**Prerequisites:**

- Read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose (or at least watch [excerpts on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y460qLK0-ZA),
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._