What is Anarchism? Mark Passio, Larken Rose and Keith Knight

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.