Prerequisites:

• Read “The Most Dangerous Superstition” by Larken Rose (or at least watch excerpts on youtube, for the start).
• Nice to have, if possible: Watch the “Candles in the Dark” series by Larken Rose. This guide is a summary of that method, but created independently of Larken Rose.

Outline:

The goal is NOT to make strangers (or friends) buy Bitcoin on the spot, or to fully understand the new worldview. The goal is to lead them into cognitive dissonance about their own contradicting beliefs.

Once you make them aware of their own root beliefs that are in conflict, they HAVE to keep thinking about it, UNTIL (over time) they erase all the fiat lies that they got fed. No human can stay comfortable and inactive, knowing that their own beliefs don’t match up - it’s torture and it forces self reflection.

But that is only possible, if you navigate around all their distraction attempts and really get to the core. Once the core fiat belief has fallen, the whole house of cards will self destruct, and they will do most of that work on their own.

The core is always the same. The core is even deeper than Bitcoin. The core is their unconscious believe in the legitimacy of slavery. And it stands in direct opposition to their own deepest morality.

It is an internal fight that gets incredibly uncomfortable once you make it conscious to them. It’s not a fight between you and them. It’s a fight between their moral conscience and their brainwashing. You are their therapist. You are their friend, cheering for their true self that wants to END SLAVERY.

Mindset/ Frame:

• Your own psyche is 80% of the practice, success is proportional to your own maturity.

• You are here to help them, and they have to feel that. But also don’t be condescending.

• You have to keep them (and therefore yourself) out of fight/defense mode.

• Regularly process your emotional triggers, especially around frustration about being misunderstood etc.

• Relax your passion for the truth for a moment. Subconsciously, the high amount of energy and impatience behind passion gets interpreted as attack.

• This method is for one-on-one situations. A crowd watching their self reflection process creates too much pressure for them and subconsciously puts them into defense mode.

• Don’t jump on their contradictions once it is obvious (“ha! see!? I told you so!”). It will be cringe enough for themselfes, even if they don’t show it.

• Stay neutral and curious while asking questions.

• Serial killer interview metaphor: You can’t change the mind of a serial killer anyway, but you can curiously learn about the phenomena of his mind, if you ask in the right way. In that process, if the subject turns out to value moral, they will change their mind on their own, because you helped them to see their own contradiction.

• If someone is actually holding strongly to immoral positions, just talk to someone else. There are enough mislead people with good intentions that need your help.

• It can seem impossible, as people can be insanely stupid, I agree. But almost nobody is so stupid they don’t understand the simple core: DON’T STEAL. It is possible, my own orange pilling got way more sustainable. My approach was wrong, not the others.

• It is ok, if they don’t come to detailed conlusions yet, it is a blindspot, a void that they never! have consciously looked at before. So don’t use jargon, keep your words as simple as possible.

• It is ok if you have failing attempts, there are endless precoiners to practice on, a great opportunity to grow above your own shyness. Be humble enough to keep practicing until you reach results. Only good things can come from this practice. What else is more important to master? We won’t accelerate the Bitcoin Standard with shyness.

• If you are a Bitcoiner new to moral and natural law philosophy, get into that rabbit hole as soon as you can, because: Freedom and moral are directly proportional. The more moral humanity behaves, the freer it gets. This is the only way, and Bitcoin is part of it – „don’t steal“ manifested in code.

Obstacles:

• The main obstacles are the countless attempts to distract from directly answering your core- questions (listed in chapter: Core Questions). Most core questions just need a clear Yes or No.
• “Who will make the rules?”, “What about the energy consumption?”, “What about ‘money laundering’?”, and the classic: “Who will build the roads?”
• These are all irrelevant and they will willingly find the answers on their own, once they realize the illegitimacy of slavery money.
• These are all just subconscious distraction attemps, because they want to avoid the immense pain of having to rebuild their whole worldview.
• Don’t answer any of these questions, just say: “I can tell you my personal predictions later, but is it ok if we go back to the train of thought for now?” You will have to repeat variations of this over and over!

Method:

• Use any topic related to government/ society to transition towards one of the question blocks below (the choice is yours, what ever questions you like the most, one block can already be enough).

• Here is a transition you can randomly throw into almost any conversation: „This might be an unusual change of topic, but: The past few days I have studied a few philosophical questions. I am curious what you think.“ Or just: „I am curious what you think. Can I ask you a (philosophical/ an unusual) question?“

• Start with the first question of the block and then spontaneously make the order and specifics fit to the path of how they answer. This gets easier with time. At some point it will click, and the principles of how to lead back from any distraction become obvious.

• Try to start with questions, where they are in the seat of the victim, then move over to you and/or others being in the seat of the victim. Most question blocks are prestructured like that.

• Anytime they say yes to something moral: Affirm their opinion! “Yes I see it like that aswell. I also want for you to [summarize latest morally correct point].” This is essential to the method.

• Never say your own opinion or predictions, don’t even talk about Bitcoin! You are just openly inquiring and strenghtening the Bitcoiner/ Voluntarist that is already inside of them.

• If you find yourself in a debate, you can try the following transition/ calming: „It feels like we are fighting, eventhough we probably want the same things. Do we want to calm down for a moment and find our common ground first? Maybe we need to have look at our fundamental understandings of morality first…“(OK)

Finishline:

• You will know when you reached the tipping point, it feels different from the usual frustrating orangepill attempts. Moments of silence and thinking…“uuhh ahh ohh mhh I don’t know”. Even if it is just for a second, you will notice that a true self-reflection process has been activated. After that tipping point, they will find Bitcoin on their own, once they are ready. - Dimensions faster, then if we hadn’t proactively triggered the core reflection.
• For some, despite all your love, the cognitive dissonance expresses itself in a rage-quit. Then be honest to yourself, if it was triggered by you („failed“ attempt) or by their own contradiction (success).
• In the end, you can give them a link or pdf of a resource list to speed up their process: “I know this can be an overwhelming topic, if you want, I can send you a list with some cool philosophy books and helpful youtube videos.”
• The resources should include books that focus on the core fiat belief, like “The Most Dangerous Superstition”, and some Bitcoin education resources in between.

---

Core Questions:

1. Morality vs Law

Should you disobey a law that conflicts with your own moral conscience?

Can you think of any scenario, where what a law says goes exactly against what you think is right, and in that case, should you disobey the law? (past, present, imaginary)

[Note: They can see the evil in other regimes, but not in their own, because they are trained to feel loyal to their own regime, but not to the other. You can bring up examples from other times or places to open them for questioning in general (underground railroad, uygurs, nazi germany), before more directly questioning their own slavemasters.]

Even if you wouldn’t actually disobey, because of fear of punishments etc: When would you still be morally justified to disobey?

At the end of the day, who decides wether you should obey a law? So you believe it’s up to you, which laws to obey? (yes!!)

[Example objection (advanced): „If someone thinks it is right to murder, they should better follow the law instead.“ - Good Point, let me clarify that: I asked about you specifically, because I assume you actually have a moral conscience. Or would you say someone can think it is right to murder and have a moral conscience at the same time? - „No, not really.“ - Ok, so should someone with a moral conscience act against it, when a law says so? (…resume with next questions) [Side Note: Asking these questions about people without moral conscience would not make sense, because they don’t care about laws anyway.]]

2. Delegation of Immorality

If it’s bad for you to do a certain thing, is it ok for you to try to get someone else to do it for you?

If it’s bad for you to beat up your neighbor and steal their stuff, is it good if you hire someone else to beat your neighbour and take their stuff and give it to you (or others)?

When you vote for a government/ party/ candidate, are you hoping they are going to do things that you don’t have the right to do on your own? (like taxing your neighbours to fund free healthcare)

„Well, that is different!“ - Ok, how is it different? Where is the line exactly? What is the distinction that makes one bad and the other ok?

Can people, by voting, give to politicians the right to do things, that none of the voters have themselfes?

3. Moral Equality

Do you believe that right and wrong apply the same to everybody?

Not, does everybody agree on what concrete action was right or wrong, but the principles of right and wrong, do they apply equally to everybody?

Ok, what if some of us vote? Does right and wrong still apply to those who got voted? How about a guy with a badge and a uniform?

Does he have the right to do anything that you don’t have the right to do your self? Does moral apply differently to that person than how it applies to you?

“We need them to have extra power.” - What is the line? Do they have the right to murder you? Since you say they have some extended version of the morality that applies to us: What are the boundaries? Exactly how much extra rights do they have?

Are the boundaries determined by the legislators? What if the legislators say to kill all the redheads..would that be ok? Ok, if it’s not what the legislators say, what is it?

[Note: Make them think about their own conscience, their line in the sand, that it even exists and where it is exactly. Their line does not have to align exactly with yours, the point is the illegitimacy of authority: Moral is above the law, and the only metric that every human has to act after in their own responsibility. No order follower can give up the responsibility of their actions to their order makers. And if you only „act on“ orders when you rate them as moral, the order makers don’t have authority in the first place.]

4. Transforming Immorality

We agree that it is bad to beat up my neighbor and take their stuff.. is there any trick I can do to make it ok?

Like write something on a piece of paper..or whatever? What if we call it something else? We want your stuff, but we call it a commitee or congress, and we hire a representative who imposes a legislative requirement on you, let’s call it a tax… does that make it moral?

“You consent to taxes by being in the country.” Does that mean that by being in the country, they can do anything they want to me/ you? Beat me up, steal my stuff …or is there some limit? How much are they allowed to abuse me, because I am standing in the country?

What if I don’t pay taxes. What should happen to me? Would come to my house, beat me up and put me in a cage, because I don’t pay for yours or others wishes?

5. Morality in Time and Space

If something is good today, but it gets outlawed. Is it bad to do the same thing tomorrow? Do you think something moral gets immoral because of a change in legislation?

If this is a state line, and I am allowed to have this plant right here, but I am not allowed to have this plant on here (step to side), does that mean that morality is different right here from what it is right there? Did the state government achieve to change morality?

[Remember to affirm, e.g: I want you to be able to live by your own conscience and ignore every law on the planet. I want you to be able to use your own judgment and free will, and ignore anybody claiming the right to force you to go against what you believe is right.]

6. Morality of the Majority

Does a majority have the right to do whatever it wants to a minority, as long as it uses voting and the political process?

How about gang rape? They let her vote, but she lost. Is that ok? (NO!!)

In what case does that change? How about, if they just vote to steal her purse instead? How about, if they just steal a little bit of money out of her purse?

How about if we voted do make slavery legal again? Where do you draw the line?

[Example of an advanced distraction attempt: ‘No, but that’s what the constitution is for.’ - Okay, but strictly related to my question, would you say that majority processes are legitimate? ‘Yes, the majority is legitimate when it is in combination with the constitution.’ - Okay, so does the constitution take precedence over the majority? If the constitution takes precedence over the majority, how legitimate is the majority process exactly? If it were a little legitimate, then a little bit of gang rape would also be okay, right? (This is irrefutable, but can also trigger blackouts; from here, it’s best to lead into Question Block 1 to keep the thread and then use that to also debunk the constitution.) ‘No’ - Okay, would it be moral duty to obey if something immoral is commanded in the constitution? (From here, continue with Question Block 1) (Comment: It’s fun to defuse advanced distractions; note which reactions/responses you couldn’t adress and then write a script like this at home for when the question comes up again and for your own understanding.)]

7. Morality of Slavery

Do you believe it’s ok for government to force you to fund things, that you are opposed to, that you think are actually bad?

If you could have a choice, and you could see the government budget line by line, and you could say “ok, this and this is cool”, but that war thing or what ever you don’t like… if you could have the choice to say “I don’t want to pay for that” and cross it out, and you don’t get taxed for that. Would you want that?

[Affirm: Yes, I would want you to have that too, even if you don’t want to fund anything that I want.]

Would you be ok, with me having that right too, where I can look at the government spending and cross out what I think is bad to fund from my own money?

Are you going to allow them the freedom, to not pay for the things you want, or would you like that freedom for you, but not for them? Do you want them forced to fund what you think is important?

[Even if someone with moral potential spontaneously says yes here, they will secretly feel ashamed afterward; it just sounds cruel when stated so obviously and prompts self-reflection.]

[Another advanced objection: “It is ok to rob rich people.” - Ok, what makes that moral? - “Because they all stole from the rest.” - How do you know it’s all of them, and how much they stole? How much wealth exactly counts as rich? Aren’t those assumptions? Would it be moral if you steal from someone, because you assume they have stolen something? (Or would you have to do case-by-case trials to determine who is the rightful owner of what? Would you want someone steal from you, based on assumptions?)]

Bonus Question Blocks:

A) (almost) all Questions in one Block, from Larken Rose „Government on Trial“

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else, the moral right to do something which none of these individuals have the moral right to themselfes?

Do those who wield political power, have the moral rights to do things that other people don’t have the right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

Is there any process, such as constitutions, voting or legislations, by which human beings can transform an immoral action into a moral action, without changing the action itself?

When lawmakers and lawenforcers use coersion and force in the name of government, do they bear the same responsibility that anyone else would for doing the same thing on their own?

When there is a conflict between an individuals own moral conscience and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally sees as wrong in order to obey the law?

B) 3 question quicky for short conversations

Can someone give another person a right that they don’t have themselves?

Does the government do things that regular people don’t have the right to do?

If someone can’t give a right they don’t have, how does the government get the right to do things that regular people can’t do?

Attachment 1: How do you become confident in knowing what is moral?

At first, it was difficult for me to indirectly assume (through this method), that I had the wisdom of the ages. It seemed very arrogant to claim that I knew what absolute morality is. However, if you think about it, anyone can easily derive it with logic:

What does it actually mean when an action is moral? Moral = right. Immoral = wrong. But right or wrong in relation to what? - In relation to whether it contributes to the well-being of the most beings possible, especially humans/ humanity.

By well-being, I mean health, wealth, joy of life, quality of life, minimization of suffering, etc.

Now you can simply examine all possible principles that lead closest to this ideal. The highest principle I have encountered so far is the NAP: the Non-Attacking Principle.

Attacking violence leads to suffering, devaluation, separation, unproductive conflict, etc. The absence of attacking violence rewards cooperation, communication, healthy competition, and thus creates value, which means well-being for the most beings possible.

So you can establish the formula:

Degree of collective moral action = Degree of collective freedom. (collective as in cumulative within the human species)

Where does freedom suddenly come from? Even the fewest Bitcoiners consciously reflect on what they actually want to be free FROM when they talk about freedom. This lack of clarity leads to misunderstandings with unaware people: “Free from rules? Free from boundaries? Free from trees and houses and birds?? Freedom bad!!”

When you look closely enough, every person will agree that they simply want freedom from attacking violence. That’s it.

And in what sentence can ALL forms of attacking violence be summarized and rejected? “You shall not steal.” This sentence is the ultimate morality. Period.

(Whether a specific action was an instance of attacking violence or not, is a matter of interpretation on a case-by-case basis, but the principle of morality itself remains forever untouched. Solutions for bias minimized interpretation are a different topic.)

So, for those who, after such a conscious derivation, still claim that morality is relative, that there is no right and no wrong, I have no problem saying that I know the truth and they do not.

Knowledge is power, and no slave should possess knowledge. That is why we are led to believe that there is no right and wrong, that there is nothing to know.

The path to freeing your mind from slavery inevitably leads through giving yourself (via derivation) the permission… to know.

Attachment: How do I best learn the method?

Learning styles can vary for everyone; I will simply describe my own process.

The most important thing is to understand the content. Look at each question and explain out loud or in writing what insight the question leads to. And how does it lead to the end of slavery, aka the Bitcoin Standard, when a critical mass has this insight? What contradictory belief does the

question highlight? Also, examine the order of the questions and understand: How does one insight/conscious consideration lead to the next?

Chunking: Choose the block of questions that you like best and memorize only that block at first. You can also adjust the questions so that the formulations resonate better with you. Actors often learn their lines by repeating a sentence until they no longer need to look at it. Then they repeat the next one and then both together etc. Expect 10-30 repetitions per sentence.

Additionally, you can summarize each question in a bullet point or a single memory word and use that as a guide while reviewing.

You can also just start by memorizing the titles of the question blocks.

If you can’t practice in real life right now or prefer to do dry runs first, think of tricky counter- questions or distractions and consider how to meaningfully steer back to the core questions/the core insight (Authority is an illusion).

You simply have to spend time with the question chapter over and over again, and think about it from all possible angles.

If you don’t have time to sit down separately and are more of an audio learner, you can record the block you are currently learning as a memo (not on WhatsApp/Telegram of course) and listen to it while cooking, driving, etc. For example: (Question 1, pause to repeat) x3, (Question 2, pause) x3, etc. Or afterwards with the pattern: (Memory word 1, pause to repeat the question) x3, etc.

At a certain point, however, you should also go out into the real world and practice. It is often easier with strangers than with family. I would leave the professional environment.

You can also start an Orange Pill Mastery group with other trusted plebs from your meetups to share experiences and help each other with tricky objections/distractions. I got myself some recording equipment to record my conversations and share them in my local group.

I know this is a lot of work, but I prefer to fight this way in information warfare rather than being in a physical warzone or gulag. And in contrast, this process helps develop your character in a way that is useful for life.

Thank you, dear reader, for your actions. Thank you, dear Larken, for your brilliant thinking.