Friday, March 19, 2010

The Freedom Fellowship 2.0

Please visit our new blog:

For some reason this blog - and all the other blogs on this platform - no longer play music-sound.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Preventative Violence

Larken Rose is at his best here. Our world has changed. Wake up freedom lovers because you can't talk a fascist into freedom. You can only show him what the natural consequences will be unless he stops. You can only do that if you have the way (ability to hurt, distress, defend) and the will (reasoned rational moral philosophical belief) that the fascist believes that you are willing to use. Bluffing doesn't work long. The only moral issue question here is; What about the non-involved innocent bystanders? Rational reasoned retributive justice believers only judge those who have caused injury. Nemo me impune lacessitt!

Can Violence Solve Violence?

Rarely do I hear anything from Stefan Molyneux that I can substantively disagree with, so allow me to jump on this rare opportunity to take issue with something he said. (I'm hoping this rant finds its way to him, and I'm betting one of you forwarding it to him will work better and faster than me trying to find his e- mail address in my infinite, messy pile of stuff.) In a recent podcast, where he gave his thoughts on the Joe Stack incident, Stefan asserted that violence cannot be solved with violence. Partly true, partly false. Here is the link for that clip:

I think Stefan would agree that the initiation of violence is a symptom of something not being right in the head of the aggressor. And it is absolutely true that the root CAUSE of the aggression cannot be fixed via more violence. However, the EFFECT (or symptom) of that problem CAN be. As a very simple example, if someone breaks into my house at night, my 12-gauge is not going to repair whatever mental damage led the guy to want to do such a thing. However, it has a good chance of stopping the EFFECT of his psychosis. In such an instance, my goal w
ould not be to "fix" what is wrong with the invader, but to prevent the potential SYMPTOMS of his psychological problems.

Likewise, the irrational belief in the myth of "authority" is the direct cause of the vast majority of theft, assault and murder in the world. The people at the IRS, for example, routinely commit harassment, terrorism, extortion and robbery, because they t
ruly believe that when something evil is "legalized," it ceases to be evil. They (and their victims) have been indoctrinated to believe that theft is bad, UNLESS "authority" does it, in which case theft ("tax collection" / "law enforcement") is GOOD, and RESISTING it is bad.

So the root cause of the problem is their indoctrination into the cult of authoritarianism, and all the propaganda and rhetoric they were fed about "law," "taxation," "government," and all the other bunk which is designed to paint theft as a GOOD thing when the slave-masters do it, and only bad when us peasants do it. And the SOLUTION to that problem is, quite literally, "deprogramming" people out of the most dangerous superstition: the belief in "authority" (the notion that some people have the right to rule others). So no, cursing at, punching, shooting, or blowing up IRS employees cannot fix that underlying problem.

HOWEVER--and this is a big however--while delusions remain, violence can sometimes deter the EFFECTS of those delusions. No matter how much an IRS employee has bought into the state
propaganda, if he thinks he might die if he keeps on robbing people ("collecting taxes," as he would call it), he might choose a new career. The underlying problem would remain, but the symptom, in that case, would disappear, as would some of the potential resulting damage.

In general, it's a bad idea to focus on treating the SYMPTOMS of a problem, instead of treating the problem itself. This is true in medicine, economics, philosophy, and just about everything else. However, if the symptom of ONE person's problem is the SUFFERING of another, then treating the symptom is a worthwhile goal, for the sake of the innocent victim.

Suppose someone came up with a way to convince all 100,000 or so employees of the IRS that if they showed up for work the next day-- or ever again--they would all die horrible deaths. And supp
ose they could be made to believe that without any of them actually being harmed. Frankly, I would be thrilled. Though it would do nothing to address the underlying problem--that the state's hired thieves believe "legal theft" to be morally righteous--it would, on a practical level, deter them from victimizing others as a result of their delusions.

So the question is, when do we focus our efforts on trying to enlighten the deluded, and when do we do whatever it takes to stop the deluded from hurting people? My answer is, we should continually focus on both. Those of us who know that we own ourselves have the absolute right to do whatever it takes to stop others from initiating violence against us, whether they fully understand what they're doing or not. At the same time, it sure would be nice if we could make it so they didn't WANT to initiate violence against us. But if fear of harm is all that will keep thieves from stealing, it's better than letting them rob people.

This brings to mind a related topic--which I'll rant about more in some later message--having to do wit
h condemning the state's mercenaries ("police"), calling them names ("fascists"), insulting them ("Nazi swine"), etc. Believe it or not, I don't just do that to be nasty. I believe it serves a useful, worthwhile purpose to identify evil as evil, and I believe it can be very destructive NOT to do so. I know some people prefer to always be polite and civil, in an effort to "win over" the statists to the idea of self- ownership, but I think in a way that is often inappropriate. The thugs with badges get paid to harass, terrorize, assault, extort, control, and otherwise oppress people who haven't hurt anyone. I don't believe sane people should talk as if it's up for polite discussion whether that's okay or not.

In the ever-popular example of the Nazis, which of the following would have been more appropriate or more effective?: 1) lots of Germans politely trying to point out the philosophical inc
onsistencies in Hitler's agenda, or 2) lots of Germans constantly and viciously condemning the Nazis in the most hostile, insulting, caustic terms imaginable, as soon as that party came into being? If people can be shamed or brow-beaten into not acting like thugs, I'm all for it. Of course, it would be a lot better if they could instead be ENLIGHTENED into choosing the philosophy of self-ownership. And in the long run, that is absolutely what our goal should be. But history has shown all too well, all too often, that in the short term, it's a lot easier to shoot an aggressor than it is to reform him.

I spent years trying to make various IRS employees (and other state mercenaries) consider the possibility that maybe "doing their job" is immoral. Joe Stack spent a day showing them that "doing their job" might be hazardous to their health. Which of us did the IRS folk learn anything from? Sorry to say, I don't think it was me.

Larken Rose

P.S. I have to take this opportunity to throw in a disturbingly appropriate excerpt from my second book, "Kicking the Dragon: Confessions of a Tax Heretic," most of which was written in 2006, during my time as a political prisoner:

"Then along comes this '861' thing, and suddenly I saw, not just a really nasty fraud that needed exposing and resisting, but potentially a means of achieving real positive change (not the fictional kind that politicians endlessly yammer about), WITHOUT violence ... Imagine that: a nonviolent way to rein in some of the government's gargantuan power. Sounds good to me. To be blunt, I still see exposing the income tax deception as the only way to avoid an eventual (but not too distant) large-scale violent conflict between the U.S. government and the citizenry. ... To put it another way, I did what I did in part because I saw this endeavor as the best hope for avoiding large-scale violence AGAINST THOSE IN GOVERNMENT. No, that wasn't a t
ypo. I believe that ending this fraud is the best way for those in government (as well as others) to escape a very nasty end, by allowing for a 'revolution' that requires no bullets and no blood. ... I really wish I had some compelling argument left supporting some hope of success via nonviolence, but I don't. To be blunt, if you read in the news that some IRS paper-pusher or collection thug, or some pseudo-judge, got his or her 'determination' overruled with a baseball bat or a pipe bomb, I won't be very surprised. ... [JFK] said that when you make nonviolent change impossible, you make violent change inevitable. I really do hope, even as I sit here in prison for a crime that the prosecutors and the
judge know I didn't commit, that a bunch of IRS headstones don't start to appear as a confirmation of JFK's words."

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Programs: Keiser Report, 04 February, 2010

Every week Max Keiser looks at all the scandal behind the financial news headlines.

This week Max Keiser and co-host Stacy Herbert look at the scandals behind Hank Paulson's memoir allegations, Hilary Clinton's threats to cut China's energy supply, and Barack Obama's big, big budget. Keiser also talks to former economic hitman John Perkins about whether or not the United States is now being attacked by economic hitmen.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Hirmers' Petition for writ of certiorari

If you at all wonder why I often say, "The Law Is a Fraud!" This is why! Law = Theology.
It is always open to interpretation by the ruling "revelators;" prophets, lawyers, judges of the day. There are NO absolutes, NO immutability, NO divine revelation! The only absolute in the law is the ruling revelator's willingness to use lethal coercion to enforce their interpretation of TheoLawlogy.
This is why Your belief in and reliance upon this shifting quicksand of "lawfulness" must come to an end. Embrace your inner outlaw! Attend to the only law that has ever naturally existed, Natural Law. Embrace what "Nature's God" has shown by example, the Talion Law. The right to retributive justice.
Quit going to the "matrix" for justice. The truism is oft repeated ad nauseum that, "No man is above the law." Humbuggery, Balderdash and Drool!! Man has ALWAYS placed himself above the law because it is up to man to interpret "the law." PoLice, prosecutors, lawyers and judges place themselves above the law everyday by their interpretations of what the "law" means and how to enforce it. Grammar, semantics, hermeneutics means nothing to those whose pattern and practice is deception and brigandism.
Below is evidence again of wherewith I speak!
Nemo me impune lacessit!

Please distribute to your mailing list: 

The Supreme Court of the United States denied the Hirmers' Petition for writ of

Despite having uncontroverted evidence that several states intentionally amended
the language of the 16th Amendment as proposed by Congress, conduct the
government admits violates Art. V of the Constitution, district court judges in
Pensacola, Florida and Chicago, Illinois, the entire panel of the 7th Circuit
court of appeals, three judges in the 11th Circuit court of appeals, and at
least five judges of the Supreme Court (I don't know if any of the judges voted
to grant cert) have each violated their oaths to support and defend the

The denial of the petition for writ of cert in the Benson case has ended that
case. The criminal trial of the Hirmers is scheduled to commence on March 1st. I
am currently preparing for trial. The trial is expected to last between three
and six months.

So what is next now that we know for a certainty that the federal courts are
closed to protecting the Constitution, and the people, from fraud of the
Executive branch of government in the collection of the federal income tax, and
are closed to protecting the First and Fifth amendment rights of those who would
expose that fraud?

I believe it is now incumbent upon the people to press Congress to remove the
culprit judges from office for bad behavior through the impeachment process. The
second is that the people need to press Congress to declare the 16th Amendment
not ratified. Third, is that the people need to take action to widely publicize
the conduct of the federal judiciary and the attorneys working for the goverment
in order to bring about the first and second actions.

Hopefully, there are those among you with the fortitude to assume positions of
leadership to bring about the above suggestions.


Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
500 W. Bradley Rd., C-208
Fox Point, WI 53217
(414) 446-4264

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Scott Brown's Upset Victory Puts Dems on Notice

Watch CBS News Videos Online

It is certainly one of the biggest political upsets, as Republican Scott Brown won the U.S. senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

Brown's victory over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley has dealt a huge blow to President Obama and Democrats, who have now lost their 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, which could doom the health care bill and passage of legislation on climate change and other top priorities for the White House.

"The political consequences are really potentially devastating," CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Chip Reid told Bill Plante on Wednesday's "Washington Unplugged." "If they can't push ahead at all then the president gets labeled as a failure on his major domestic initiatives. If he does push ahead and somehow gets this through moderate Democrats are in trouble and are going to be very worried. It could be a lose, lose proposition."

According to Republican strategist Kevin Madden, "Democrats today are trying to figure out what do they do next and there isn't any consensus on what the answers are. Right now what you saw were voters up in Massachusetts sending a message, a nationalized message quite frankly, that they are upset with the political overreach, the legislative overreach that Democrats have engaged in."

Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis explained, "You have this volatile electorate. It is anti-incumbent, anti-politician. That creates a very volatile political dynamic."

"In terms of our big priorities, whether it's health care, some of the other initiatives, to be frank about it I just don't think we've done as good a job, as effective a job in messaging this, " Kofinis also noted.

Read more.

North Korean Camps - North Korea

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Haiti EarthQuake H.A.A.R.P 2010


by Tom DeWeese
January 13, 2010

In recent years Americans have become more and more alarmed at the lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution exercised by Congress and other elected representatives. The list of violations has grown large indeed.

Some have tried to fight the violations through the election process, attempting to remove those representatives who have perpetrated them. Others have tried to fight infringing legislation as it is introduced. Still others have fought in the courts, attempting to defend liberties in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

To date, little has worked as many elected representatives and court rooms openly defy the Constitution, calling it antiquated. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announce that they now look to international law for precedence and guidance, rather than the Constitution. Government at all levels is growing ever further from the reach of the people. In such a growing desperate situation is it possible to restore the Republic to the vision of the Founding Fathers?

Read more.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Ron Paul's ideas no longer fringe

With the economy still struggling, the lawmaker's libertarian views are getting serious attention.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul, shown in 2007, understands that historical circumstances have thrust his ideas to the fore. "An intellectual fight is going on," he says. (Orlin Wagner / Associated Press)

By Don Lee

January 2, 2010

Reporting from Washington - For three decades, Texas congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul's extreme brand of libertarian economics consigned him to the far fringes even among conservatives. Not a few times, his views put him on the losing end of 434-1 votes on Capitol Hill.

No longer. With the economy still struggling and political divisions deepening, Paul's ideas not only are gaining a wider audience but also are helping to shape a potentially historic battle over economic policy -- a struggle that will affect everything including jobs, growth and the nation's place in the global economy.

Already, Paul's long-derided proposal to give Congress supervisory power over the traditionally independent Federal Reserve appears to be on its way to becoming law.

His warnings on deficits and inflation are now Republican mantras. Read more.

Saturday, December 26, 2009


ThePhaedrus83 wrote:

"Our real enemy is not the ones living in a distant land whose names or policies we don't understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it's profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs..."