Main menu

Late Notice / Rerun

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/08/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I managed to be both unobservant and forgetful today. First, I sent
Tessa's message to the 861 list, instead of this list. So below is
the message again, for any who missed it.

Second, I almost forgot to mention that tomorrow, from 3 to 5 p.m.
Eastern time, I'll be on Peter Mac's radio show. For all the info--
on how to listen live, and on how to get the archives afterwards--
go here:

(Despite the fact that I usually get it wrong, it's "Peter Mac,"
with no "K." The web site won't work if you mispell it... the way I
usually do.)

This time the topic will be political, rather than 861--at least,
that's the plan.


Larken Rose

- --------< Message from Tessa >---------

I watched Aaron Zellman’s movie, “Innocents Betrayed,” with Larken
yesterday. I recommend that everyone see it--adults, that is. It’s
too gruesome and scary for children.

Government is analogous to fire. If it’s controlled and confined
to the hearth, it is very useful, even necessary for life in some
climates.* But we all know that fire must be carefully contained
in the hearth and kept under control lest it burn down the house
and perhaps kill the whole family. We must have strict rules of
behavior in the home about where and when to use fire. Never take
candles to bed with you, never place them near the curtains, never
leave an open fire unattended, never smoke in bed, and so on.

A careful family will not likely be harmed by their fire. But the
fire in the hearth has a way of constantly reminding us that it’s
dangerous. It’s when we forget that fire can be dangerous, and
become careless with it that it’s most likely to become a raging
inferno. Take the case of smokers, who hold a tiny fire in their
fingers many times a day. It’s so small and so familiar, it’s easy
to forget that it’s fire at all. And most house fires are started
by these tiny incendiary devices.

But our society suffers from a deplorable lack of awareness of the
danger of government. The founders of this country did a fairly
good job of setting up a government-proof country, and laying down
rules that would keep this deadly force contained and controlled in
its proper place (at least for white people). Ownership of
firearms by the populace is perhaps the most important of those
rules. The problem is that the founders’ system has protected us
for so long, that people have forgotten the reasons behind the
rules. Because they personally have never been harmed by
government, they think those who take precautions against it are
simply a little wacky. A close friend of mine, who disagrees with
me about the importance of civilians keeping guns, once said, “I
don’t live in fear of the government like you do.”

First of all, I don’t think I “live in fear of the government,” do
you? And secondly, folks like her put their kids to bed in flame-
retardant jammies, and wear their seat belts in the car, and no one
accuses them of having pathological fears. Yet when you take a
simple precaution against murder, mayhem, and genocide, they think
you’re being unreasonable. It seems that for many people, sanity
consists of believing that government is a harmless and benevolent
institution despite mountains of horrific evidence to the contrary.

One hundred seventy million victims of 20th century government have
been silenced forever. I think that those of us who have been
lucky enough to survive the bloodiest century in human history have
a duty to give voices to these millions. This movie does that.
Please spread it around.

Tessa Rose

[ September 18, 2007, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: 3rdEar ]

Thought Control For Sale

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/01/2007)

Dear Fellow Peasant,

I find it both helpful, and really creepy, when tyrants don't even
hide their methods of control and oppression. Someone just drew my
attention to a truly stunning example. If the following doesn't
make your skin crawl, you deserve to be enslaved.

Those of you who have read my book, "How To Be a Successful
Tyrant," ( ) know that it focuses heavily on
propaganda, particularly in Chapter 3, "Controlling Thought," and
Chapter 5, "Spreading the Lie." For several hundred years now (at
least), every government worth its salt has known that thought
control is by far the most powerful weapon a tyrant can have.

Amazingly, there is now an outfit that openly offers its services
to governments the world over, saying that what it offers--methods
of THOUGHT CONTROL via propaganda--is the most powerful weapon a
government can have. The number of admissions the company makes is

They openly speak, for example, not only of using "a powerful psyop
[psychological operations] campaign against an engaged enemy," but
controlling the thought of the citizenry, to "engender support
within the national community for proposed military action." Wow, a
war-mongers dream come true! And of course, the same principles--
the same "services," as the company calls them--could and would be
used to crush any internal rebellions within any countries
utilizing those "services" as well.

"The military conflicts of the 21st Century will not be fought on
the ground, in the sea or in the air; they will be fought in the
minds of our adversaries and allies."

No, that's not a quote from my book. It's from the company's web
site. But they can't really be openly talking about thought control
via propaganda, can they?

"What if there was a way to control civilian behaviour when it

Barf! I wish I was making this stuff up. I'm not. Here is what the
company, on its public web site, is selling to any government that
wants it:

"An Opcentre is a command facility for strategic communications.
.... These units of expertise combine to create one of the most
dynamic and influential ‘weapons' in the world. An Opcentre puts
influence, control and power back into the hands of the government
and military, giving them greater power to influence the enemy in
time of conflict and enhanced access to their citizens during a
crisis. For instance, an Opcentre can be designed to override all
national radio and TV broadcasts, allowing the government and
military to communicate with the public as the need arises."

Yeah, wouldn't it be nifty if the tyrants of the world, with the
use of propaganda, could better push "behavioural compliance for
homeland security issues," and "influence group behavior"? And
we're not just talking about telling politicians how to get votes;
we're talking about methods which concentrate "on the behavioural
outcome of the communication."

I have only just started looking at the site of the company, which
is based out of England. And I have to take a break, or I'm going
to lose my mind. For those of you who want to get a disturbing dose
of reality--or for those who thought I was making all of this up--

And I hope no one on this list is stupid enough to think that "our"
"government"--the richest and most powerful in the history of the
world--hasn't been using such "services" for the last century at


Larken Rose

Hooray For Our Side!

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/31/2007)

My Fellow Americans,

Listen to the words, from just a few years back, of a great
statesman, as he condemns the evils of terrorism!

"The most ruthless man of the present day who ... as early as [a
few years ago] had conceived a plan of devastating and, if
possible, destroying [this country] in a bloody war, because she
was growing too powerful in her peaceful prosperity, had at last
found an instrument in the [foreign] state, and prepared to draw
the sword for their interests and aims."

Yeah, those darn Islamofascists hate us for our peace and
prosperity, and they're gonna hurt us!

"All my attempts at reaching an understanding, particularly with
[Iraq], nay even permanent friendly cooperation, were foiled by the
wish of a small clique, who, either out of hatred or for material
reasons, refused any [American] suggestion of agreement and did not
conceal their intention or desire of war."

Golly, we tried peace, both those nasty people, especially the
fringe extremists, want war! Can't we all just get along?

"The driving personality behind this mad and devilish plan of
starting war at any price was [Saddam Hussein] and his accomplices,
the men in the present [Iraqi] Government. They were trying to get
support, openly and secretly, from the [other governments] on this
side and on the other side of the ocean. ... Under these
circumstances, and to spare innocent and decent people, who, no
doubt, exist also in that other world, I decided to make another
appeal to the statesmen. [Last year], I declared that [America] had
no grievance against [Iraq], and I pointed out the horrors that
modern arms would bring to large areas once they were unbridled."

We warned the Iraqis of how nasty a war would be, hoping they would
choose peace!

"The [Iraqi] warmongers, and [those funding them], found no other
interpretation of my considerations of humanity than the assumption
of [American] weakness. ... They declared that peace could not come
about until [America] was destroyed."

They hate us, and won't stop until we're destroyed! We wanted
peace, but they refused!

"[Last year, I spoke to Congress] to give expression to the
nation's gratitude to its soldiers. Again I took the opportunity of
that meeting to appeal to the world for peace. I did not permit any
doubts that my hopes in this direction could only be slight, in
view of my experiences. ... Events happened exactly as I had
predicted. My peace offer was alleged to be a sign of fear and
cowardice. The [Iraqi] warmongers again succeeded in blurring the
sanity of the masses, who cannot gain by this war. They succeeded
in awakening new hopes by lying statements, and finally, with the
help of a public opinion directed by their Press, made the people
continue the fight."

The Iraqi people have been duped by their government, which lies to
them, and tricked them into starting a war.

"[America is] not at all interested in territorial questions and
the internal state of the [middle-eastern] countries from any
selfish interests. Second, [America] has always endeavored to open
up and consolidate close economic relations with these countries."

Yeah, we just wanted friendly trade. We don't want conquest or
anything. We only want peace!

"In this campaign, the [American] armed forces have truly surpassed
themselves. The actual deployment of the troops offered tremendous
difficulties. ... The units performed tasks worthy of the highest
praise not only of the men, their ability, courage, endurance, but
also of the quality of the material."

Hooray for our guys! We're the good guys, you know (and our war
toys are the best).

"[T]he [American government] has no territorial interests in that
zone. Politically, it is interested only in the safeguarding of
peace in this area; economically in the establishment of an order
that will provide for the production of goods for the general
benefit and that will again revive the exchange of products. ...
Thus today we are fighting, not only for our own existence, but
also to liberate the world from a conspiracy which, without
scruples, put the happiness of nations and people second to the
basest egoism. ... A pious feeling for community prevails in our
nation ... That which makes us feel so proud compared with other
nations, no power in the world can wrest away from us. ... In the
era of [terrorism and oppression] stands [the United States] like a
rock of social justice and clear reason which will not only survive
this war, but even the coming millennium."

Yay! "Oh say can you seeeeee....!"

- --------------------------------------

The above are excerpts from a speech, with only the words in
brackets changed, delivered in May of 1941, by that great
statesman, Adolf Hitler. (Of course, it's translated from the
original German.) Here is the entire speech:

The speech was given a few years after Hitler had ordered the
burning of the Reichstag, so he could blame it on the Jews, and use
it as an excuse to seize power, and to start doing away with the
civil liberties of the general public.

People look back at what Hitler did, and say "How could the Germans
let that happen?" People look at what Stalin did, and say "How
could the Russians let that happen?" People look at what Mao did,
and say "How could the Chinese let that happen?"

And then people vote for George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton.

The reason people keep "letting" injustice and tyranny happen is
because they don't UNDERSTAND the methods of tyrants and
megalomaniacs. Did you think they would ANNOUNCE their true
intentions? Did you think that their stated goals were their REAL
goals? Did you think the bad "side effects" of their "solutions"
were ACCIDENTAL? Did you think they wanted to obtain those
positions of "authority" for any reason OTHER than their own power?

In case I haven't been blunt enough before, let me try again: If
you feel profound nationalism and love of country, deep respect for
the law and for authority, and are PROUD of all those things--well,
YOU are the problem; you are nothing more than an unthinking pawn,
being used as tool to serve the wishes of the most evil people on
the planet. And you're too stupid to notice, and too deluded to
want to know the truth.

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."
[Adolf Hitler]

If you value "the law" above justice, and obedience above following
your own judgment--and if you want to know what caused the German
holocaust, or any of the other mass exterminations and oppressions
in history, then LOOK IN A DAMN MIRROR.

For all of recorded history, tyrants have been using the same
tricks, the same rhetoric, the same deceptions, and people STILL
fall for all of it, including in this country. If you want to know
how it is that you (and all your neighbors) are being deceived,
exploited, defrauded and used by megalomaniacs, try this:

I can't express how sickened I am by the thought of how many good
people, who actually value freedom and justice, have had to suffer,
and are still suffering, because of the stupidity of the masses, in
this country and every other. Wouldn't it be neat if people could
only be subjected to the rotten consequences of their OWN
stupidity, instead of everyone else's? Then the state-worshipers
could keep enslaving only themselves, until they learn their
lesson. No such luck.


Larken Rose

(P.S. Incidentally, Hitler's criticisms of the English, European,
and other tyrants were often on the mark, as are the U.S.
government's criticisms of the Iraqi tyrants, and others. What
makes it particularly ironic is that ALL of those complaints, while
perfectly valid, apply as often to the ones making the complaints
as they do to the targets of the complaints. For example, perhaps
some in the middle east really do "hate our freedoms," but to hear
Fuhrer W. Bush saying that is a bit too much irony for me to

(P.P.S. For future reference, if anyone wants to forward or post
any of my messages anywhere else, that's fine with me.)

Just How Stupid Are We?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/31/2007)

My Fellow Americans,

Much amusement has been had over the recent incoherent, air-headed
ramblings of Miss South Carolina during the recent Miss Teen USA
pageant. (Actually, I feel a little sorry for her, since I highly
doubt that her profound cluelessness was entirely her own doing.
Usually it takes a lot of co-conspirators -- teachers, parents,
friends, etc. -- to result in such extreme bimbo-ness.) For those
who haven't witnessed the gruesome event, when asked why a fifth of
Americans couldn't find the U.S. on a world map, Miss South
Carolina responded with what sounded like the output of a random-
word generator. (Go to and search for "South
Carolina," and you'll see what I mean.) Normally, words are used to
convey thoughts between people. In her case, the words seemed
designed to convey the ILLUSION of thought, but without much
success. She was, no doubt, trained to include certain catch words
and phrases: "I personally believe," "such as," "our future,"
"Iraq," "Africa," etc. And she did. She just didn't bother
including anything in between, which might have formed an actual
concept or idea.

But what disturbs me a lot more than that one display of ignorance -
- - which is hardly unusual in modern America -- is the fact that
when people do EXACTLY what Miss South Carolina did, only with more
confidence and steadiness, we Americans usually grant them
unlimited power over us. These days the megalomaniacs -- those who
desire personal power and dominion over others -- dupe most people
without even having to make a half-decent effort. Consider, as a
randomly-chosen example, the following clip of Barrack Obama:

Looking sincere and confident, he spends several minutes throwing
out catch phrases which, taken as a whole, mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If I have to watch someone spewing out words which convey no shred
of thought, I'd much rather watch Miss South Carolina do it.
Frankly, I'd also rather have her be the all-powerful ruler of the
world than have what we have now, because no amount of good old-
fashioned stupidity could ever do the damage which the love-of-
dominion crowd does every day through its supposedly well-
intentioned "solutions."

In his sales pitch for himself, Mr. Obama spoke of wanting a
"different kind of politics," and wanting to see the "change and
progress that we so desperately need." He pretended to sympathize
with the common folk who face concerns about health care costs,
pensions and college bills, and said that partisanship was
preventing people from "working together in a practical, common
sense way." (Actually, "GOVERNMENT" is what prevents that.) He said
he wanted us to "come together around our common interests and
concerns as Americans." He said that engaged citizens working
together can accomplish extraordinary things, and that he has great
hope for the future, because he believes in you. Isn't that sweet?

So what did we learn from all that? We learned that Mr. Obama knows
how to echo the same meaningless rhetoric that all politicians in
all countries throughout all of history have used. When's the last
time you heard a politician say, "Ya know, I don't much care about
your stupid concerns. You're a bunch of worthless twits who
couldn't wipe your noses if not for government. I have no intention
of changing the system at all, I just want to be the one in charge
of it for as long as it lasts, before the poop really hits the fan
and this whole silly charade comes crashing down"? (Come to think
of it, I might vote for someone who said that.)

And I picked Mr. Obama's stupid ramblings at random. The same could
be said about the rhetoric of anyone else in government: Hillary,
McCain, Giuliani, Bush, Kerry, Gore, Cheney, and so on, ad
infinitum. EVERY politician in Washington (with the possible
exception of Ron Paul) spews the same meaningless drivel, and it
WORKS--as demonstrated by the fact that they're STILL THERE.

So before you laugh too loudly at poor Miss South Carolina, who
merely sought to win a pageant, look how many of your fellow
Americans are eager to give unbridled power, over everyone and
everything in the country, to people who do nothing more than
parrot the same old meaningless catch-phrases that tyrants have
used forever. The ignorance of Miss South Carolina doesn't hurt
anyone but herself. The ignorance of the American voters, on the
other hand, results in the robbery, extortion, harassment,
terrorization, assault, wrongful imprisonment, and/or murder of
MILLIONS of innocent human beings. And those same voters have the
gall and hypocrisy to laugh at Miss South Carolina. Amazing.


Larken Rose

Thursday Morning

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/29/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

I will be on Michael Badnarik's "Lighting the Fires of Liberty"
radio show on the "We The People Radio Network" this Thursday
morning, from 7 to 9 a.m. Central time (8 to 10 a.m. Eastern). His
shows are also archived, in case you can't listen then. To listen
live, go to:

That should also give you the links for finding the archives of the
show after it happens.

I expect the topic to be about nasty, "extremist" politics (or anti-
politics), rather than the tax issue, but one never can tell for
sure where things will go. Only one way to find out. (Listen.)


Larken Rose

Nice Master

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/27/2007)

Slave: "Master, will you please stop whipping me?"
Master: "No."
Slave: "Ow. Pretty please?"
Master: "No."
Slave: "Ow. Darn."

There you have the entire political process, in this country and
every other. Instead of asking nicely, should the slave be allowed
to forcibly stop the master from whipping him? Surely we can't have
that! That would be against the "law"! No single sentence better
sums up the belief that we are the PROPERTY of the politicians,
than this one: "You have to work within the system."

In other words, we have no right to do what we want, until we first
get the politicians, via "legislation," to SAY we have the right
(which means it isn't a "right" at all). "Mom, can I please go out
and play?" "Congress, can I please keep more of what I earn?" The
asking itself implies that THEY have the right to decide, which in
turn implies that they OWN all of us.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable individual
rights--which we didn't get from "government," and which no
"government" has the right to deprive us of. Why, then, when the
politicians do violate those rights (as they do on a daily basis),
do we ask THEM to please stop it? It's because the general public
does NOT believe in unalienable rights at all.

If someone is trying to steal my car, do I need the THIEF'S
permission before I have the right to try to stop him? No. So if
tyrants are stomping on my rights, why would I need to ask them for
"legal" permission to resist their oppressions? The very idea is

When it comes to "lobbying" politicians, I find the example of "gun
control" particularly amusing. Lots of Americans believe, as the
Founders of the country did, that an armed populace is the best
guard against oppressive government. In other words, the common
folk should be armed so that, if the government becomes overly
abusive and oppressive, the people can violently overthrow it. So
how silly is it to "lobby" politicians to please "legalize" private
gun ownership? Consider the absurd message it sends: "We have the
right to forcibly resist you if we decide you're being oppressive!
So, um, can we please keep our guns? Pretty please?"

The Founders said these things a lot more politely, and in a more
respectable, civilized manner. I'll say it so anyone can
understand: If someone tries to disarm you, when you haven't
committed force or fraud against anyone, you have the absolute
right--"law" or no "law"--to kill the person who tries it. Oddly,
even most "gun rights" advocates don't like putting it that way,
though their stated reasons for "gun rights" is to protect against
tyranny. Well, duh: if you need the tyrant's PERMISSION (via "law")
before you'll resist tyranny, what's the point?

A consistent message from people who believe in gun rights--which
admittedly would make most people very uneasy (because of their
underlying "government"-worship)--would be this: "Dear Congressman,
I understand you are considering voting for so-called 'legislation'
that would disarm me. Be advised, if you do that, I have the right
to kill any thugs you send to disarm me, and the right to kill you
for sending them to do it. Have a nice day."

I know a LOT of you cringed when you read that. No offense, but the
only reason you would cringe is if, deep down inside, you believe
that we are all OBLIGATED to obey whatever commands politicians
decide to dish out. And in order to believe that, you must believe
that each of us BELONGS to them. If some private individual
threatened to come into your house to disarm you, most of you
would, without hesitation, condone a response such as: "Try it, and
I'll blow your damn head off!" And if ten people, or a hundred
people, threatened to disarm you, you'd have the right to violently
resist ALL of them.

So why would you have any less of a right to do it--and why does
the idea of forcibly resisting make most people uneasy--when people
wearing the label of "authority" try it? Aren't they just people,
too? In most peoples' eyes, NO, they aren't just people; they are
representatives of our collective master, our OWNERS: "government."
And as long as the people hold that view, the ONLY power they will
ever have is the power to pitifully beg their masters to please be
nice. In other words, they will have no power at all.

A lot of people have said that they want something somewhere
between what I speak of and what we currently have. They want a lot
less government, but not none at all. But once again, when it comes
right down to it, there are only TWO options: either we each own
ourselves, or we are all owned by "government." There is no
inbetween, and there can be no compromise between the two. EVERY so-
called "moderate" solution concedes that we are slaves, but asks
our owners to be nice. If we own ourselves, we don't NEED their
permission to be free, their "laws" carry no obligation to obey,
and we have every right to forcibly resist their infringements just
as we would have if our neighbor decided on his own to start
"taxing" and "regulating" us. If you ask me, being a slave who can
only beg his master to be nice isn't good enough. If that makes me
an "extremist," so be it.

If I had to pick the primary reason why I am NOT encouraging people
to go vote for Ron Paul, it is this: Every election, every lobbying
effort, every petition to government, REINFORCES the idea that we
need their PERMISSION before we're allowed to be free. To engage in
the ritual of "democracy" conveys the message that we CONCEDE that
whether we are to be free or not depends upon whether our MASTERS
will, by legislation, allow us such freedom. See the contradiction?
If I own me, by definition I don't NEED anyone else's permission.

If I were a slave, I'd prefer a nice master. If I had to be the
property of someone else, I would prefer Ron Paul over anyone else
in public office. Furthermore, if 500 clones of Ron Paul
miraculously were elected into every seat of Congress, we'd be
oppressed so rarely, and to such a small degree, that even I would
rarely bother to complain about it. Nonetheless, there is still a
fundamental, crucial difference between being the property of a
wise, benign, permissive and kind master, and owning yourself. The
former should never be accepted as being good enough.


Larken Rose

(P.S. As an aside, I do sympathize with those who know that they
own themselves, but who nonetheless choose to engage in the cult
ritual of "democracy" just out of self-defense, hoping to get a
less psychotic and megalomaniacal person into the illegitimate
position of national slavemaster. But even in the extremely rare
instance in which that actually happens, it is no solution at all
to the real problem; it is merely a temporary patch to treat the
symptom of the most dangerous superstition in the world: the belief
in "authority.")