Candles in the Dark

Larken and Amanda Rose teach how to help others uncover their contradicting beliefs without your own opinions getting in the way.

Find the full seminar at https://attendcandles.com/vsl.


(Timestamps +/- 5 seconds accurate)

The Goal

p(8:15). All I can do is line the bone up, check the X-ray and see that “Yep, I set up the situation such that you can fix yourself.” That is all we can do when we’re talking to people who still believe in political authority.

p(13:39). The entire goal is to get them to see the contradiction in their own believe system. And that’s all.

p(15:56). If they say “I don’t know, I have to think about that” […] you did what you were supposed to do.

p(18:30). Some people show their cognitive dissonance by […] going “Aaarrghh!”. That response […] still tells you: They’re not comfortable with their own believe system.

p(34:6). Basically the right to authority, which is the right to rule, is impossible. It cannot exist.

p(34:20). This method is about removing that one bad idea, which is the notion that somebody can have the right to rule other people.

p(42:16). Train yourself to not follow when they try to change the subject and change the subject and change the subject and change the subject.

p(43:23). Your whole job is to get them to see their contradiction. Making wild guesses about whether we’d be killing and eating each other without a ruling class is still letting them escape their own contradiction.

p(48:15). And you can just say: “Regardless of what you think will happen if we didn’t have this, do you believe this is moral?”

The Wedge

p(9:0). Drive a wedge and act as a cheerleader and a support system for the part of them that wants to be free.

p(10:22). It’s not your beliefs vs their beliefs – its their believes vs their believes. […] The disagreement is entirely inside their head. That is where the fight has to take place.

p(10:57). The only time […] to let your own opinions be part of the discussion is when you agree with something they said. Like: “Do you think it’s okay for people to […] rob their neighbor for whatever they want?” No of course not. “Yeah, I agree, that’s not okay.”

p(14:20). If they get defensive and nasty […] they’re frustrated and angry because of their own contradictions and it’s not even you they’re mad at […] and if you did nothing but ask questions about what they believe […] if they get defensive you know they’re not mad at you.

p(15:43). What you think doesn’t freaking matter.

p(16:10). It is impossible to believe in government without having a massive contradiction in your head. It is impossible to believe in authority without being literally insane. Because of that you don’t ever have to introduce your own believe system.

p(16:25). Everything you need to demolish their authoritarianism they already have in their head. You just have to invite it out of them.

p(23:8). I’m gonna refer to that as interviewing-the-serial-killer mode: If you go in, you know it’s utterly pointless to go in “I’m gonna tell you how bad you are for doing this.” He doesn’t care. His brain doesn’t work that way.

p(23:26). The only reason it can be of any use and of any value if you go in with the intention of learning something from him. […] You might learn something about the disorder going on inside his head.

p(25:35). You don’t have to be judgemental of their beliefs. They will be judgemental of their own beliefs.

p(26:49). Always get them to make your assertions for you.

p(37:49). Every shred of politics is arguing about how to use the violence of the state.

p(39:59). Your job is to make them more uncomfortable. The more clear you can make the contradiction in their head, the less they’re gonna like it.

p(40:55). When they’re uncomfortable with their own decision, you won. You did your part. You’re done. You have to let them do the rest.

p(45:0). “If you advocate that I be taxed to pay for kids education, exactly what do you wanna have happen to me if I didn’t pay that?” Well there have to be consequences. “Okay […] what would you want those consequences to be? […] what do you wanna have happen to me?”

p(45:23). Instead of “Ah that’s evil!” make them be more and more clear and precise about the evil they condone, because the whole purpose is: The clearer it gets the more of their conscious is gonna be cringing at their own words.

p(48:42). Let them figure out “what is wrong with me?”

The Void

p(6:25). “Where do you think congress got the right to tax us?” it seems like a rational reasonable question. […] You will quickly find that most people think nothing about that. They’ve never thought about it.

p(6:40). Their political beliefs are not a foundation of principles and logic and leading up to a conclusion. It’s literally a collection of random mythology that they heard and nothing else. There’s nothing holding it up.

p(7:48). Most people think that their political views have some foundation […], but when you break it down to very simple basic questions […] you’ll quickly learn that it’s based on nothing.

p(8:12). “At what point did you consent to those people taking your money?” […] The average person out there has no reason to ever look at the foundation of all the stuff they were taught.

p(9:29). Well I don’ know how it works, but somebody does. […] It must make sense, because we all know it. […] It’s a faith-based believe system.

p(10:8). The only reason you ever get to that conclusion is if you were indoctrinated into it. Whether that guy pretends he represents God or a government […]. All authoritarian beliefs are faith-based.

p(11:0). Zero statists in the world know what they believe. All the way none.

p(14:3). Keep in mind their void when you’re asking questions.

p(15:11). Instead of saying “Can you delegate a right you don’t have?” you can word it […] “Do we agree it’s not okay for me to beat up my neighbor and take his stuff?”

p(15:20). “Is there any way I can make it good for somebody if I asked somebody else to beat up my neighbor and take his stuff? Is that okay?” Well no, it’s not okay.

p(15:42). “What if three of us really want to beat up my neighbor and take his stuff? Does that make it okay?” Well no. […] “What if the three of us like, appoint a representative to go beat him up and take his stuff?”

p(23:25). It’s impossible for statists to not have a giant void, ’cause there is no amount of logic you can put together to come up with “therefore those people have the right to rule us and we have an obligation to obey.”

p(23:30). They have to do it as mythology and faith, ’cause there is no way to actually form a logical foundation that ends up at that conclusion.

p(33:33). “Who do you think owns yourself? Who has the right to decide what is done with your body?” Well. I do.

p(43:15). [Amanda Rose] “I like doing what I want. Other people seem to like doing what they want. I don’t like when people violate me and try to physically stop me from doing something that I want, especially when it’s not hurting anyone.”

p(43:35). [Amanda Rose] “Other people seem to act the same way when I try to stop them from doing what they want […]. A bunch of guys in suits keep trying to stop everybody from doing what they want. […] Not sure how they got that right. Never mind the bullocks.”

The Obstacle Course

p(2:27). When you’re asking questions about what they advocate […] First have the question have them as the potential victim of the authoritarian aggression.

p(3:50). “Do you think that government has the right to force you to fund something that you think is evil?” […] No, I don’t […] “I agree.”

p(4:10). Next, you make yourself the potential victim: “Do you believe government should force me to fund something I’m morally opposed to? Let’s say it’s something you might even like and for whatever reason I might think it’s destructive or bad.”

p(5:6). When they get uncomfortable and they’re not sure what they think about it, just get more specific and more literal and more precise. […] Keep your questions personal and literal and specific.

p(9:23). And then move it to everybody else, like “Do you think anybody else should be forced to fund things they’re morally opposed to?”

p(10:10). Don’t judge them, don’t argue with them […]. Get more precise and specific and literal: “Well, let’s say I don’t pay. […] What you wanna have happen to me, if I don’t pay for that?”

p(18:56). It’s always about principles, it’s never about practicalities.

p(20:24). "Does the fact that you’re not sure how it would happen otherwise […] make you decide that “Yes”, you do want me forced to pay for it?"

The Punch Line

p(3:3). The only reason anybody ever advocates government is because they want it to do things that they know would be wrong if they did it themselves.

p(3:38). Basically, the belief in authority is an excuse to commit evil – and nothing else. Because if you’re doing something inherently righteous you don’t need a badge and you don’t need legislation and you don’t need a uniform and you don’t need law-makers and constitutions.

p(8:13). The choice is binary: Either there is an authority that you’re required to obey – which makes you […] an amoral machine – or you have a conscience, you have free will, you have judgement, you have a moral code, you are a human being.

p(12:22). “Should you disobey a law that conflicts with your own moral conscience?” […] “Can you think of any scenario […] where what the law says goes directly against what you think is right? […] Should you disobey?”

p(18:28). “At the end of the day, who decides […] whether you should obey a law?” […] I guess I do. […] “So you believe it’s up to you to decide which laws you have to obey?” […] The only sane, moral answer is “Absolutely!”

p(21:35). “If it’s bad for you to do a certain thing, is it okay for you to try to get someone else to do it for you?”

p(23:0). “When you vote for government […] are you hoping that they are gonna do things that you know that you don’t have the right to do on your own – like tax your neighbors to fund free health care or something?”

p(24:12). “Can people, by voting, give to politicians the right to do things which none of the voters have the right to do themselves?”

p(26:4). “Do you believe […] that right and wrong apply the same to everybody?” […] “Okay, what if some of us vote to have somebody else and say ‘We want you to do that we have no right to do!’ – does right and wrong still apply?”

p(27:10). We sort of need them to have extra powers. […] “Exactly how much extra rights do they have?”

p(27:45). “Are the bounds of morality just determined by the legislation? For example, if the legislators say ‘kill all the redheads’ would that be okay?” […] No. That wouldn’t be okay. […] “So it isn’t whatever the legislators say. There’s something else.”

p(28:9). At the end of the day they have to realize their own conscious is what they’re still using to decide what cops should do and that puts them above authority which means it’s not authority anymore.

p(28:15). ‘Cause if your conscious is above authority, by definition it’s not authority anymore. It’s a gang of thugs.

p(28:50). “Is there any way in which people can change an immoral act into a moral act, but without changing the act itself?” […] “What if we call it something else […] does that make it okay?”

p(30:39). “Does that mean that by being in the country they can do anything they want to me?”

p(31:5). “If something is good today and then it gets ‘outlawed’ […] is it bad to do the same thing tomorrow? […] Is it actually immoral?”

p(32:55). “Is it ever good to break the law?” […] Loyalty to an imaginary authority or loyalty to their own conscience?

p(33:30). “Does the majority have the right to do whatever it wants to a minority as long as it uses voting in the political process?” Yes. “How about gang rape, because that’s a perfect example of direct democracy in action?” That’s not okay!

p(34:43). “I agree […] that is as not okay as anything could be. In what case does that change? How about if they just vote to […] steal her purse instead? Is that okay?”

p(34:47). “How about if they just steal a little bit of money out of her purse? At what point is it okay for the majority to force its will on a minority?”

p(37:9). “Do you believe it’s okay for government to force you to fund things that you’re opposed to?”

p(43:30). “If you’re not attacking or defrauding anybody is there any situation in which you think somebody should use force against you?” No. Of course not. “I agree. […] I want people to leave you alone to do whatever you want.”