Taxation is the price. We pay for failing to build a
civilized society. The higher the tax level, the
greater the failure, a centrally planned totalitarian state
represents a complete defeat for the Civilized World, while a
totally voluntary Society represents its ultimate success.
Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone today.
We have Mark and Rose the author of the most dangerous
Superstition, mandatory reading for anyone interested in
understanding the world around them and Mark, passio of what on
Earth is happening at. Lutely, must see his seminar
titled natural law first question to Mark.
Passio Mark. What is freedom?
I would say that freedom is a state whereby, individuals can
exercise their rights unrestrained from coercion and
or the initiation of aggression through coercion, and that that
is the natural state of humanity.
Humanity should be living in the the state.
Whereby. Our rights are not constrained
or basically. We are threatened.
I the initiation of physical Force, duress, coercion for the
exercise of rights, which are actions that do not cause do not
initiate harm to other sentient beings.
So, that to me is the state of true Freedom, Mark and Rose.
What is for him? Pretty much what he said, I
think, you know, people often confuse the notion of well, I
should be free to have a house and do this and do that.
And the other thing and they Don't read realize that Liberty
is actually, and right, sort of a negative concept.
It doesn't mean you have the right to fly to the moon.
Like, well, you have the right to have nobody else, forcibly?
Stop. You from flying to the moon, but
you have to find a way to fly to the moon if you want to fly to
the moon. So Freedom doesn't mean I can do
whatever I want. It means other people aren't
forcibly, interfering with me doing whatever I can inside what
I want, you know, inside the I'm not restricting other people.
So Larkin. When you say, do I have a right
to do something? What we're really saying is is a
person morally justified in doing an action insofar as it
doesn't initiate, fraud or aggression, anything more
specific on what I write is that you want to pinpoint.
Well just that it's the - to say, I've right to speak.
My mind just means nobody else should forcibly stop me from
speaking. My mind.
I mean, if I'm alone on an island, what does it mean?
To have the right to freedom of speech, kind of nothing because
there's nobody else there who could possibly forcibly
interfere. It's just a statement of a
negative to say. I have a right to X.
Just means if I choose to do X. Nobody should violently
intervene to try to stop. That's all it needs.
Mark. Passio.
What is a right, a, right, is an action that does not initiate
harm against another sentient being.
It's a very simple definition, and as Larkin already pointed
out. That is a negative definition.
You'll notice that I didn't go on a spree of listing rights.
Okay. I said a right is an action.
First of all, that's what we're all rights are rights, our
actions. There are things that people can
do and should be able to do unrestrained.
But we're defining a right in the - as Larkin said, okay.
It is an action that does not initiate harm to other sentient
beings. So anything that doesn't do that
falls Within In the boundaries of the human, right?
And it's a very short list of what the harmful behaviors are
that do initiate harm against other sentient beings and that's
murder. Assault.
Rape, theft, trespass, coercion willfully line.
Those are the seven. What I call the seven true seven
deadly sins, the seven transgressions against natural
law, the seven transgressions against other people's other
beings inherent rights Mark, what is natural law?
Natural law is a set of Changeable non man-made binding,
a nun and immutable conditions that ultimately govern, the
consequences of the behaviors that those who have the capacity
for holistic intelligence choose through their Free Will.
So I consider it the karmic Force.
I consider it the spiritual laws in the universe that ultimately
govern whether whole societies of beings of intelligent beings
live either free or live enslaved.
It governs. What I call the law Freedom that
as the morality of a group of people increases, they become
more free. And as the morality of a group
of people declines or degrades, they become more enslaved.
That is how natural law functions essentially, to give
us the consequences of our freely chosen behaviors.
Morgan. What are your thoughts on
natural law? And whether or not you think
morality is objective. There is a right way for human
beings to interact with one another.
Yeah, if morality is an objective, then it isn't
anything. If everybody's opinion, is
equally valid on the, the topic that it's literally,
meaningless. Like if the serial killer, who
thinks it's okay to Butcher and eat his neighbors if that's just
as accurate, a moral view as the people who say you shouldn't do
that, then it's meaningless. I don't usually use the term
natural law, but I talked about the same concept using
different. Terminology all over the place,
and it's about how people should behave.
It is a moral, should it isn't, you know, it's not something you
create or generate or, you know, legislate into existence.
It's just a description of here is, what is when it comes to
right and wrong. And of course, there are
different opinions, you know, and gray areas and people think
well, I think this is bad in this is good, but that's us
trying to figure out the natural.
I'm not trying to invent it. It's like people still argue
about science and have this Theory and that theory.
It's still a matter of figuring out what we are supposed to be
and how we're supposed to behave.
And, you know, the obvious parts are like, don't attack people
that don't Rob them, and then people can get to gray areas and
stuff. But natural law to me, is just a
term, that that defines. How are people supposed to
behave and the number one, glaring, in your face rule is
don't aggress against others. Morgan, what is government?
And why are you anti-government government is the notion that
certain political rituals, whether it's elections are
appointments or whatever else can actually dystopia upon a
select group of human beings, the right to rule.
It's not just about the ability to control.
Lots of people, you know, if they have a gun, might have the
ability to control their neighbor by force that doesn't
make them government. Government is the Sighs of
authority, meaning the right to rule which never actually
exists. The right is imagined the thugs
are real. The guns are real.
The violence is very real, all too real, but the right to do
it, the authority to do, it is always a lie.
So the problem is not the thing over there called government.
It is the fact that people view it as government as a thing that
actually has the right to coercively control.
Us. And that's why I talked about
the fact that those people in their guns are not actually the
problem, the belief system, and people imagining that there is
such thing as a legitimate, you know, rightful ruling class.
That is the problem, Mark. What is government?
And why do you not support the legitimacy of government?
Or a state government is a false and illusory, religious belief.
I would go even further and say that government is a Colt.
It is a cult belief system because the definition of a cult
is a religious belief that is actually harmful to members that
are not is its Believers or adherence.
And the basic belief structure of those who believe in
government is that there is such a thing called Authority that is
vested in man, and that is entirely rooted in the concept
of violence, which is the initiation of harmful Behavior
toward other beings that are exercising.
Their Rights, because of the commands or demands of a ruling
class that call themselves, the legislators or lawmakers that
want to impose, their will violently upon other beings.
Coercively. Violently upon other beings and
therefore, restrain their rights.
That's what government is to me. And ultimately, if you really
take what I just said there and condense it down, it comes down
to three. Simple words, government is
slavery. Mark what is anarchism anarchism
simply is the state by which there are no rulers over other
people. There are no Masters and there
are no slaves. The word anarchism is actually,
derived from two Greek words, the prefix, a, or an in Greek
simply means without, or the absence of.
And the now, Narcos archon in Greek means ruler or master in
the actual. Annotate of sense of being an
owner of other people like a slave owner, a king who rules
over its subjects. A master in that sense not
someone who has come to a very low level of advanced knowledge
and is therefore called a master of some skill set or something
like that. The connotation of the word
Arcos or Arcana in Greek means a master over a slave or a king
who is above his subjects. So, if you put those two root
words together and an archon where we get Anarchy, It simply
means the absence of rulers or Masters and therefore that means
that there are no Masters and no slaves and that is called the
state of Freedom Larkin. What is anarchism?
Well, he just gave it a perfect definition of Anarchy.
Anarchism is the advocacy of that to me.
It's it's even sort of silly and funny that there need to be such
words. Like there is not a word that
means. Someone who doesn't believe in
Santa Claus, there is not a word that means someone who doesn't
Advocate killing and eating his neighbors, like, government and
authoritarianism, and statism is insane and immoral.
But because it's so rampant, there needs to be a term.
That means, I'm one of the people who doesn't want somebody
to violently dominate. You I think the day will come.
And I don't even think it's all that far in the future when
nobody will use the word because it will literally Everybody
because everyone will have outgrown this this Superstition,
but for now being an anarchist literally just means I don't
want to rule or for me and I don't want a ruler for you.
I want you to be actually free. And to me, that's that's just
sort of the step, one of being a decent human being.
I don't even see it. As some, you know, outlandish
philosophy. It's just like how to be
civilized 101. You have this great quote in
your book if human beings are so careless, stupid and malicious
that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
How would the situation be improved by taking a subset of
those? Very same careless, stupid and
malicious human beings and giving them societal permission
to forcibly control, all the others.
Excellent point in the most dangerous Superstition Mark.
Passio. What is gun control?
A gun control is the restraint by the ruling class and or their
enforcers to coercively and violently restrain.
The natural inherent right of self-defense with firearms from
the people who they consider that they have, the right to
rule over. And it is a coercive violent
Behavior, because it actually initiates harm against someone
else's property. Namely the right of
self-defense. Larkin.
Help us get through this euphemism here.
What is gun control? Really mean?
We have Justin Trudeau yesterday saying that, I hereby declare
all military grade weapons. Illegal, of course, not for the
state, a monopoly, for the state Larkin.
What is gun control really mean? Help us get to the heart of it.
Almost everything that government does.
It uses euphemisms for? And it dishonestly describes.
Gun control is a shining example.
It's this nice sounding. Oh, We're sort of limiting,
something scary or something. It is the accurate term is
basically peasant disarmament. It's the ruling class because
they never apply it to themselves.
It's the ruling class saying, and even this skips part of it,
you're not allowed to have guns at all, or certain guns, or
certain kinds of guns. And by not allowed to, they
mean, if we catch you doing this, we will send men with
guns. To come capture you for
disobeying us. So, gun control is literally a
form of gun violence immoral in every way because it is 100%
aggression in the immoral to tell someone for merely
possessing that thing I & my thugs with their guns, I'm going
to come, you know, capture and cage you, it's the irony, is
that what is called gun control is literally a vicious immoral.
Example of gun violence Mark passio is an excellent video
called the second out, the true meaning and purpose of the
Second Amendment Mark. I'm curious.
Why do you oppose gun control? Isn't it?
Just about helping people and making sure we as a society are
safe and Cooperative, not at all.
It's about creating a power differential between the ruling
class and the rest of the people.
And that's what government always seeks to do, to enhance
its own power. At the cost of the average
individual and their rights and freedom.
I'm opposed to it because I understand that each individual
has the inherent right to defend themselves.
From coercion and violence. So long as they are not
initiating harm against another sentient being.
And what gun control is is, as Larkin said, is the initiation
of Violence by the people who are doing the bidding of the
ruling class to actually, you know, conduct violence.
Peaceful people simply for owning a piece of equipment.
If an individual doesn't have the right to perform an action,
the action cannot be delegated or granted to any other
individual or group and thereby magically turn a wrongdoing into
a right. There is no such thing as the
delegation of a wrong, you know, so if an individual would not
have the right to go and seize forcibly, and coercively, and
violently someone else's property that right, cannot be
granted to any other individual or group of people and then
called a, right. So we all have the same natural
inherent rights and included. In those, those same natural
inherent rights, that each individual has and no one has
any more or less than anyone else is the right to defend.
Your physical self, your physical being your property,
your rights and your freedom from the initiation of
aggression by others. Now, Larkin, how can you not
support gun control For Heaven's Sake?
The u.s. Is this gun-toting place?
And that's why There's so much gun violence, 30,000 a year
Larkin. How can you seriously oppose gun
control? First of all?
Because it is gun violence, like I explained before and I oppose
people using guns for bad things.
So much of the way state is think.
And voters, think in the way government functions is like a
teacher and little kids, like the teacher saying, well, you
little kids, when you're in my classroom, you're not allowed to
have guns. You're not allowed to do this.
Like we're grown-ups the notion that a politician should a have
a whole bunch of armed guards himself and then be should tell
the rest of us. You're not allowed to have what
my thugs have every day and will use on you.
If you disobey me because you're just kids and it's too scary.
It's too risky. You're too unstable to for
anyone to accept that view as basically for them to accept the
fact that they're either a helpless child or a slave or
both. Of and gun control is completely
founded on the notion that the Masters have the right to decide
for us. What we are allowed to possess
in order to defend ourselves from, you know, from criminals
from Invaders, or from the master himself.
In at the end of the day. That is the only reason they
ever push gun control. Because if you had human
livestock, would you want it to have guns?
Mark? Passio?
Do you not care about the Ends of Americans who died at the
hands of gun violence. Just because someone else
initiates harm or aggression doesn't mean that other people
lose their rights as a result. You know, this is totally flawed
logic. That is often put out there by
people who are Advocates of ridiculous forms of violence,
like gun control, you know, I would Advocate that people,
learn how to defend themselves against the initiation of
violence, instead of trying to limit people from doing that.
It's the idea that, you know, if let's say a lion attacks, a
gazelle, and they did, Did it with teeth that then you disarm
and take all the teeth out of the gazelle, so they have no
ability to even bite their their aggressor.
You know, that's what gun control is the equivalent of.
It's, it's basically saying because they're bad, people who
might do violent things with Firearms.
Let's take them away from the people and let them lose their
ability to possibly defend themselves from such attacks.
It's completely and utterly flawed logic.
And again, as we've pointed out over and over again, is a form
of violence with guns, which we firmly stand.
Exactly. And the 30,000 annually.
Statistic is first of all a lie, because half of those are
suicides. It's not violence.
If you do it to yourself any more than we spending my own
money is stealing from myself. And also a lot of those are Gang
Related. And government is the number one
cause of mafias and gangs because they outlaw things like
gambling drugs, prostitution drive them underground just as
there's no Al Capone today, being violent with alcohol,
there wouldn't be any if there wasn't a government pushing a
drug war or any of these these black markets Mark and Rose.
What? Is there?
Any other important message you would like to communicate about
gun control? You feel is not generally
understood. Well, I think there there really
is a trained in immaturity to a lot of people.
Now in the u.s., There are a lot of exceptions to this.
There are a lot of people in the US who do take it upon
themselves to realize. Hey, I'm just as responsible as
anybody else. If there's, you know, if there's
some scary person out there, why would Sit on my button.
Hope Authority saves the day, you know, if I have a gun, if I
have the means and the ability to go stop the bad guy.
It's just as much my job as anybody else's, but there are
also. So many people in the country
who have this immature notion that if we just sit tight and
wait for authority to save us and protect us and tell us what
we're allowed to have and what we're doing.
Like everything will turn out fine.
First of all, those people need to read a damn history book, but
second of all, they literally need to grow up people who Leave
in government literally need to grow up and realize, this is the
real world. There's you.
There's other people were in this together so to speak.
And if you want yourself to be defended by somebody with a gun,
which you do. If you dial 911, Here's a
thought. Have somebody with a gun
already. Be at your house by having it be
you. And the fact that so few people
even think about that and realize that if We're going to
cheer for the forcible protection of the innocent.
Why don't you just be one of the people who do that?
You don't need a badge. You don't, you just special
Authority. You need to grow up and be moral
and responsible. Another way.
They lie with Statistics is saying, well, in 1996, Australia
had a gun ban, and, you know, everything went fine violence
has decreased what they don't tell you is the seven years
prior violence was all gun. Violence was also on the fall
and they use A seven year period from about 96 to 2000 three
violence in Australia. Fell about 22% in the US and
that same seven year, period, gun violence, fell twenty nine
percent. So, this is how they'll vote.
The world was just for whatever reason.
You can't say that was as a causal result of the gun
confiscation bill. So that's why it's so important
to not fewer statistic, go do a bunch of research and then find
out that the person was just using it as a stalling tactic.
We got to get down to the principal's.
Um, oh and one other thing it's like does government not also
kill innocent people with guns. I mean every criticism up.
Well, but innocent people will die.
If civilians have guns have government's ever killed
civilians. I don't know, Eric Garner Waco
World War One, World War, Two Vietnam War King.
Leopold. Like there's a there's all these
examples Mark passio final thoughts on gun control.
Those who advocate for gun control are Advocates of
violence and people never really look at it.
That way. They think that they're doing
the right thing. But what they are actually
saying is we believe that a special class of people who
magically have more rights than other people do have the right
to come and coercively and violently suppress other
people's rights with gun violence.
I mean imagine that you know, that's what the people who are
Advocates of gun control actually believe and yet still
believe that they are good people.
Quote unquote now Advocates of violence.
Now Market, you have been very critical of the police.
However, it's I guess no one's told you that they're just doing
their job and they don't make the laws congress.
Makes the laws For Heaven's Sake, Mark.
Why are you so critical of police when they don't make the
laws in, they're just doing their job.
Well, the SS the schutzstaffel, the highest level levels of the
Nazi of Vermont and high command in Nazi.
Germany also issued orders and You know, the the people who
were undergoing war crimes tribunals at nürnberg offered
that same excuse the Nuremberg defense, and it didn't work
there, because there is no excuse for following and moral
orders. Someone is commanding you and
saying we're giving you an order to go and suppress someone
else's natural rights through coercion and violence.
The answer is you have to say, no, and or quit that job.
See, I don't really believe that there is any use or Reason?
Or police forces to exist because I believe in total
personal responsibility. That means that each individual
should take it upon themselves for their own defense.
Because no one is closer to your own body than you.
First of all, it is impossible for someone else to actually
engage in self defense forward on another individual because
you can never get there faster than the individual themselves.
This is one of the first and foremost principles of all
martial arts, including self-defense with Firearms, so I
don't think that we should. Try to give any group of people
Especial select group of rights that we say that other people
don't possess. Because as soon as you do that,
you're creating a differential in power and that's always going
to be abused by people who are flawed human beings and it's a
it's a fundamentally flawed axiomatic idea from the very
beginning from Jump Street. That is a flawed axiomatic idea
to say, anyone else should be personally responsible for your
self defense. No, you You need to be
personally responsible for your self defense and learn self
defense techniques through martial arts and the usage of
firearms. Larkin are the police
responsible for enforcing immoral laws.
Absolutely. And as much as I talk about how
voters and Advocates of government think like children,
that is even more true of cops and enforcers.
The ironic thing is they pretend to be where the tough rugged
bad, guys. Keeping you they are physically
and intellectually the most immature people there are
because when you challenge them and say you're doing something
immoral, they say I'm just doing what I'm told.
It's like a little kid in classroom.
The teacher told me. Do this.
So I'm doing it and you know, I can't be expected to have a
conscience or a brain or the ability to distinguish right
from wrong or take responsibility for what I am
personally doing. It really is the most cowardly
and evil thing. Anybody can do to give away
their own judgement and conscience and Free Will in
blindly. Obey, some imaginary outside
Authority. And that's what cops and
soldiers are. And of course, they would never
extend that courtesy to you. Yes, officer.
I was dealing drugs but this is my job.
My Pablo Escobar boss told me to do this.
So do Lobby him to change. His policy of selling things.
Don't, don't cage me. I'm just doing my job.
I'm just a hired assassin. I'm just a hired bank robber,
and house Invader. It's so it's so obvious.
Once you apply the principle that they pretend to believe in
consistently. You see, they don't apply it
anywhere in their own life. Mark passio.
I was reading David Schmidt's, a philosopher at the University of
Arizona and he says Freedom Classical liberalism
libertarianism means the ability to say no, how do you respond
Mark 100%? Absolutely agreed.
I'm a huge study, our of esoteric philosophy and the
Occult. As many people who know my
background and my work would know.
And the word no is actually referred to as the Lost word in
the occult. Science and art of Freemasonry,
and that is the word of all power as far as I'm concerned.
See, that is the ability to basically tell an aggressor.
I'm not going to tolerate this form of coercion violence or
aggression, against my natural rights, my freedom, my property,
Etc. And you have to be able to say
no with teeth. You can't just use it as a word
and expect people who are Psychopathic in their mindset.
And hell bent on committing violent acts to just hear the
word. No and go.
Oh, okay. I guess you're right.
I'll back down, you know, saying no with teeth means you have to
always maintain the ability to defend yourself with physical
force. And again, that is done in the
modern world through the equalizer known as Firearms.
I would also say you could say no with teeth through some form
of personal. Self-defense in the form of
martial arts as well, which I also practice and study but
Firearms are so important when it comes to equalizing a
potential huge discrepancy in physical power, you know, like
for instance a very thin Woman versus a you know, a 260-pound
huge muscled man, you know, so absolutely.
I say that everyone really has to have the ability to say no
with teeth. That is part of Preserving our
inherent right of self-defense, especially with Firearms.
So Larkin what I hear from this is saying no is saying, no, I
don't want to be part of society.
No, I don't want to do anything for anyone else is freedom.
Is this a philosophy of being selfish Larkin?
Not in the slightest? Well, unless you mean selfish in
the the good sense of it is my responsibility to take care of
myself and like not I don't care what happens to anybody.
Else, but I'm in charge of me and I'm responsible for my
actions. But I think when it comes to the
notion of saying No, this discussion just reminded me of
many years ago. I wrote a little flyer thing
that was titled stop saying please and it was about how so
many people, the closest thing they get to say no to
authoritarian, control freaks is asking them nicely to, please.
Give us permission to have a little bit more freedom.
And so, the whole article of stop saying, please was about
stop telling these people that it's their choice.
What you are allowed to do, what you do.
When you vote, or you protection there.
When you do anything other than saying, no, I'm not going along
with this. I will disobey, I will resist, I
don't care what your laws say. I don't care what your
legislation says. I don't care what the majority
says. I don't care.
What anything else says I say no.
And yes, that is absolutely a lost art.
Or whatever you want to call it in so many people because even
so many people who say, they believe in Freedom, spend so
much of their time asking the politicians to please give us
their legislative permission to be a little bit more free.
If you are asking somebody else for your freedom, you're not
even free inside your own head. It's pretty incredible.
They've gotten the philosophy of peace and non-aggression to mean
selfishness mean. Why are the their philosophy is?
You have to obey Ari? Because we wrote them down and
voted and if we're going to catch you and shoot you, if you
resist, Mark Pesce, if I may add a quick a quick addendum to that
saying, no, I mean, the the the very first as far as I'm
concerned of all human rights is the right to be left alone and
the right to refuse participation in something, you
know, I mean, imagine someone saying You must do this thing
and you not being allowed to say no.
That is called slavery to command another person.
And compel. Their behavior is to say, is the
to make the claim that you are the master over their body, and
that's called slavery. So of course, saying no to
participation in anything that government or anyone else in
society for that matter. Once you do isn't selfish.
It's a natural right to do. So Mark, when I hear the ideas
of anarchism. It sounds like this utopian pipe
dream that This assumes everyone is fine.
And everyone is a good moral person.
How do you respond? Well, the very word Utopia means
nowhere. So the the concept of Utopia
doesn't mean a wonderful place. It means that it is an illusion
that does not exist anywhere. That's literally.
What is meant by Utopia. So, you know, there is no such
thing as a place that is going to be free of any suffering of
any negativity of any Uncomfortableness.
Okay, there is that that's that is a pipe dream.
Okay. Claiming that people should
saying that. We know that people should
interact with each other on a volunteer basis.
Free from coercion. And the initiation of violence
isn't saying that there is that will create a perfect world.
Immediately is saying that by continuing the cult belief
system of government, which is slavery that you are in.
During that violence continues unabated, you know, you are
ensuring that you're never going to work toward a world that has
less violence in it and more freedom in it.
But to anarchists are in no way. Claiming that just creating a
society whereby, there are no Masters and no slaves will be a
perfect place. There will still be problems.
There will still be human struggles, and there will still
be suffering in the world in many different forms.
Just not in the form that we've created a structured society.
That is a hierarchical eBay Society based on Masters who
have many more rights than their slaves which they can just
dictate whatever their rights happen to be at any given time.
That's all anarchists are saying the, we're not saying that it
will create any sort of a perfect peaceful place.
It's the great non sequitur. It's like saying things are
imperfect in nature. Therefore, the Church of
Scientology has the right to coercively rule, hundreds of
millions of people. Well, how do you know that that
will lead to more problems? They don't have the right.
Either way in the first place Larkin, Rose.
Anarchism is utopian and relies on everyone being a perfectly
knowledgeable. Perfectly kind person.
How do you respond? It's, it's very weird that
anybody thinks this and they only think that because they
actually haven't thought about it.
They just feel it because it's an uncomfortable unfamiliar idea
to them to live in a society without a ruling class, the the
accusation that it's Utopia. Pian and that'll never work.
And the advocacy of government is the same as saying.
We will never have a world without murder.
Therefore. Let us Advocate a little bit, a
limited amount of murder. Now, I oppose all murder.
Is that utopian? No, it's called being moral.
Does it mean that I think we will actually have a world
without murder. No, it doesn't.
It means that's what I advocate. So for somebody to say that it's
utopian. Opposed all initiation of
violence, but somehow it isn't to Advocate the initiation of
violence and to give certain people power over everybody
else. As if there could be anything
more. Ridiculously pipe dreamish than
saying, we're going to give these people permission to
control and robbed the rest of us and I'm sure they'll do it
for our own good and thinking that will end.
Well, as Mark said, none of us are saying this makes a perfect
world. It does remove the biggest
problem in the world which right now is the thing that Believers
of government Advocate and they push for and they make it
happen. And then when you say that big
monstrosity is creating evil and suffering Way Beyond anything
else, they say? Well without it, it would be
even worse. And they say that 100% is a
result of result of indoctrination in 0% as a result
of actual evidence and logic. It's incredible.
You were once debating someone Larkin and it was Tom will a cut
and he was so flabbergasted. He goes.
Look. I just I just don't trust
people. And you go, what species, do you
want running government? So it was so terrific.
And yeah, just just take that and apply it.
Consistently people are evil except on the second Tuesday in
November. When they vote, we need to have
voting democracy is inherently good.
So that they don't even hold this consistently Mark passio.
I would embrace the ideas of anarchism.
But I am so worried about the poor government currently helps
the poor in the absence of government.
The poor might not be helped. Mark.
How do you respond? This is essentially the advocacy
of theft because to say that someone must contribute any
amount of the product of their labor.
But through coercion is to make a claim on the Of the labor of
that Bing and by doing so you are indirectly making a claim on
that which produced that product of labor, which is the body
itself. So once again, anyone advocating
for taxation redistribution of wealth taking from the rich to
give to the poor Etc is advocating for theft.
If something is not done voluntarily, it is done only
through coercion and duress, which is violence in and of
itself. So, all we are here.
Are advocating here today. Keith is that we don't want
people to initiate violence to others just to get done in the
world. What they think should get done.
If it gets done. It has to get done on a
voluntary basis and you know, for people who have such a dark
world view of other people that don't think if people kept more
of the product of their labor that they would be more
charitable. They really haven't really
studied the dynamic where the data at all.
They just have a belief system about it and really that's all
that religion. That's all, I'm sorry.
The government of really is in any of it of its forms, or in
any of its decrees or enactments or the waves, did it does
things, it is a religious institution and that's how
people have to really start seeing government.
They need to see it as a religion.
No different than any other religion, except for the fact
that it's actually more violent and has even cause more death
through demo side than almost any other religious institution
on the face of the Earth, Mark and Rose.
I care about the polar and That's why I don't Embrace
libertarianism or anarchism Larkin.
How do you respond? There's so many people who just,
they know, what they know. They know the life.
They're in what they're familiar, what they've seen and
they have a hard time imagining or predicting things.
Otherwise, so literally if you stuck them in a cage and gave
them a bowl of gruel every day and kept them that way for ten
years and some of the open the cage door.
Some of them would say, how do I know?
There's going to be food out there.
Like I have my bowl of gruel. I have my roof over my head.
It's not a great roof to roof because that's all they've seen.
And so government will use that to control something.
And then say, without us, this wouldn't be the case.
So if you look at the Soviet Union, you know, they can say
you wouldn't have any food. If not for us.
You have to stand in bread lines, maybe get a little bit of
moldy garbage after a few hours. But without else, you wouldn't
have any well that lie doesn't work in the u.s.
Because we have supermarkets and you can go there and buy all
sorts of food, but government is always.
Trying to take over areas of society and then tell us this
wouldn't happen without us. Never mind that.
You know, when it comes to the poor in spite of being robbed by
the ruling class. Americans are ridiculously
generous to the tunes of billions of dollars a year and
all of the Taxation and regulation that gets in the way
of helping people have places to live and food and everything.
It's just a matter of government, literally
interfering with us, voluntarily, finding Solutions.
And then saying see this is why we can't have a voluntary
Society because you can solve these never mind.
They are the reason they can't be voluntarily.
Sold right now because agents of the state with guns will stop
you from solving it and then say that's why you need us Mark.
Don't we need to have at least some government to protect
consumers and to protect employees.
Maybe protect employers, sometimes from foreign
competition. Don't we need some sort of?
Bass societal protection. Mark, how do you respond?
I mean, that's basically the argument of saying, don't we
need some slavery to keep Society.
Moving in. Any one particular direction,
all government is immoral because it is the idea that
certain people have the right to issue commands to other people.
And that those other people have some sort of a moral obligation
to follow the commands of this, dictate toriel ruling class.
On its face. This is the the major paradigm
shift that people have to make and this is actually a spiritual
shift in Consciousness, believe it or not, is to understand that
the concept of government is on its face inherently immoral
because the entirety of the concept of the institution is
based upon coercion violence and keeping people in the state
known as duress, which is the state of threat of violence.
This is The government generally rules is through threat of
violence. You know how much people say?
Oh, there's less violence in the world today than there ever was
physically? That may be the case.
But guess what? There's probably more duress
there is more threat of violence.
If there is not compliance with government decrees than in any
other time in the world. So the people who are advocating
for all of these things even menarche ISM are ultimately
Advocates of coercion violence and duress.
We have to keep going back to that simple concept, and they
cannot argue a different position.
If they actually are honest about what the behaviors that
they Advocate are. If you actually put their feet
to the fire and say, please explain to me what this Behavior
would ultimately have to look like in the physical 3D World.
They would describe a situation where enforcers were armed
individuals come and command the Science with the decrees of
their political Overlord Masters.
There is no way around it for them.
Logically. They would have to explain it
like that if they're being honest with themselves.
So that's what I say to. All men are kiss and those who
Advocate just for keeping government as a, you know, a
protectorate or something of that nature.
It's still giving claiming that you can give rights that.
The individual does not possess. If none of us have a thousand
dollars to give to anyone, we cannot all come together and
give the Nonexistent thousand dollars to anyone else, rights
cannot be conferred, granted or, you know, transacted to other
individuals. If those who are making the
claim that they're doing that, don't have that right
themselves. So if we look at what people
would say, they want to keep government for even in a
minimalist terminology in America.
Some point of view, if they don't have the right to do those
things individually, they cannot be granted to anyone else to do
and magically call it a right. When in fact, it is a wrongdoing
based. Violence Larkin.
Do we need government for Consumer regulation, employee
regulation, and some Foundation, societal structure, when people
say, well, we still need government for this, whatever it
is, whatever they finish that sentence with what they're
saying is, Well, in this case, we need to have some people
committing violent aggression in a way that the rest of us have
no right to do. We need some people to not be.
The by morality basically, they're allowed to be violent
Thugs. And whatever the problem,
whether you're talking about, you know, poverty or consumer
protectionism, or the environment, or yada yada yada,
whatever it is including real problems.
The notion that the answer is to tell somebody you get to make
it, you know, make a decision. Come up with a plan and
violently impose it on the rest of us in a way that none of us
have the right to do as if that's going to make it better
is a Example of why I say Advocates of government are
immature in their minds. It's literally a matter of we're
not sure how we would handle this.
So we want big daddy government or big mommy, government,
handling it, because we're not sure what it would look like
otherwise, but to to jump to saying, well, this is why we
need government is literally saying, this is why we need to
add immoral violent aggression into society.
Just for this thing, over here, just to take care of the poor to
protect us from this. No we do.
In no case. Do we need to nor should we add
immoral violence into society? And that is all that.
The belief in government adds is the impression that violent
aggression can sometimes be legitimate.
And I don't mean defensive Force.
I mean, aggression against innocence government, the belief
in government relies entirely on the notion that that can be
legitimate to initiate violence against somebody who didn't do
anything to you. No, we don't need that.
Insanity. Now, most societies today, have
government's pretty much everyone.
I could think of most throughout history have also had
governments Larkin. Why is this so hard for an
artist to accept? I fully accept believed in this
insane thing and history books will show the death tolls from
from them believing in it to me. We are just about to see the
beginning of real Humanity because this Is a combination of
sort of intellectual laziness and cowardice along with
intentional brainwashing and manipulation and propaganda from
like, literally sociopaths and control freaks, who have indeed
duped. Most of the people throughout
most of the world into thinking that they need to be ruled by
somebody else. Basically, they need to be owned
by a wise master, who will take care of them.
The fact that we have believed something stupid for a very long
time, is not a reason, we should keep Being something stupid and
the fact that evil things have been happening for a very long
time, like slavery is not a reason, we should keep doing
evil things. And when somebody falls back on
the argument of, well, this is how it's been forever.
It shows me. They are literally just clinging
to what is familiar instead of thinking at all about logic or
morality or anything of the sort.
So, if somebody wants to predict, well, there's going to
be government forever. Okay, you can predict that if
you are advocating, Violet and moral aggression, which you are,
if you believe in government don't use the excuse of, oh,
well, it's always been around any more than, you know, a
murderer can say, oh, you might not like murder, but I mean,
murders always been around, so it's okay.
If I do know it is, if you predict it, it's that one thing.
If you, that's one thing, if you condone it, you are an accessory
to evil, Mark governments have always existed throughout
history. They exist everywhere.
Now, how do you respond? Well, of course, because people
have generally, since the dawn of human civilization of fallen
for the mind control that Authority is somehow morally
legitimate as anarchists. We understand that Authority is
a morally illegitimate position. The belief in Authority can
never be moral because what you are saying is that there is a
set of people, a class of individuals that actually have
some sort of a quote morale. Right, to issue commands to
other people, you know, and that's basically rulership to
all government is in ever has been is a euphemism for godhood
kingship. See, we used to put this idea of
the, the vesting of authority in one individual and they were
called the Pharaoh, the king, the ruler.
Okay, and, you know, now we've just diffused, that concept of
authority into a group of people.
With an oligarchical class of people that we call government,
you know, it's no different. It's before it was the king or
the Pharaoh or the ruler was the representation of God on Earth
and can command the people to do, whatever he commands them to
do. And they must obey, which is
called slavery. Okay.
All we've done in the modern world today, to justify the the
quote unquote, moral existence of government, which there's
nothing moral and whatsoever to do with It's completely in a
moral position to even believe in.
Okay, is we've taken that. And through, we've done a
process of osmosis. We've diffused, this concept of
authority instead of investing it in one individual.
We've diffused it into thousands of individuals throughout
society that we call government or the authorities and it's
always been a cult. It's always been violent.
It's always been immoral at any other.
Other time in human history, it still is today and it always
will be for as long as people believe in it.
It's simply an immoral violent cult.
And that is the spiritual awakening that actually needs to
happen in humanity. That that is what government is
always has been and always will be until we become truly moral
individuals and truly responsible individuals and
abolish this form of slavery. Yeah, and of course, it's a
violent cult. I mean, just imagine I would
just love to have a hidden camera and tell my parents about
a fake group. I joined and then just described
government. I'm like, yeah, you know what,
we force parents to have their kids attend his sermons and the
parents work. We threaten to take their houses
away if they don't chip in for our group and we have to blindly
obey, whatever he says, and tells us to do they'd be like,
oh my God, this is terrible. Expose this man.
And what that is openly, what governments do all the time.
Now, as far as naming names, who was in power, we have people
like, Bush senior, David Rockefellers, a big new
Burzynski, John McCain. They've died this year and
government. Somehow hasn't shrunk which
tells me that the problem is not the rollers.
It is the mind of those who believe in the illegitimacy of
government Larkin. How do we help people escape
mind control and the belief in government?
Well, it's funny because that question pretty much Define my
life. For the past quarter of a
century is how to help people get out of the belief in
government. I think it's important to note
and I am and, and I teach a course called candles in the
dark, which shows how to do this, very gently, and
non-confrontational E. I also do it very
confrontational, e settings, and, you know, outright
knock-down-drag-out debates, but what's really important to note
is that Are not inherently statist and we have to make them
into something else. People are inherently voluntary,
assists or anarchists. And on top of that, there is
this layer of indoctrination that is, convince them that we
need a ruling class and it's legitimate.
We have to obey, and you gotta go Tiana.
And so, it really is a matter of freeing the person underneath
rather than making them into something else.
We don't, we don't even have to teach them much that they don't
already know. To get them to see that they're
indoctrinated in belief to Authority.
It goes against their conscience.
It goes against what they know to be true about right and
wrong. And there are a bunch of
different ways to try to help people see that and to try to
free them from it. But the reason I have so much
hope is this isn't a matter of there's a bunch of evil people.
We have to talk them into being good.
There are a bunch of deceived people and we need to help them
escape the deception and that's it.
And then You just let them be free.
Like the goal isn't now. I'm your master.
Now. You will believe what I say and
do as I say, the goal is to free them from other people's
propaganda and literally mind control.
Exactly. It's not enough to say, well,
the government has the power because they have military and
Dunn's. Well, you have to explain why
the military takes orders from them and not that group or me.
I've been calling Doug Ducey, but you know, countless times
telling him to obey me and do what I say, but he only listens
to Trump. Well, obviously because in his
mind one is legitimate and the other is just some peasant.
Mark. Passio.
How do we help people escape mind control?
Well, I think you have to really meticulously and in a stepwise
progression point out the logical inconsistencies in their
thinking. People think they're advocating
for a moral position because that's all the government does
is obvious, Kate. It's behaviors through
euphemisms and false. Equivalencies and tells people
that it's actually, you know, operating the way that it does
for moral reasons, which is never actually true.
So what one of the processes that I do is like a Socratic
method and basically, say, you consider yourself a moral.
Do you consider yourself a moral individual, you know?
And you know, and explain what you think should be done
regarding Taxation and then the person might say well I think
you know, the rich should be taxed this much, you know people
who don't make this much should be taxed as much an animal say,
okay. Do you think you yourself have
the ability to go and forcibly confiscate any percentage of
wealth? From anyone or resources, from
anyone that you think, could you break down their door?
Go into their home, confiscate wealth, confiscate money Etc.
Do you have that, right? Nah, they'll always admit.
No, I don't, why? Because you're a moral person.
You don't believe in committing violence, or aggression, or
theft against your fellow, you know, human beings.
And those say, yes, that's true. Okay, and then, when you explain
will, do you think if you don't have that right?
That you could tell your next door neighbor to go and do that,
you know, could you? And them to do that.
Or give them the right to do that.
No, so then you take it out to another next logical.
Step wise progression. Will please tell me who does
have that right to go in and break down their door and
confiscate whatever wealth you see fit to Drew distribute it as
you see fit. And the, if they're being honest
with themselves from a moral point of view, they will admit
no one on earth has that right as an individual.
And then if that you continue the logical progression, well,
then if no one on earth has the right to perform.
That behavior because it is inherently violent and immoral.
How could anyone who does not possess that right?
Come together and claim that they are magically gifting or
granting that quote unquote, right, which is actually an
immoral wrongdoing to any other individual or group of
individuals. And I've done this many times
with many people and if they're being honest with themselves, if
they're not lying directly to themselves or looking you in the
face and just blatantly lying about what is true.
Okay, and about how they feel that they are a moral
individual. They will acknowledge that that
cannot be done in actual point of fact, natural reality.
You can only make the claim or you can only believe that that
can be done and that's all government is.
It's a false immoral, belief system, which constitutes a
religious cult and it's slavery, that's it.
And if you really get down to explaining it in a stepwise
moral, And keep consistently appealing to the individual
morality of the human being. They will have no choice.
But to admit that, what they are actually advocating for his
violent behavior, and I've done this to a few people.
And when they finally said, yes, I have to admit, that's really
what it is in actual nature and actual Behavior.
I said, well, congratulations, you actually understand.
Now the philosophical position of the anarchist who advocates
for for no violent. Either in society for only
voluntary behavior in society, that is consensual mutually
consensual and many people have actually thanked me for doing
that. And many people have walked away
with the, you know, kind of, you know, a little bit of hard
feelings because they got their ego damaged a little bit as a
result of the exchange. But either way, you've planted a
seed that cannot be unplanted. Exactly.
Yeah, II. See anarchism not only as
freedom, but also, genuine equality, equality.
Your natural law. If I don't have the right to do
it. I don't have the right to Grant
it to someone else and I am equal to them.
That's why they don't have the right to initiate aggression
against me. And I don't have the right to
initiate it against them. That's that's how we know that
volunteerism is natural log because it's the only philosophy
that could be consistently argued without appealing to
anything arbitrary. Few more questions for you.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your time here lorcan.
How do we discern right? Behavior from wrong Behavior.
Moral from immoral? This is something that I don't
usually talk about in depth in public because most people on
most things, have a whole lot of agreement on all the major
things that matter. Like, if I asked somebody, is it
okay to beat up your neighbor and take your stuff.
Everybody says, no, that tells me that something inside them.
However, it works their conscience there, you know,
moral judgment already knows enough.
That peaceful coexistence is perfectly easy between me.
Them if they don't believe in government.
And so I think the sort of the Quest for what are we supposed
to do? There are gray areas that we can
still debate about and I debate a bunch of voluntary.
It's about them but when it comes to the main huge things of
is it okay to attack somebody else and take their stuff?
Most people already instinctively and internally.
No, that's not. Okay.
And that's true of Christians. It's true of Jews is true of
atheists. It's true.
Muslim is true of people all over the plate is true.
Were people all over the world who, you know, never even heard
of this religions, who live off in the middle of nowhere.
They have still, you know, they have that built-in sense that
we're not supposed to be killing and robbing each other and just
that all by itself. Even if people didn't like sit
around the having deep philosophical conversations,
just that Basic Instinct of right and wrong is enough to
make the world a thousand times better than it is if The belief
in Authority goes away. Then we can bicker about gray
areas and where you draw this line, where you draw that line,
but when it comes to the basics of being a moral human being
almost, everybody has enough already built into the hardwired
into them, that I don't even feel the need to bring up those
discussions to most people because if not for their belief,
in government, we would get along.
Just fine. Mark.
How do we discern right? Behavior from wrong Behavior,
moral from immortal? I think this is probably the
real Crux of the argument because what we're talking about
here and have been talking about from the very Inception is
morality. Anarchism is about the
understanding of objective morality ultimately and it's
very important to get it. Right?
And this is where, you know, we use the word right to mean
correct, but it also means moral because they're ultimately the
same thing that which is true and correct is going to lead us
to that, which is moral. So it's very important to be
correct. To be right about it.
Okay, so you have to start with a definition of what a right is
and most people can't do that. Most people cannot accurately
correctly. Give the definition of the
human, right? And that's why we're losing our
rights. Because if you can't properly
Define something, you don't really understand what it is.
So you'll never understand that. It's actually being taken away
or you're losing it a right is a behavior.
It is an action that a human being can perform that does not
initiate harm to Another sentient being that means it
doesn't aggress upon them violently.
It doesn't coerce their rights. It doesn't coercer restrain
their freedom if they have not harmed, another, okay, and it
doesn't harm their property. Okay, so you don't engage in
behaviors which caused harm, which ultimately all the forms
of behaviors that cause harm our forms of theft.
We have to understand property versus theft.
That's the ultimate. Real question when it comes to
the very Crux and bottom line aspect of the moral nature of
this argument, okay? Of this philosophy, all the
behaviors that are actual wrongdoings that we could ever
commit against any other sentient beings are actually
forms of theft. So murder is theft of life that
if the person was not engaged in behavior, that was causing harm
to others and possibly put Putting their lives in danger
through violence, then you don't have the right to take someone's
life because their life was their property.
So murder is the immoral taking of the property of another in
the form of their life. Coach murder assault.
Assault is the taking of bodily well-being, without right?
So that's theft. Rape is the theft of Free Will
sexual Association without, right?
Yeah. There's never a right to do
that. That's Laughter, you're taking
someone's Free Will and freedom of Association when they don't
want to do that. So no coercion.
You're taking someone's Free Will away.
You're actually taking their freedom away through coercion.
Hey trespass, you're taking Security in their living space
in there. In there, you know, domain in
which they live and operate away and lying is taking away.
The the necessary information that they need to make informed
decisions. So every immoral Behavior is a
form of theft. It's a really if you really want
to get down to the very Crux of the moral argument that
underlies, all of it. It's, you have to understand
that which is not your property and don't take it through
violence. That's it.
Every form of wrongdoing is someone committing the theft of
someone else's property, whether they're taking physical things
that don't belong to them, whether they're taking rights
that, don't belong to them. Whether they're taking Freedom,
that doesn't belong to them, whether they're taking life.
That doesn't belong to them. All forms of immoral behavior is
ultimately theft so we can sum up all moral behavior and
ultimately Anarchy in one in one simple.
Simple statement. Don't steal.
That's what all of the, ultimately, all of the moral
argument comes down to do. Don't commit theft because if
you're not committing theft of things that do not belong to
you. You're ultimately not doing
immoral behaviors. And that's what we have to take
it down to as an individual. Look at the behavior, and look
at, was property taken as a result of this behavior.
And if it was, don't do that thing.
That's a bad wrong and immoral thing to do.
It's so simple yet. People have had the definitions
of what is right. And what is good and what is
moral obvious? Hated.
That's how evil works. It knows that people want to
generally be good in those that they want to be moral, but it
obfuscates the definition. So people can ultimately come to
the correct conclusions of what true morality true objective,
morality really means and that's how mind control works.
That's how mind manipulation works and that's ultimately what
government is always seeking to do to confuse true morality,
replace it with morally, subjective standards and get
people come. Completely confused about what
the true difference between moral right and immoral wrong.
Ultimately is and it's been very very successful at doing that
and that's why anarchists and voluntary is have to come
together and get on the same page about an understanding of
Human Rights and human morals. And then really go out and teach
that to other people then we'll be making some true Headway
Larkin. Mark says, truth.
Is that which is making it objective Mark?
And how do we determine truth? From falsehood.
Well, basically like in any context, whether you're talking
about morality or science or anything else, the individual is
ultimately the one who has to make those decisions and to make
a decision that isn't just arbitrary and stupid, you have
to observe and learn and and and bring in all the information and
understanding you can. Now the particular challenge
when it comes to morality is can't measure it with a tape
measure and weigh it with a scale.
You Have to use your built-in conscience that is hardwired
into you. And, and a lot of people do this
and they have all sorts of discussions and they read this
book, and they learn about this and that and the other thing.
So, learning factual physical truth about something.
It's a lot more straightforward of go gather, direct evidence
and figure out what's going on learning.
Morality is a lot more about turning inward because you have
built into you the ability to To sense, right?
And wrong. You don't need to defer to some
external Authority because if you're doing that you're just
flipping a coin. If you're going to say well, I'm
going to let that guy. Tell me what's right.
And what's wrong. Well 50/50 chance will be a
psycho. And so it's it's something that
requires internal reflection and requires looking your own
conscience, which as it happens is precisely what Authority
tells you not to do. Don't I own your own conscience.
Don't rely on your own thoughts and feelings about how we should
behave and what should be going on.
Just defer to those of us in power and let us tell you what
you should and shouldn't do will tell you what's legal.
And then you'll get confused between legal and moral and
start to think that what makes you a good person is blindly
obeying us and that is the complete opposite from the
truth. And a thing.
I really want to throw in is that when I talk to some average
person who says, Well, I think we might need government for
this and they have right left. I don't care wherever they are
on the Spectrum. I say, I don't even know you.
I've never met you before and I would much, rather your actions
be based upon your own conscience.
Even if that means ignoring the dictates of any political ruling
class. Now, how weird would it be for
me, to trust your conscience more than you do when I've never
even You met you before. But that is the case with a lot
of people I talk to and it puts them in a position of literally
either saying, okay. Well, I appreciate it and thanks
for arguing in favor of them ignoring their own conscience,
which is literally insane. But I like to do that.
To point out. I would rather everybody use
their own conscience as flawed and imperfect as it maybe
instead of deferring to some imaginary external Authority
because the vast majority of evil and Injustice.
That that has happened in the world was not the result of
individual malice. It was the result of obedience
and compliance with imaginary authorities.
Of course, in the most evil people in the world are, you
know, sucked in like a bat signal to the state because
that's where they can commit their atrocities without being
held accountable. I mean, just imagine how many
deaths now and Kissinger would have on their hands.
If no one believed in their legitimate Authority.
Mark. Passio you said, truth.
Is that which is Mark, how do we determine truth from falsehood?
Well, as Larkin said it starts with observation and that is the
scientific methodology. So my ultimate answer is you
apply the same investigative tools that we have through the
scientific method. You observe you formulate
hypotheses based on that observation, then you do testing
to see if it actually works that way and then you refine it and
you then publish your results, you know, it's no different than
The actual scientific method because what we are saying here
is not a religious belief. It is not a belief system at
all. It is.
What is actually operating in nature, you know, so there are
truth, discovering methods that we already have at our disposal
in the modern day. We call this the scientific
method in the ancient world in an esoteric systems of thought
they referred to this as the Trivium method.
The Trivium method was a first down taking in all of the data
input that you Fire. So that was the input phase.
That was the knowledge phase. I'm sorry, the grammar phase.
Okay, then you had you went to grammar, then logic.
So this is the, you know, boiling it all down.
This is taking in all the different perspectives and
weeding out logical inconsistencies.
Okay. This is the refinement stage.
Now is called logic. This is the processing stage.
If you want to look at it in modern terms, and then we have
the output. You know, this was rhetoric in
the ancient Trivium and you know, this is actually putting
out, you're finding some other people when you understand how
it works. It's knowledge, understanding
and wisdom, you know, knowledge is gaining all of the different
seemingly disparate parts of information.
Okay, then understandings, putting them all together and
processing them correctly. So that, you know what it means,
and then wisdom is what you do with it.
It's going out into the world. It's explaining it, and then
it's behaving rightly upon all of that.
Understanding that you've garnered in the last two stages.
So it's a stepwise progression. Once again, it's a stepwise
logical, logical progression and it is a scientific methodology.
Does not require any belief. We are not asking anyone to
believe that this is true. We are asking people to
investigate it. And again, when it comes to
things like natural law, objective morality, these are
things that just exists in nature.
It is not up to us to invent that make them up.
It is for us to come to the accurate understanding.
Understanding of that, which already exists and the tools for
doing that already exist. We just have to use them wisely
and correctly Larkin. What is the most important thing
you've learned from talking to status?
For 20 years. You say, 23 going on 24.
Thank you for your service. I have I have accidentally
learned a whole bunch about psychology and how tightly
people cling to. A comfortable, but false idea.
Something they've been taught to believe in something that has
been, you know, stuck in their brain for decades and how
uncomfortable and it is for them to question that and how many
very weird things. The human mind does to cling to
what is that? Whatever is familiar and already
believe even in the face of evidence and logic that just
demolish it and so to me, 99% of the battle is not even
explaining these Concepts because as Just heard from both
of us. The pretty dang simple and
basic. Like, don't attack people laugh.
How hard is it to teach that? The reason it takes so much
effort is because people were indoctrinated into a different
belief that that teaches that there needs to be a ruling class
and that that's legitimate and human psychology does.
So many weird gymnastics in order to avoid questioning,
whatever somebody already believes and so that for me is
the entire Challenge. And that's what it's what my
project. Checked.
The mirror is about its what our seminar kennels in the dark is
about. It's about learning to get
through all the, the Minefield of human psychology to the point
where you can actually connect with the person not to make them
defer to you, instead of defer to Authority.
But to make them defer to nobody, to let them actually,
accept and embrace their own self ownership and their own
individual responsibility. Including the The to determine
right and wrong for themselves and to act accordingly.
But yes, there are a lot of psychological obstacles to try
to get the average person to do that because they have been
trained to believe that it is genuinely criminal and bad.
To be a grown-up who makes their own decision.
Oh, you think you're above the law?
Yes, we're all Above the Law. Stupid politicians.
Scribbles are beneath every single one of us, our
conscience. In any given individual.
That is all you have, you have your senses, you have your
conscience. It is up to you to figure out
true and false, right? And wrong and act accordingly.
And there's a lot of resistance to that because that's
uncomfortable, responsibilities uncomfortable.
But I am thrilled seeing the head way.
That's, that's been happening. Just in recent years of the
number of people who have, you know, coming from a bunch of
different directions. Crashed into the obvious truism
that At the end of the day, I have to decide what I believe
and I have to decide what I what I think is true and what I'm
going to do about it, and I can't defer that to anybody else
and that unfortunately is very hard to get people to embrace.
But when they do, then they become actual free human beings.
And Marquis will gave your answer earlier with regard to
how you use the Socratic method. I'm curious Mark when you were
on Infowars. You said some of the most
important information you've ever come across was regarding
Nikola Tesla energy suppression. What is the most important info?
You've come across researching, Nikola Tesla's, energy
suppression. I would say it's the simple
concept that the control of energy is the control of human
beings, you know, and this is one of the ways that the ruling
class control people, they control resources.
They control energy, they control food medication, Etc.
Things that people are you know, require for physical survival.
If certain select group on oligarchical group of human
beings, can ultimately control those resources.
You can hold people in a state of fear.
A fear of lack of fear of not having a fear of, you know,
being in a state of survival, you know, and that is one of the
big methods that the ruling class used to hold people under
their control. Fear leads to cowardice and
inaction. And that's ultimately what they
want. As Larkin said, they don't want
people taking personal responsibility.
They don't want, people learning.
You know, how true science Works.
They don't want people learning how to grow their own food.
They don't want people learning how to To defend themselves.
They want dependency. This is the biggest tool of
government is dependency. And, you know, one of the things
I learned by dealing, with people who are stuck on
believing that, that form of dependency is necessary in the
government is necessary, is the programmability of the human
mind and the power of the ego. That's what it all led me to a
very deep understanding of. And this is also, of course, as
Larkin said, psychological understanding, this is all about
the understanding of the human mind because See these
manipulators. They know us better than we know
ourselves. Unfortunately, as a species,
they know everything. That's what a cult manipulation
is all about. Its ancient psychology, you
know, they understand all the hidden workings of the human
mind of the human psyche and they know how to exploit those
workings. They know how to basically get
inside that Clockwork and exploit it to their ends.
And if we learn how our minds work, how our psyches work to
the level, that they And it, that will level that playing
field of knowledge and they will not be able to manipulate us and
manipulate Us in those ways. Unfortunately, most people
haven't gone that deep into psychological knowledge.
Unfortunately, we have to understand the human mind is
very programmable. Garbage goes in garbage.
Comes out, you know, and you know, if good programming goes
in and the form of understanding how to think, understanding how
to come to correct conclusions critical thinking and then we're
going to have good output in the form of behavior because we're
going to come to Right, conclusions about morality and
then we're going to behave accordingly, you know,
conversely, if bad programming goes in garbage, belief systems
that are rooted in violence and coercion and Advocate slavery,
you know, then we're going to be totally confused about what's
going on both within ourselves. And in our world, we're going to
accept all kinds of euphemisms for things that we should never
accept, you know, like, you know, that the government isn't
violence in slavery and, you know, then we're going to our
output in the form. I'm of our behavior is just
going to reinforce those incorrect beliefs and we're
going to get as a society negative consequences.
This is how natural law ultimately works.
If we put quality in, we come to the correct conclusions and
therefore come to the exercise, correct Behavior.
We're going to get an orderly outcome and a an outcome that
does not generate self inflicted suffering in our world and in
our lives and conversely. If we put garbage programming
into ourselves, and then we We're completely confused about
what's true and good and right? And then our behavior is
immoral. We're going to get very painful
and high levels of suffering, as an experienced, in our rate, in
our shared reality here on Earth.
Final question to both of you, starting with Larkin, say you
are, maybe just at a grocery store and you see, Joe, Biden
claims nomination and someone says, that's crazy.
What is your take on politics? What is your 30 second?
Elevator pitch introduction to someone kind of interested, but
not really into the philosophical Larkin.
What would you say to that person in short, the, the entire
game? I don't believe the entire game.
I don't want anyone to have the right to rule you and I have no
right to appoint, somebody to rule you and I certainly don't
want anybody to rule me. They play this game and we pay
attention to me. Choose between the lesser of two
evils. I'm looking forward to a day
when we stop playing the game. Stop falling for their lives and
we just run our own lives Mark. Passio.
How would you respond? I actually have responded to
some people that have come up and ask me what my politics are.
And I say politics is an illusion of choice, between two
masters that would rule over you and government is slavery.
And that's it. It's all, it, all comes down to
that, that you have to just simply dispel those euphemisms
and get people to understand that all the political game is,
Is, is a dialectic to get people to choose a master?
And once they stop doing that, once they realize that, there is
no legitimacy to some people being Masters while other people
are their slaves. Then the world will make had
roads into being truly free. And that's what we as voluntary
as ADD as a Turkish ultimately advocate for Gentlemen, thank
you so much for your time. Like and Roses there.
Anything that I didn't ask that, you would like to be in sort of
this introduction Roundtable to anarchism.
Anything. I didn't bring up you'd like to
well. I just, I like to harp on the
the fact that this this is about freeing people from their own
lives and even as voluntary as we need to keep that in our
heads, that it's not, I'm going to defeat them.
I'm going to, you know, show that them, that they're wrong
and I'm right. Right.
It is really a matter of showing them that they are right
underneath the garbage. They were taught and we need to
help them. See that the garbage does not
match what they really are, what they really believe in and help
them dare to throw off the garbage and like I said reclaim
their own self ownership and their own responsibility, not.
So they can blindly believe me or Mark, or you or anybody else
but so they can actually function as independent.
Thinking moral human beings Mark.
Is there anything? I didn't ask that you'd like to
communicate to the audience. I mean, maybe the only thing
that I would add as an addendum is, you know, the power of the
hold of the ego over the mine, and many people would consider
this more of a spiritual topic, but the ego, as I see, it is
really just the force that refuses to acknowledge, that it
was wrong. It's the thing that is deeply
embedded in the human psyche. That makes someone Refuse to
admit that they could have been wrong about something or that
they could have been duped about something.
And when we really do, Shadow, work Upon Our Own subconscious
mind. And what we look deep inside of
ourselves and what our belief systems are that we think are
true. You know, we have to come head
to head up against that force, that force of the ego that is
out of control that wants to constantly say, no, you're
right. You're okay.
Just keep going. Don't look into these things.
Don't acknowledge that. You were.
All, you know, and we have to actually try to really use the
tools at our disposal to come to an accurate understanding versus
what we previously believed was true.
That's a very, very difficult spiritual process.
As far as I'm concerned. That's why so few people want to
do that. Type of Shadow work of an
analysis actually analyzing their own belief systems and
what they feel and believe to be true because that's its.
It's a painful process. It's something that most people
find very, very uncomfortable and painful, outright painful.
And that's why so few people want to do it.
But what we as advocates of true, freedom, and a voluntary
Society should be trying to help explain to them is a little bit
of discomfort in the short-term can result in a much better life
in the long term. If we're willing to go through
that process of rediscovery of self.
Terrific. And as I mentioned at the
beginning, please visit Mark patheos website.
What on Earth is happening.com Mark and Rose?
As I mentioned, has the Gradebook the most dangerous
Superstition Larkin. What is the website where you
have the candles in the dark for people to purchase just for
that. It's called attend.
Two candles.com but we just recently launched a website
called The Rose channel.com that has that seminar, but also a
bunch of some a couple videos we did.
Just for the subscribers and it'll have all of the past daily
Ransom down. There are now hundreds of them
and basically, a whole bunch of stuff.
We're making. Now that will be on the rose
Channel.com. I mean, for god sakes.
We spent 12 years in government schools.
Let's give Larkin like six hours of our time for something.
So special gentlemen. Thank you so much for joining me
and thank you to the viewers for watching Keith Knight.
Don't try it on anyone.