Hey, Larkin Rose here, hiding from the sun, making a quick video.
So, there are some more no-kings protests going on.
And to be on the positive side, I think the overall sentiment of that is,
you're not the boss of me, so I'm okay with that.
Now, are most of the people there still statists and just want somebody else to be the boss of them?
Yeah, because most people in the world are.
But I wanted to talk about a particular thing today because I saw a post about Bruce Springsteen.
I mean, I assume he actually said this, I don't know, people can make up whatever they want.
Talking about the no-kings thing and saying, I forget the exact quote because it doesn't matter.
But talking about how, like, this is, we don't need this, we need democracy.
And we don't want, like, dictators and fascism. We need the rule of law.
And so, some of you can already guess where this is going.
I've helped the need to make a video pointing out that, yeah, the rule of law and democracy
are not at all incompatible with tyranny and authoritarianism.
In fact, all of the worst dictatorships and oppressive regimes weren't actually monarchies.
They weren't kings. They were democratically elected legislative bodies.
And, you know, a lot of Americans have no idea about that.
They think we're special because we get to vote.
You know, who else got to vote? The people who put the Nazis into power.
And the people who put Stalin into power in Russia.
And the people who put Mao Zedong into power in China.
And the people who put the various clowns into power in North Korea.
All of those places had constitutions. All of them allowed their people to vote.
And all of them did the evil that they did by way of the legislative process,
calling it law, pretending it was legal authority.
So, there's this sort of gut-level sympathy I have for people who are like,
this is horrible. I look at these oppressions going on. I'm against this.
Okay, are you against this particular injustice?
And you're not really against being ruled?
Because you could change the no-kings thing, because we already don't have a king.
Instead, we have a...in the U.S.,
we have an oppressive, tyrannical, parasitical gang of sociopaths
that is a democratically elected constitutional republic.
And a bunch of pro-freedom people say,
wow, we don't want democracy, we want a republic.
You mean like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
which is North Korea, or the Weimar Republic,
which became Nazi Germany,
or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic,
or the People's Republic of China?
If you think republic means not tyrannical, open a freaking history book.
It's not at all the case.
The worst tyrannies in history were democratically elected republics,
and most of the evil they did, they did by way of law,
passed by whatever stupid manifestation of legislatures they had.
And this isn't just sort of like a technical nitpicking,
okay, well, technically, that was a republic.
But not a real republic.
It's inherent to what it is.
And when people are saying no kings are saying,
we need a republic, or we need democracy, or we need the rule of law,
they don't recognize that all of those aren't just able to be corrupted.
They're already corruption.
By the very nature, they're already oppressive.
They're already authoritarian.
Now, it can be to different degrees,
oh, I live under this ruling class.
It only steals this much from me,
but over there, their ruling class steals that much from them.
Okay, so there's differing degrees.
They're all thieves.
They're all thugs.
They're all authoritarian.
Every political democracy is authoritarian,
whether they're all the way actually a democracy,
which they never are.
They always warp the game and put on a show.
But even if you had an actual democracy,
all that means is the majority gets to vote
to abuse the crap out of the minority.
Is that okay? Does that make it right?
Majority-approved nasty aggression is okay,
as long as enough people approve of it.
No, it isn't. It's automatically immoral.
And I mean automatically immoral.
Not, well, democracy can be used.
It's automatically used for evil the moment you make it political.
Because political is about forcing people.
And there's a huge difference between consensus and democracy,
where, you know, I use the example a million times,
there's 10 people at a party or something,
and they're like, what should we have?
Well, I want pizza. I want Chinese food. I want this.
If everyone could say, okay, we agree on this,
maybe a few people say, well, I wasn't my first choice,
but yeah, I'm fine with that.
Okay, that's consensus. That's voluntary.
That's anarchy, because no one's ruling anybody.
Democracy would be seven of the 10 people said we want pizza,
and then at gunpoint forced the other three
to help fund something they didn't want.
That's democracy. It is inherently evil,
because it is inherently violent
when you're talking about political democracy.
Not just people agreeing, well,
if most people want that, I will voluntarily go along.
That's not what political democracy is.
You don't have a stinking choice.
If the majority says, our word is law,
we have voted on this,
and our law now forces the minority to do this,
you're shit out of luck,
and it's oppression just as much as if it had been one guy.
It's like, well, we could either have a king in the party room
and the king decides we all have to pay for pizza.
That would be unjust and mean
and authoritarian and oppressive.
But if we have seven kings
and they force the other three to pay for it,
well, then that's democracy.
That's rule of law. That's authoritarian bullshit.
Exactly as immoral as having one guy do it.
It's still forcing other people to go along
something against their consent, without their consent.
And so there's...
The good news is that lots of people are instinctively like,
we don't like this.
There's police, state fascism, bossing people around.
So, okay, good.
There's an instinctive anti-authoritarianism in those people.
They're not just saying,
well, if it's the law, I guess we have to do it.
They're saying, well, in this case, we don't like that.
We don't like authoritarianism.
Did you like authoritarianism
when people were being forced to get a stupid injection
and wear stupid masks that don't do any good?
A bunch of you did,
because yet you might not want a king,
but you absolutely wanted an authoritarian ruling class
forcing your view on other people.
And so it would be fun.
I haven't had a chance to do it,
and I probably won't have a chance to do it,
because I have 800,000 other things more young.
But to go to one of these rallies.
I know a number of people who have gone to those rallies.
I know a number of volunteers who are doing that.
It would be fun to ask those people,
basically walk them through,
okay, but if the majority, including you,
wants something that I don't.
You want a bridge, or you want free something for somebody,
and for whatever reason I say I don't want to fund that,
what do you want to have happen to me?
Like we do this in candles in the dark.
To put it in front of them,
okay, now you have to literally describe the violence
you want done to the minority,
in that case just me.
Well, I want free lunches for school children, okay?
Funded by what?
Taxes? Okay, if I don't pay,
what do you want to have done to me?
And then usually they hem and hawn,
tap dance around and make excuses for it,
as all status do, because they don't want to admit,
oh, we totally want a king, or at least an oppressor,
some collection of authoritarian control freaks
forcing our will on you,
we just don't like when other people do it to us.
Yeah, that's called being a hypocrite,
which is why every status in the world
is automatically a hypocrite,
because they play the victim,
and talk about how this is unjust
when somebody else does exactly the same thing to them,
but they actually want that.
But there is an advantage
when people are currently in the mindset
of we're against this authoritarianism,
if you suddenly put them in the place of the,
okay, if you're the one with the power,
hi, quail.
Quail just walked by.
Would you use that power?
And the beauty, there's so much psychology
involved in people's beliefs,
and we totally make use of that in candles in the dark,
which if you hadn't heard of at Rose Channel's subscribers,
get access to that, which is TheRoseChannel.com,
or you can just pay once for candles in the dark
at attendcandles.com and have it forever.
But we use a bunch of the psychological things
that if somebody has just been thinking
of I don't want other people forcing their will on me,
and then you say, okay, would you force your will on me,
their mind is focused on a thing
that now they're willing to notice,
well, yeah, that wouldn't really be okay, would it?
I was just complaining about other people doing that to me.
Be a little lame for me to do that to you.
So in candles in the dark, we often go through the procedure
of first have the person you're talking to
be the potential victim of authoritarianism.
So for example, I'll say, if government wanted you to,
wanted to force you to fund something by way of taxes,
that you thought was like genuinely destructive and immoral,
do you think that's okay?
And everybody goes, no.
Okay, what if there's something you want that I don't?
So we go through the process of first make them the victim,
then make yourself the potential victim.
Okay, if it's something you want and I don't
for whatever reason, do you want me forced
to fund what you want?
And when their brain is in the mindset of
that's not fair sort of the principled objection to authoritarianism
and you turn it around when they're in that mindset,
they're way more likely to go,
well, no, I don't want you forced to do anything either.
Even though if you ask it in a different way,
in a different setting, like, do you think the majority
has the right to vote on a tax policy to fund things?
Absolutely, that's the same stinking question.
And people don't recognize it as that
because they've been indoctrinated to believe
that things like rule of law and democracy
make violent aggression in the name of law
a good thing, a legitimate thing,
or at least a necessary thing.
And so rather than just be frustrated by the fact
that so many people at the No Kings protests
are all statists and absolutely still believe in authoritarianism,
make use of the inherent righteousness
in their righteous outrage right now
against the particular flavor of authoritarianism
and use that as the segue into the principles
because right now in that setting,
in that context, in that particular example,
they're being anti-authoritarian,
even though they're not really,
it's not really what they believe in,
but you can use that as sort of a launching point
to get into, okay, well, is it across the board
that you oppose this,
or do you just think that they're not using the force of law
the way you want them to?
They're not forcing people to pay for what you like,
and you don't want to be forced to pay for, like,
ice or a war or whatever it is.
And in Candles in the Dark we teach that you...
the only time you ever say what you think
when you're in Candles in the Dark mode
is to agree with them.
Yeah, I don't want you forced to fund a war either
or to pay for ice,
or I don't want you forced to pay for anything.
But then have them be the ones where you ask them,
do you want me forced to pay for,
like, if you want government to help the poor?
If for whatever reason, maybe I say,
I help people I know individually,
I think that's way more efficient,
government welfare's all corrupted, it's a disaster.
Whatever my reasons,
whether you like my reasons or not,
what do you, the person who didn't want to be forced
to fund the war, want done to me,
if I don't want to be forced to fund your
democratically approved legal
government extortion?
So, yeah, you can just be frustrated
by what giant hypocrites most of them are,
or you can try to use the opportunity
as a segue into trying to introduce them
to the idea that, yeah, you shouldn't be oppressed,
and either should I,
and either should anybody else.
And you can only be in that position
when you move from no kings to no rulers.
And there's a word that means no rulers,
or literally ruled by no one,
which is anarchy.
And anarchists are the only ones,
by definition, who believe in a world without rulers.
And trying to nudge people into seeing that,
well, that's the challenge.
So, get out there and do it.