.)

In fact, there are very few political positions that are based upon
actual principles. Two, to be exact:

1) Pure collectivism, whether under the banner of socialism,
communism, fascism, or the euphemism "democracy," has an underlying
principle: EVERYTHING should be the property of the collective
(which ends up meaning the government), and the collective has the
right to forcibly control the behavior of all individuals. Okay, so
it happens to be an insane, horribly destructive principle, but at
least it's a principle.

2) Libertarianism is based on the idea that the only proper use of
force, whether by "government" or anyone else, is to defend against
force or fraud committed by others.

So what is the underlying principle of the Republican party? Do
they, for example, believe that you have a right to keep what you
earn? Of course not. When they talk about "tax cuts," there is NO
principle involved. They are NOT saying that what you earn belongs
to you. They are saying that, as your masters, they would choose to
LET you keep a little bit more than other politicians might. In
other words, they are running on the concept of "I'm a nicer master
than that other guy." And they pat themselves on the back for it.

The politicians of both parties believe, quite obviously, that it
is completely at THEIR discretion how much of your earnings they
will ALLOW you to keep. That is what "taxation" is: THEY decide how
much they get, and how much you get. You have no say in the matter.
(If you think your "vote" counts as having a say in the matter,
read on.) In principle, there is NO difference.

People are really bad at being objective: seeing a situation
without bias. We see things based on what we already know, and what
we're accustomed to. And politicians make the most of that fact.
How hilarious is it that the Republican party still wears the label
of "limited government," when it advocates that around HALF of what
everyone earns be taken by force by the government? It's only
because someone else is suggesting a slightly higher level of
wealth confiscation that by comparison the Republican party can
pretend to be pro-freedom. (The fact that that ploy works is

How can something be called a political philosophy if it doesn't
have an ideal? How do you know what direction to go if you don't
have an ultimate goal you're aiming at? "I don't know where I'm
going, but I'm going the right way." Huh? Here is what an actual
principle looks like: I am against carjacking. I don't want ANY of
it. I don't want to reduce it by 3%. I don't want to regulate it. I
don't want it inflicted only on "the rich." I don't want to put a
cap on it. I don't want to slowly phase it out (or in). I don't
want carjacking "reform." I don't want more efficient carjacking,
or a more customer-friendly carjacking. I want it STOPPED,
completely. Because, in PRINCIPLE, it is wrong.

Most people now acknowledge that voting consists of choosing the
lesser of two evils. So whose brilliant idea was it to give us two
EVILS to choose from? If everyone decides what SHOULD be from the
starting point of what IS, instead of having fundamental beliefs
and basic principles, you're just redecorating a poop cake. Such
worthless, superficial discourse is exactly what those in power
want you to think constitutes "reasonable" discussion. You can
discuss WHICH thief's hand to have in your pocket, or WHICH
jackboot to have on your throat, but don't you dare suggest that NO
ONE should be doing that.

Allow me to quote myself:

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

These days the most popular illusion of "peasant power" is the
voting booth. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by
offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years." [Lysander Spooner]

No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and
oppressed by "elected" tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant
is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will
continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that
another "election" is their only civilized recourse to any
government-imposed injustice they see.

"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into
complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand
that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure
freedom." [F. A. Hayek]

People would think it insane to have an election to choose a
carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference
between that and choosing a "ruler" comes from the now deeply
ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential
to society (a delusion you [speaking to the aspiring tyrant here]
should reinforce constantly). The question must always be WHICH
person or group of people should have the power to rule everyone
else; the question must never be WHETHER anyone should have such

"We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two
bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between
Tweedledum and Tweedledee." [Helen Keller]

If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them,
their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving
their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender
their freedom to. America gives a fine example, showing that a
people who violently resisted a relatively low level of oppression
from King George III would later fail to resist a dramatically
higher level of intrusion, control, extortion and general
oppression imposed by "elected" tyrants.

- -------------< end quote >---------------------------

The above is from my recently released book, "How To Be a
Successful Tyrant"
( ), which is just what it sounds like: a how-to
manual for aspiring tyrants. (I sure hope the common folk don't get
their hands on it, or the methods described in the book might not
work anymore.)

So the point here is not really to bash a particular party (though
that's always fun), but to introduce the concept of PRINCIPLES,
something nowhere to be found in "normal" political debates. And I
don't mean vague, politician-rhetoric non-principles like "I'm for
lower taxes." Lower than what? How low? Fifty percent? One percent?
Zero percent? Is there a PRINCIPLE involved, or are you just
playing with window-dressing?

The reason I call this the "anti-political" list is because it will
NOT be about tinkering with the symptoms of our twisted, insane
system. We will be digging underneath all of it, to see what is at
the heart of ALL "acceptable" political discussion. And then we
will consider some UNacceptable ideas.


Larken Rose

Way Outside the Box

(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/15/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Let's have a discussion about how far one has to sail out into the
ocean before he falls off the edge of the earth. Is it 50 miles?
Maybe 150? Or is it more? Wouldn't that make for an informative,
intellectually stimulating debate?

Well, no. It would be a stupid waste of time. Why? Because (brace
yourself if you haven't heard this yet) the earth is spherical
(more or less); it doesn't have an edge. So discussing how far away
the edge is would be pointless. A discussion based entirely upon a
false premise isn't likely to enlighten anyone.

Notice that I describe this list as "anti-political." If you're
expecting me to endorse a party, encourage voting in some
particular way, or advocating some sort of legal reform, don't hold
your breath. Instead, on this list I will do something you will
NEVER hear in any "normal" political debate: I will look at some of
the underlying premises upon which ALL so-called "political"
discussion is based.

Be warned: I will get around to goring the political ox of almost
everyone on this list, and people don't like that. (I know I
didn't, back when I had a political ox to be gored. Thankfully, my
ox has since died the death it so richly deserved.) I will dissect
things we've all taken as self-evident, and address topics that
proper, obedient peasants don't like to think about.

Unlike the 861 issue, however, the discussion here will not be so
much about facts and evidence as it is about consistent, non-
contradictory thinking. Put another way, I intend to expose the
inherent contradictions which ALL mainstream political beliefs
have. As an analogy, suppose that someone said to you, "I know the
earth is spherical, but the edge is 200 miles off the coast of
Florida." The problem is not merely that he has his facts wrong
(though he does); it's that his own beliefs contradict THEMSELVES.
As you'll see, almost all so-called political philosophy does the

Most political debate consists of two people flinging superficial
assertions and beliefs at each other. "Your guy is a poopoohead!"
"Oh yeah? Well your guy is a liar!" "Your guy wants the poor to
starve!" "Well your guy would tax the economy to death!" The
discussion never accomplishes much (or anything) and never gets
anywhere near anything of real substance. That won't be true of
this list.

Just for fun, I'll start the next message by taking a swing at
Republicans (since some people seem to have gotten the impression
that I am one). But beware: people are so accustomed to thinking in
terms of a two-sided political spectrum that if you bash "Team A,"
they automatically think you support "Team B." (Then there is the
lukewarm "middle ground," which has acquired the label "moderate,"
which pretends to be an alternative to the two "sides.") If it
makes you feel better, rest assured that whoever your political
opponents are, I'll be lambasting their beliefs zealously and
frequently. In fact, I expect to offend at least 95 percent of the
people on this by the time I'm done.

I guess that's enough of an introduction. Let the extremism* begin!


Larken Rose

(* These days any belief which doesn't empower politicians and
subjugate the masses gets labeled as "extremist." As such, I'm
proud to be an "extremist.")

From Tessa: Still Squeaking in the Trap

(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/15/2007)

Dear Folks:

I got a “bill” today from a company called
“Behavioral Interventions Incorporated.” The logo says, “BI: How
Justice Is Served.” After a moment of puzzlement, I realized that
this is the “bill” for the home monitoring equipment the government
is using to monitor me for my five-month home confinement sentence.
The bill doesn’t actually say what it’s for, but it gives me a
nice, polite “client” number. Perhaps I should write back and ask
that they change that to a more accurate “extortion victim” number.
I believe the word “client” in English refers to a voluntary
relationship, and the government should be challenged every time
they use this word to refer to any kind of unwilling victim. I
move that we create a new federal crime called “Orwellian butchery
of the English language.” Seems people are always up for making
something a federal crime. It’s the American way to make the world
a better place.

Although the government has already interfered
with my life and stolen my money in several major ways, they are
always looking for ways to put more icing on the cake, as it were.
Forcing people to pay for home monitoring equipment is just one
more little piece of extortion, like one of those crunchy little
decorations on a birthday cake. And much like those crunchy little
decorations, they’ve tried so hard to make it palatable they’ve
made it sickeningly sweet instead.

I mean, they could just say,
“We’re extorting money from you because we CAN! Ha! Ha!” But they
can’t be that honest. They have to call you a “client,” and hide
behind the vaguely scientific-sounding words “Behavioral
Intervention.” I must admit that I suffered a little temporary
insanity; Orwellian hypocrisy has that effect on me. I ran around
the house for a while yelling, “Help! help! I’m a lab rat! I’m
being behaviorally intervened with!”

And to claim that their
corporation is How Justice Is Served - does that strike you as a
little arrogant? A little creepy? A little corporo-fascist,
perhaps? Now you, too, can invest in the imprisonment and
monitoring of your fellow Americans. You too can profit from
every federal conviction and sentence. Now you can feel as good as
the prosecutor does every time some hapless victim is convicted.
Oops, did I say victim? No, these neighbors of yours are merely in
need of some behavioral intervention services.

Truly yours,

Tessa Rose

My Boring Prison Stay

(originally launhed into cyberspace on 03/14/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Many of you have asked what my prison stay was like. It's hard now
for me to believe that it was a whole year. (Time flies when you're
having fun.) Of course, it was annoying not being home, and being
censored, but other than that being there wasn't really all that
bad. I missed out on all the exciting stuff you see in prison
movies (violence, gang warfare, etc.), mainly because I was in a
federal prison "camp." There were no locks, no fences, and the
"guards" were unarmed. Though calling it "club fed" is a bit of an
exaggeration (it's not THAT much fun), anyone there could have
walked off whenever he wanted, though of course anyone who did
would be put in a lot worse place (with extra prison time) if he

There were a little fewer than 200 guys there, covering a wide
range of ages, income levels, education levels, cultural
backgrounds, etc. Most of the people there were there for non-
crimes: mainly possessing a substance without government approval.
Though a few of them actually committed real crimes (the kind with
victims), they were all non-violent, white collar stuff. No one who
commits violent crimes is sent to a camp, and no one stays in a
"camp" if he gets into fights or threatens people. So the place was
not at all scary.

I kept busy working on half a dozen different projects (writing
books, music, etc.), when I wasn't working at the powerhouse. (The
whole place is pretty much kept running by the inmates, who do the
food preparation, cleaning, maintenance, etc.) I also spent lots of
times wandering around the outdoor track, which overlooks woods and
a really cool pond... that I wasn't allowed to go to. I saw plenty
of wildlife: deer, coyote, skunk, turkey, groundhog, heron,
turtles, frogs, snakes, salamanders, a zillion kinds of birds, etc.

There were a few interesting folks at "camp" (all of them inmates).
Mostly I hung around with one particular militant moderate who was
aspiring to achieve apathetic complacency... and failing horribly.
(I think I contributed to pushing him off the political spectrum
entirely, though he didn't need much of a push.) Hail, the Great

Most of the "guards" (who are called "camp officers," not "guards,"
probably because there's nothing for them to actually guard) were
decent enough, though there was the occasional control-freak,
aspiring tyrant. The staff was an interesting blend of thinly
veiled control freaks and incompetent bureaucrats, with a few
exceptions. (Anyone who likes big government should go to prison
for a while and see what it's like when they run everything.)

As far as I could tell, I received no special treatment (positive
or negative) for being an "enemy of the state." The folks at the
BOP (Bureau of Prisons) pretty much do their thing, and probably
don't care much what the IRS thinks.

On average Tessa and Elyssa visited me every other week. (It's 150
miles from my house, so that was a bit of a challenge.) A few other
people visited along the way, too. Because of the "points" system
they use, limiting the number of visits per month, I kept my
visiting list limited to family and close friends.

Mostly it was boring and uneventful, though I got a lot done on a
lot of projects. It was, of course, tough being away from my family
for that long, not being able to help them at all. But we all
survived. And I'm sure it will come as a shock to all of you that
my "correction" apparently was not a success: I still like freedom,
and still dislike liars and thieves (IRS, DOJ, etc.). They did
terrorize me into giving them money I know I don't owe, and signing
returns pretending my income is taxable, to minimize the torture of
my family. (Ah, what a swell country.) But, I'm happy to report, my
soul is still my own.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Sorry nothing more exciting happened while I was inside for
me to tell you about. Actually, I'm not really sorry.)

New Anti-Political List

(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/12/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I finally got around to doing something I've
been meaning to do for a while: split my e-mail list in two. I've
tried--with varying success--to keep my political opinions off of
the 861 list, since what the law itself taxes, and what I think
about politics in general, are separate issues. In short, I didn't
want to scare people away from the evidence in the law by spouting
political views that might disagree with theirs. I would hope that
conservatives, liberals, communists, libertarians, anarchists,
moderates, etc., can all agree that government shouldn't defraud
us, as I believe it is doing. That's what the 861 evidence is
about. We don't need to agree on politics to agree on that.

However, a lot of non-861 topics have come up which I've had to
bite my tongue (or my fingers?) to keep from spouting off about,
including a lot of things which people on this list have ASKED me
to spout off about. For example, lots of people asked me to
describe what it was like to be a "guest" of the federal government
for a year. I didn't want to clutter up the 861 list with that, or
a zillion other politically related things, when the list is
supposed to be about the 861 evidence. So here's the new deal:

you're getting this message, you're already on BOTH lists. As
always, both lists are free, and we don't give out e-mail addresses
to anyone. It's also really easy to subscribe OR unsubscribe from

1) If you want to get messages from BOTH lists, do NOTHING:
you're already on both lists.

2) If you DO NOT want to hear about
the 861 evidence, send an e-mail to:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

3) If
you DO NOT want to hear about my political views on other topics,
send an e-mail to:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You can be on either
list, or both, or neither. From now on they will be completely
independent. The 861 list will be only about 861-related stuff,
while the new "TMDS" list (the name of which I'll explain soon)
will deal with a variety of other political (or anti-political)
issues. For starters, in my next message I'll say a few words about
being in prison (or "prison lite," as prison "camps" could be

Since every message I send (to either list) says how to
unsubscribe at the end, you don't need to decide anything now. You
can see what you think of the new list, and bail out (of one or
both) whenever you want.


Larken Rose