Larken Rose

Friday, May 02, 2003

From my Cold, Dead Fingers!

Dear List Subscriber,

For whatever reason, both of my web sites were down for a little while yesterday, but now they're both up and running again. A few people asked if I had been censored by the DOJ (as nite.org and taxgate.com have been). The answer is a resounding "NO."

They can have my computer keyboard when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

For those who don't know, the feds DID start the procedure to try to censor me (the same one they have successfully used against Thurston Bell, Taxgate, and several others). We had one meeting about it a year and a half ago (on 10/18/01), and they haven't made another peep about it since then. Here is the full transcript of that meeting:

Click here for full transcript of meeting.

This little excerpt pretty much sums up the meeting:


Me: According to your letter that you sent, you are, quote, considering possible actions under sections 6700, 6701 and [7408] of the Internal Revenue Code relating to penalties and an injunction action for promoting abusive tax shelters. First I want to see if we agree on what 6700 is actually about. That section describes a penalty for anyone who organizes or sells any entity, plan or arrangement, and then tells people that they can become entitled to some tax exemption or benefit, quote, by reason of holding an interest in the entity or participating in the plan or arrangement, end quote. Do you agree with that characterization of the penalty?

Revenue Agent: Yes, that’s accurate.

Me: Okay. Can you please describe what plan or arrangement you think I’m involved in that comes anywhere near that description?

Revenue Agent: Well, that’s the purpose of our little discussion here today. If we had the information we needed to make a determination, we would not need to consult you.


Keep in mind, that was half a year BEFORE my video came out. The web site (www.taxableincome.net) had been up for over three years, without EVER selling ANYTHING, and without ever telling people what to do, what to file, etc. This was unquestionably an attempt at censorship (a failed attempt, luckily), without even a flimsy legal excuse.

There are NO pending civil actions or criminal charges against me (nor have there ever been). You'll hear about it if they try anything else on me. But let me say in advance, I won't shut up. Ever. If they try an injunction--even if they get one--I won't shut up. If they try to prosecute me, I still won't shut up. Best of all, if I die (accidentally or otherwise), I still won't shut up. (That will be a nifty trick... that I hope won't be necessary.)

A lot of people have warned me to lay low, don't make too much noise, and be careful about what I say. (Ironically, some of them now have injunctions against them.) If I "lay low" and don't make too much noise, then I LOST. No deal.

As long as I live, and as long as the income tax deception lives, my message will ALWAYS be: "Hey, you slimy federal cowards, COME GET ME! Censor me! Prosecute me! TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT!" I have no intention of "laying low" like some peasant in a third-world dictatorship. THEY are the ones breaking the law. Not me. Let THEM cower in fear. Let THEM hide from US. Let them slink into corners, like Jim South has done. Let them avoid us, like Pam Olson has done. Force THEM to behave like the criminals they are. I intend to behave like someone who has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and the pursuit of justice to boot).


Larken Rose

Wednesday, April 30, 2003


Dear List Subscriber,

As I've said before, people who are guided by emotions and feelings are easy to manipulate, control, and oppress. But people who can think for themselves, who dare to disagree with what "everyone knows" or "everyone says" when the EVIDENCE points the other way, will come out on top.

I've done a few things in the past to illustrate this (including my fake "press release" by the DOJ). If you find yourself surrendering a debate, not when refuted, but just when CONFUSED, you need to feel less and think more. Mushy-headed thinking is a tyrant's dream.

"Do you support the new welfare spending bill, or do you want poor people to starve?" That is the kind of bunk that politicians CONSTANTLY do. In fact, it's just about ALL they ever do, regardless of what party they're in. Find ANY speech of ANY politician, and see if it doesn't fit this mold: "Unless the government quickly passes legislation to _________, there will be horrible consequences for the American people in the near future!"

They keep doing it, because most people fall for it. They are professional MANIPULATORS. They want your money, and they want your LIFE. They want to control EVERYTHING you do. What you eat, where you work, what you think, and on and on. What makes someone want to run for public office? The desire to CONTROL HIS NEIGHBORS. You can give me all the claims about noble intentions you want, but what politicians ALWAYS end up doing is writing "legislation," which means new requirements and prohibitions carried out by FORCE. By definition, the people who want that job are people who want everyone else to be under THEIR control. If someone who doesn't want that runs for office, they either lose horribly because they aren't good at manipulating peoples' emotions, or they leave when they learn that the system is 100% incompatible with advocating freedom, or they become unprincipled professional leaches, like everyone else there.

(If any of you want to point out Ron Paul as one possible exception, ask him the three questions of Operation Honest Inquiry. You may find that Mr. Paul is only pro-freedom and pro-truth when it helps his own agenda.)

Anyway, to get back to the point... If you can be led around by your emotions, insecurities, and impulses, then you WILL be manipulated and controlled. Try this:

You: "Should I use 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine my taxable domestic income?"

Status quo proponent: "Those sections exist mainly to allocate or apportion appropriate deductions between statutory groupings and residual groupings, for those few taxpayers to whom such allocations or apportionments are necessary, such as nonresident aliens who receive effectively connected income. Or, if you receive a class of gross income, and an operative section of the code instructs you to apply certain rules for apportioning expenses (by applying certain formulas) between non-exempt income and income exempted under an operative section, then Section 861 applies. Otherwise, it doesn't."

Oooooh. Aaaaaah. Oh how learned, oh how wise. Oh what a bunch of BUNK.

I know that a LOT of you who read that paragraph above didn't understand it, because you're not familiar with the terms in it. The length, the complexity, and the authoritative tone of it--but NOT THE SUBSTANCE--probably intimidated a LOT of you. You didn't understand it, but FELT that maybe it was crrect, because it "sounded good."

That is an example of being manipulated. What evidence did the paragraph provide? NONE. Not a shred. It was a big, baseless but knowledgeable-sounding assertion. THAT is what most lawyers, and most IRS employees, will try to use against you. They can't beat you with logic or evidence; so they will try to beat you with obfuscations, complications, distractions, and intimidations... if you let them. They will tangle up your mind until you surrender to their "expertise"... if you let them.

You have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the issue better than they do, if you don't want to be susceptible to the intimidate-and-manipulate tactics. Trouble is, the government lawyers DESIGNED it to be confusing and convoluted, PRECISELY so they could confuse people into submission. And it worked.

When someone says something, and sounds confident and knowledgeable, most people will intellectually cringe before them. Who are YOU to argue with the wise and learned experts? Didn't you see them telling you that you're WRONG (or even that your beliefs are "frivolous")?!? Surely that should be enough to get you to shut up, stop trying to think for yourself, and get back in line.

I was a quiet, polite, obedient kid in school. Now I think that people who claim "authority" are almost always the scourge of humanity. While I don't suggest that all of you adopt my rather radical attitude, it sure does help weaken the manipulation abilities of the self-proclaimed "experts." I don't CARE how learned or confident someone sounds; I only care if they can present to me EVIDENCE and LOGIC that back up their claims. Not to be paranoid, but I think being hyper-cynical and suspicious is probably a very good thing whenever you listen to anyone in the media, in government (especially), or any other so-called "expert." If you're NOT extremely suspicious of everything you hear, you will be easily controlled.

I'm sure most of you have heard of "Bowling for Columbine." I'm not going to bother to argue about the point of the program (if it even had one); I just want to use it as an example. Forget bias for a second (which everyone has). Michael Moore BLATANTLY LIED in his "documentary." His "edits"--a.k.a. "falisifications"--of what Charleton Heston said are an excellent example of control-via-emotions. Again, for right now I don't care what you think of Charleton Heston, or the NRA, or gun control, etc. I only care if you are susceptible to manipulative propaganda. If you want to see an example of how someone can be very persuasive, as long as he doesn't mind being completely dishonest, check this out:


A lot of people consider "Bowling for Columbine" to be the most glorious revelation ever put on film. Too bad it's a parade of lies, distorting evidence beyond recognition to serve an agenda

Now consider the IRS lawyers. Imagine what they have to lose when the "income tax" fraud collapses. Imagine the HUGE resources available to them. Imagine the respect they automatically have from the "peasantry." (The public may not LIKE government lawyers, but they are in awe of their positions and credentials.) With all that in mind, what should we expect from the IRS, and the politicians, when it comes to the "income tax" deception? They have the DESIRE, the MEANS, and the lack of honesty required to do ANYTHING NECESSARY to try to manipulate and intimidate you, and everyone you know, into dropping the issue.

Whether it WORKS depends upon whether you are able and willing to out-think them.


Larken Rose

(P.S. There, that was a "hit" for those masochists among you who told me that recently they've been missing my ridiculously long rants.)