IPFS Larken Rose

More About: Revolutions, Rebellions & Uprisings

To Whine or to Resist, That is the Question

Imagine that a rash of burglaries had been happening in your home town, including repeated armed robberies of your local convenience stores and other local shops near your home. And suppose the people in your neighborhood held a meeting to discuss how to put an end to the crime wave, and the discussion went something like this:

Neighbor A: "This situation is intolerable! If we don't put an end to this right now, this town is going down the tubes!"

Neighbor B: "I agree. I can't tell you how angry I am. Good people are constantly being robbed. This has to stop! What are we going to do?"

You: "Well, for starters, are the local shop owners armed, so they can defend themselves? And how about if we do a sort of town watch thing? The crooks are often armed, so it might be good if we either chipped in to hire some armed security service, or have local people with guns taking turns driving around at night, and..."

Neighbor A: "Woaw, let's not start talking crazy! Come on, let's keep the discussion reasonable here."

Neighbor B: "I agree. I don't want to be associated with THAT guy [you]. That's not at all the kind of solution we're looking for."

You: "Huh? What's the problem? Well, if you guys don't like guns, let's at least come up with some way that the shops can easily lock down their places quickly, if they see one of the crooks coming, and then..."

Neighbor A: "Are you talking about trying to actually prevent or resist the robberies??!! We can't do that!"

Neighbor B: "Who invited this guy [you] to this meeting? Look, we're looking for real solutions, not this wacky, kooky stuff."

You: "Well, what did you guys have in mind?"

Neighbor A: "I've been working on a very strongly-worded letter we could send to the crooks, telling them just what we think of them."

Neighbor B: "And I've been planning a protest, with as many people as we can get to attend, where we publicly demand that the criminals stop robbing the local stores."

You: "And what if they don't?"

Neighbor A: "Then I guess we'd have to come up with better letters, or bigger demonstrations."


You may find it hard to imagine having such a bizarre, ridiculous discussion, or trying to deal with people who are that batty. Some of us have no trouble imagining it, however, because we do it on a daily basis, with only a very slight change:

"Patriot" A: "This situation is intolerable! If we don't put an end to this, right now, this country is going down the tubes!"

"Patriot" B: "I agree. I can't tell you how angry I am. Good people are constantly being robbed. This has to stop! What are we going to do?"

And what happens when someone then suggests actually resisting tyranny, even if only passively?

"Patriot" A: "Woaw, let's not start talking crazy! Come on, let's keep the discussion reasonable here."

"Patriot" B: "I agree. I don't want to be associated with THAT guy [me]. That's not at all the kind of solution we're looking for. Who invited this guy to this meeting? Look, we're looking for real solutions, not this wacky, kooky stuff."

And what do they propose, instead?

"Patriot" A: "I've been working on a very strongly-worded letter we could send to our congressmen, telling them just what we think of them."

"Patriot" B: "And I've been planning a protest, with as many people as we can get to attend, where we publicly demand that congress respect our rights!"

And what if they don't (which they certainly won't)?

"Patriot" A: "Then I guess we'd have to come up with better letters, or bigger demonstrations."


There is an enormous, fundamental difference between most people who say they are pro-freedom, and the people who actually believe in individual liberty. Lots of people express "outrage" at the dozens of ways in which those wearing the label of "government" are robbing us, defrauding us, controlling us, harassing us, assaulting us, and so on. But when someone comes right out and suggests resisting, even if only passively, lots of those alleged freedom-lovers either vocally object, or get very quiet.

Now, it's one thing to say that resisting in a certain way at a certain time is unlikely to have any positive effect (and that's often true), but it's quite another to actually be scared of the idea of disobeying the politicians (a.k.a. "breaking the law"), as most self-proclaimed freedom advocates are. If obeying whatever the politicians decide to call "law" is, in your mind, a higher moral obligation than fighting for freedom--yours and everyone else's--then stop pretending to love freedom. If you are still in the mindset of the slave who will bravely beg his master to free him, but who would never dream of running away without his "owner's" permission, then stop telling yourself that you believe in liberty.

The truth is, hardly any Americans these days actually believe in individual liberty and unalienable rights. In fact, even most of those who call themselves conservatives, Constitutionalists and libertarians believe that the only legitimate and civilized way to "resist" tyranny is to beg the masters to please be nicer to us.

And that is why there was such a wide disparity of responses to my July 4th speech in front of Independence Hall, among people who would usually consider themselves to be more or less on the same "side."
I know a lot of people talk about "uniting" and "working together," but my speech--and a lot of what I do, in fact--is intended to divide: divide the whiny slaves from the free men. And we need that divide, because whiny slaves don't ever achieve freedom; better methods of whining is all they will ever contribute to the supposedly shared cause.

When I openly talked about these things last July 4th, in front of Independence Hall (which seemed fitting), it scared some people, offended some people, and fired up some people. Well, now I hope to scare, offend, and fire up more people, now that the video of my July 4th speech has finally been posted online. Whether you agree a little bit, a lot, or completely with what I said in my July 4th "rant," I hope you will send the following link to everyone you know, to at least make them think about things, enough to decide which side they're on:

"You're Not the Boss of Me!"
Video of Larken Rose's July 4th speech.

10 Comments in Response to

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

i still can't believe larken rose talked to me. i'm still in shock.

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

Good brother, you have already wasted more words on me than I warrant. I don't have your stripes.

I sometimes hide behind the swath of me being part native american which is an automatic victimimiztion thing.

I'm not trying to pussy you out.

I'm saying that that my people, your people have already survived at least one genocide.My people have seen the works of genocide. Sadly, you with your orange hair are part of this.

In ancestral terms you killed us and we tried to kill you back.

Notice a complete absense of morality or ethics here? You tried to kill us and we tried to kill you back. If we had guns we would have shot  you with them. If we had repeating rifles, we would have shot you with them and if we had nukes, we would have deployed them

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

In response to Oyate: 1) On behalf of Mr. Kokesh, I take offense at your comparison between us. He's in much better shape than I am. 2) That wasn't actually Mr. Kokesh who introduced me, though it was an easy mistake to make. 3) Most of the colonists did NOT support the American Revolution (though they didn't forcibly oppose it, either). In other words, they were NOT all radical revolutionaries. 4) A "civil war" is merely a struggle over WHO gets to control everyone else. I hope it was clear that that is not something I think would do any good, now or ever. 5) Yes, lots of people in this country (around 90,000,000, I believe) already have the equipment to resist their own government. Whether they have the WILL to do so, and at what point they would dare to do so--or even think about it--remains to be seen. A well-armed nation of sheep is still going to be enslaved. 6) If we could get back to the Constitution, I probably wouldn't waste my breath complaining about it very loudly, at least not very often. But where we are is BECAUSE of the tiny seed of "authority" planted with the advent of the Constitution. (And the anti-federalists like Jefferson saw it coming.) And there is no way--on earth, in heaven, or in hell--to get back to that WITHOUT tearing down the leviathan that now wears the label of "government." You can't gradually or peacefully convert a gang of murderers into protectors. 7) You say, "To summarize, Larkin, we already are that people." Why, then, is there still an IRS? Or a DEA? Or an ATF? Or a Federal Reserve? Or a Congress? Or all the equivalent robbers and thieves at the state level? Yes, the American public have lots of guns, but they also have a deeply ingrained love of subservience to "authority." The victims of the federal extortion machine, for example, outnumber the perpetrators several THOUSAND to one. But it's still there, and still robbing people. Why? Because the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, STILL take pride in their obedience to the so-called "laws" of the political crooks. 8) Finally, in response to another post, my purpose is not to get people to riot, or to make "all people feel free to cap cops." The problem we have is not lack of violence. There is WAY too much violence, the vast majority of which is illegitimate, and done under the guise of "government" and "law." The problem we have is a lack of understanding. For example, notice that my radical suggestion was that everyone should recognize and honor the rights of every single human on the planet, regardless of what any "law" says. Of course, that's incompatible with riots and random violence. (Well, if people only want to destroy their OWN houses and property, that's fine with me, though it would still be pretty silly.) The problem is that, due to their indoctrination into the cult of "authority," nearly all Americans have a hopelessly warped view of the difference between MORAL and IMMORAL force. If people didn't imagine that labeling something as "government" could make theft, invasion, assault and murder into GOOD things (when they're "legal"), we'd be in good shape. In fact, if even 50% of the public understood the difference between immoral (aggressive) force and moral (defensive) force, we wouldn't need any violence at all. All the thieves and thugs who now imagine their crimes to be "law enforcement" (federal and otherwise) would be wetting their pants in terror, knowing that their next intended victim might very well "overrule" their next power trip. The phenomenon of self-preservation would kick in, and even the most power-happy fascists would resign. Again, as I've said elsewhere, I do NOT believe that a revolution would do any good right now. Lots of people would die, the puny minority of people who like freedom would get exterminated, and the collectivist herd would continue on its way to complete enslavement. As long as the American people believe in blind subservience to the collective, the future will be dark. What we need is for people to understand the concept of self-ownership--to stop advocating robbery via "government," and start advocating freedom. As for the feds believing in what they did to Ed and Elaine Brown, or in Waco, the Nazis believed in what they did, too. Should I care? Sorry, but I don't. I care if justice happens, no matter what the delusional fascist drones might think of it. If every fed who invaded Waco had been gunned down, and the Davidians all lived, the world would be a better place. If Ed and Elaine Brown were still free, and their attackers were all dead, that would be a lot closer to justice than what happened instead. The amount of bloodshed is NOT the measure of justice. I'd rather a thousand aggressors be killed by someone exercising the right of self-defense than to have one person imprisoned for a "victimless crime." (Of course, I'd much rather a thousand aggressors wise up and STOP BEING fascist pigs, so they don't start the violence to begin with.) The path to justice AND peace will not come until the people stop thinking that "government" has the RIGHT to commit theft, assault, harassment, kidnapping and murder, just because it calls its crimes "law."

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:


What operating system are you on and what language are you compiling?

 Never mind. I am throwing logic errors left and right. This topic is a "sand in my craw" in that I can neither digest it nor spit it out.

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

Hey I wanted to make another point relevant to the "we ain't the founding fathers" thing.

I'd make a point that in some ways, we should be (we are, but we should continue to be) a voice of legality and restraint.

Larkin, if all hells breaks loose, if all people, really all people feel free to cap cops, what do you think the result will be?

What would the result of lawlessness be in present day society?

We are not yet sufficient in numbers nor influential nor experienced enough to literally steer the seething masses. The socialists and black anarchists are way better trained and exprienced to capitalize on mass riots than we are.

If all the people rise in violence, do you think there will be property destruction or loss of life, our two highest priorities to protect?

I don't like this population for violence. This population, and you and I know it perfectly well, doesn't know it's ass from it's elbow. Ignorant, mired in near superstitious beliefs in the nature of our government, apathetic, spiteful, intolerant, you think we really want to see this population riot? Do you think we are presently capable of turning this rioting population to positive and constructive outcomes?

I freaking hope, if it happens, that we are. We will have to try no matter what. But it's not going to be all glory. It would be a freaking mess.

Switching angles--------

A discussion of "rights" becomes irellevant in the face of pure capability. As of this moment I have the capability to kill 3 humans, 2 dogs and innumerable birds. I could have this job done and have time to cut down all the trees before the cops showed up and I could set fire to the rest insuring almost total destruction of all life withing my sight at this moment. If this is my intent, the job is done irrespective of my "rights" or yours.

In our system, your "rights" in this case would be determined in court post-facto. But nothing could change the fact that I just killed your daddy. Our courts are a method of redress. Not even the cops, in most cases, can apply PREVENTION of crime, they can merely respond. Which is the way we want it.

Get it? Capability renders rights moot. It's a problem we have on the inverse with law enforcement.

But Larkin would respond, I think, that his discussion was limited to FEDERAL AGENTS. Ah, very accurate.

Nice job, imagined Larkin, you just shot down my responses to this point. Pun intended.

OK, he's talking FEDERAL AGENTS. Fair point. I didn't hear larking saying "kill cops", he is saying "feel free to resist FEDERAL violence against your person". Maybe. Perhaps.

I might be being simplistic, but thanks Larkin, I already do. Same as local cops, same as my neighbors, the dogs, the trees, birds, sub-phila, etc. Heck I don't even need guns if I act fast. I could take them down with a machete or an axe before they had proper time to respond. If I was just plain angry, I could probably serve them each with a dent in the head with a rock if that's what I decided would be helping. But at that rate I might as well kill them because these boys would shake it off quick and turn me into something like pudding.

Sometimes when a man gets pushed too far he fights. What a man fights for is a highly personal affair. What might make me fight might be entirely different for you. And if you fight me, my response is guaranteed to be different depending on who you are. One man can spit in my face and get away with it. Another man cannot.

Any sort of pre-supposition of popularizing this scenario at this point is kind of ludicrous. Because here's my central counter-attack (conterfire) on Larkin: kill a fed and then what? Fight lots more feds and die or go to jail for life? Awesome bro. What else do we get?

Imagined voice of Ed McMahan, tell us what else our lucky contestants get!

That's right, our lucky winners will enjoy the instant destruction of their marriages and be estranged from their children! Yes, our winner's businesses and posessions will be sold for scrap as they chew their lips off in jail awaiting possible execution!

Thanks imagined voice of Ed McMahan. Now is anybody curious as to what is behind door number two? Would anybody like to trade for what's behind door number two?

It's my game here so I'll tell you what's behind door number two.

This business of "when will we" should be interpreted by the reader as the author saying "when will I?"

I believe in personal responsibility. I don't call people to action, I call friends. I don't encourage people to violence, I try to talk them down. If you take violent action or if, in the case of John Stuart, my brother and friend, violent action is put upon you or if you stand accused, I will stand with you to the extent that I believe your actions are just and you are clean under the law of God.

If not, I will sadly abandon my support of you.

I take certain issue with those who adopt a rebellious attitude and then say "come and get me" and brandish firearms. I don't like "gun greasers", guys who sit around polishing the shotgun and imagining the day they get to gun somebody down. For the record, I think David Koresh was a gun greaser extraordiaire. Do I condone the Fed response? Fuck no, that was one fucked scene.

Do you think some of those Fed agents don't know this?

Brothers, I have seen these guys, our enemy on video. They hold up pics of their kids and sob. These guys are bent for life. We all got bent on that one. We all in some way fucked up because damn, we lost a lotta kids that day. We all lost. Hands down. Everybody looses, nobody gets a prize but their dog soldiers who live for killing, their gun greasers.

Before I come full circle (sorry, part native, all dialog goes in circles for us), we could have just thrown up a fence around the Waco compound and called it a prison if we were so concerned as a society about their harmful effects but whatever.

With Ed and Elaine Brown things went a bit different.

Ed was a gun greaser, don't deny it. Mr. "Come and get me" himself. And Ed had some supporters but the bulk of the movement as I knew it at the time, we were basically going banannas because we just can't suffer to see more violence to Ed, the Feds or anybody. The wounds of Waco were just too fresh. So we flooded the Marshals with messages of "we want to work with you to try and prevent violence" and "we are not your enemy".

Now listen carefully to what I say and don't read into anything I don't. I congratulate the Fed marshalls for getting the drop on Ed and taking him without permanently injuring him or his nice wife Elaine.

Their treatment post-arrest remains in question but nobody ended up pushing up daisies that day. And this I accorded to be a good thing.

Ed was going down one way or another. Right or wrong, this is where this man made his stand. In this, I cannot judge him.

The feds that put the drop on him probably had him well surveiled, but they still could not have really known whether they would live or die in the approach. These men are brave and they clearly believe in what they did.

Comment by Brock
Entered on:

Oyate, I think you just threw a "cannot evaluate *.nil" error.

I'm having trouble coming up with a "we" collective where "landed here" and "Native American" both evaluate to true, even with the evolution transform applied to all the individual elements.

One way around that would be to ditch the collectivism, and just go with, "yes, Larkin.  You are correct that the individuals currently alive are not the same as the individuals who are long dead" and go on from there.

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

Yeah brothers imagine this, it's almost too sweet.

You are called to duty. Dust off the belts and clean your cookie cutters. You are a deputy under Sheriff Badnarik. Who puts the Bad in the.....narik. What rhymes with narik?

Anyways you are in Texas and you are either riding a pony or a quad. Dressed out in your Raybans and your cowboy hat, you soberly survey the landscape early in the morning, wondering in which house there is hot coffee and pancakes.

But from your hilltop position and under the cover of some cacti, you spot with your binoculars Ed out there stacking wood.

And your trained nose can tell even from here that something, something you know you should react to as a law enforcement officer in Free County, that you must react to: bacon.

And your highly polished deputorial reflexes shift the pony or the quad into action because you have a hunch, you just know that if you help Ed stack the firewood he'll practically have to ask you inside and you get some of his wife's tasty bacon.

Later in the day you break up three drunken brawls and help settle the argument about who's solar panel is infiringing on who's wind turbine's air flow.

Sounds like the best job in the world to me boys.

Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

ok here's my review.

The first thing I noticed is that Larkin looks just like Adam Kokesh these days. But that turned out to be Adam introducing Larkin.

Next, I'm immediately drawn into deep thought because I think deeply upon the nature of activism and dissent.

Where is the spirit? It's here. Freedom is not enchained in our founding documents or in our history, it's universal. In a sense, we don't express it as much it expresses itself through us.

Getting to the meat of Larkin's argument, he is correct in that we have become a civic society. The colonial setting was entirely different. Back then we had a continent full of natives and Ayn Rand's perfect sweet hearts. Men who left civic society to be and do for themselves. It would be like if us patriots found yet another continent and we all moved there. Get it? As it is now, we're PART of a population, not practically the WHOLE population.

So right or wrong, we are now simply part of a political dynamic. Given as republicanism and freedom and such are CONCEPTS on the political stage and given the sad fact that socialism has gained traction with something like HALF THE NATION, what we have here is a classic political confrontation. Which is one of the things we've been angling for politically for 30 years.

But let's get this straight. If we're talking confrontation, we could be talking rebellion but if we're not careful, we're talking civil war. One could call it politics and one could say that war is essentially political and one could say that war is essentially economic but it's also essentially really fucked up and ugly.

And in reality, there is no such thing as a civil war. War is fundamentally un-civil.

If I've steered this down a blind corner or straw-manned it, fine. Larkin saved the best for last.

And here's my response. I think most people already have the ability to forceably resist law enforcers. Look on Youtube and see all kinds of people resisting law enforcement. Look on the news and see occasional but highly publicized accounts of people killing cops.

My obligation is indeed to judge right and wrong according to the conscience in my heart and I do have the right of choice. And we are in fact the most highly armed population the Earth has ever seen.

It's a great argument on our part. If guns caused violence, we should be seeing people getting capped left and right now due to recent spikes in gun sales. And we saw the gun stores run out of AFTF forms but we ain't heard nothing about Fish And Game running out of hunting license permit applications.

I don't think anybody has to wonder out loud why the American people suddenly decided they needed to be armed. Every time a finger rests on a trigger there is a decision made.

Funny thing how we don't see all these gun buyers out at demonstrations. Funny how we set up tables at gun shows and most of these people don't know who we are and never heard of us. These people aren't "us" in the sense of being political activists, these people are voting with their wallets and their vote is for "get 'em now and hold onto them" which implies the old axiom "from my cold dead hands". Which some folks have handily escalated into "come and take it". I appreciate the sentiment. For what it's worth, all the people wearing federal badges probably appreciate the sentiment too, and very deeply.

So as they go through tactical training, who's face do you think they see? Osama Bin Laden or one of us? They go to gun shows, they see the t-shirts. Just for what it's worth, amping up hostility for any reason remains amping up the hostility.

But here's my real answer to "you ain't the boss of me". We're essentially making a LEGAL argument, not a political one in the sense that we want to RESTORE a republic, not tear it down, not remake it in our own image, not screw with it but to RESTORE it.

Our founding documents (and fathers) were very well versed in Hobbes (that paranoiac) and Locke (that philanderer) and all the rest, but this notion of social contract and how an individual must give up certain liberties to be in a society, and the basic purpose of a society is  a mutual contract to protect life and property. This, they proposed, was the only purpose of any social organization atall in "nature" as they perceived it.

So there's a perfectly rational, reasonable and historical precedent for people feeling and thinking that having law enforcement is NECESSARY.

Hey, the very next day, this is about a year ago, but the very next day after I heard about Granny Warriors "Free County" project, Badnarik and I are talking and he's already been nominated for sheriff.

Not only that, but the next day I was talking to Quince (remember Quince?) and he said he'd already volunteered for deputy and I said "you son of a bitch" because I had already volunteered for deputy. And I realized that every man in the movement who has ever worn a duty belt would be competing for that position. Would I like to be a law enforcer in a community of patriots? Fuck yeah! Do I think the job would be a walk in the park? Fuck no, you people are loons. This movement can't agree on what to have for breakfast. Do I suppose that you will resist any authority I might try to apply to you? Unless you are feeling ill that day or just plain tired, I'd expect to get a nose-full for even stopping by.

And the implications of me walking up on your house when I know perfectly well you probably out-man, out-arm and can possibly out-fight me is would not be lost on me.

In short, I think it would be the greatest job in the world.

To summarize, Larkin, we already are that people. Out there are millions, literally millions of fingers on millions of triggers. IMHO, the American people presently have all the capability for bloodshed and violence necessary for any scenario.

Simple restraint keeps these fingers from pulling. Perhaps a rational or perhaps a primordial fear of utter social collapse.

We are not the same people who landed here centuries ago. For better or worse, we have evolved.

Comment by CharS
Entered on:

I plan to whine, and THEN resist.

Win-win situation ;)


Comment by foundZero
Entered on:

ok i get it. now i have to watch the 4th of July speech. clever Larkin. ok, i'm running out for a 6-pack and i'll settle down and watch the speech.