Candles In The Dark - Session 1 - The Mirror [Larken Rose] [Part 1 of 7]

Click "playlist" to play seminar in order.

NOTES and REMINDERS from a “Candles in the Dark” Seminar by Larken Rose.

INTRODUCTION

This notebook is a supplement to the “Candles in the Dark” seminar created and given by Larken Rose to help voluntaryists and anarchists communicate more efficiently and effectively with friends, family members, and others. The term “statist” is used here for anyone who advocates the existence of a political state, or anyone who is not an anarchist. This notebook is a handy collection of notes and reminders with ideas and topics discussed in more detail.

The seminar, and these notes, give a set of suggestions and instructions for any voluntaryist (who in these notes is often just referred to as “you”) who wishes to convince others to give up their belief in political “authority.” The following suggestions are not about whether a voluntaryist’s tactics are understandable, or moral, or justified; only about whether they are effective. And the methods that are most effective are often counterintuitive and do not come naturally or easily to most people, but require a level of focus and self-awareness as well as practice.

THE MIRROR

1) It is advisable that you study yourself before you seek to change the minds of others. Observe your own thought and speech patterns, your own mannerisms, how you come across to others, and so on. In other words, before trying to spread the ideas, you should take a look in the mirror.

2) What you say can matter less than how you say it. Getting ideas into a person’s brain is not just “data entry.” If your approach is off-putting, and they’re not really hearing what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is true or not.

3) First and foremost, you must be clear in your own head about your own goals and motives. Why are you talking to the statist at all? What exactly do you hope to accomplish? Are you talking to him for your own benefit, or for his? What is your motivation? Is your goal to defeat him in verbal combat, or to help him? Do you view him as an opponent, or as a decent human being who was taught a lie?

4) Control your own thought and speech patterns. Don’t haphazardly hurl ideas out there, but carefully keep track of approaches that actually work, and those that make statists get angry or run away. Trying to have a worthwhile, substantive discussion with a statist can be akin to trying to navigate a treacherous obstacle course where one wrong step can end in disaster.

5) Unfortunately, people who think “outside the box” can come across as overbearing, condescending, or offensive. The point here is not whether it is good to be that way, but whether you can communicate effectively when you are perceived that way by others.

6) When you’re excited and enthusiastic about an idea, it’s easy to become “evangelical”—overly desperate and anxious to convince others. But such aggressive tactics almost always make the other person shut down or want to escape. Ironically, if the speaker talks as if it matters less to him, casually bringing it up and talking as if he doesn’t particularly care whether or not he convinces anyone else, it’s more likely that others will listen. When people feel threatened or pressured they are less likely to listen.
It’s difficult to not become anxious and infuriated about authoritarianism. The issue does matter, a lot. Many millions of people are suffering from it and being oppressed by it on a daily basis. So holding back can take a lot of self control. But again, the issue here is not whether outrage is justified—it absolutely is. The issue is that people tend to shut down and stop listening when you come across as overly zealous and anxious.

7) Don’t be overly defensive. Entering a conversation expecting to be attacked and ridiculed can have similar negative results. It’s important to be confident and have your ideas clear in your own head. If you’re insecure about your position or argument, you may trigger a combative exchange. Try not to be overly sensitive or easily annoyed or angered by disagreement.

8) Don’t argue so aggressively that the statist becomes defensive, and don’t let their attacks or arguments make you defensive. If you’re knowledgeable and confident about your subject, it’s much easier to ignore any emotional, or even openly hostile comments, and just stick to principles, logic, and clear, specific questions.

9) Don’t be condescending, even if you do know better than the statist, even if his position is stupid. In fact, it’s especially important to not be condescending or insulting when the statist is feeling insecure and embarrassed at how his own argument came out. In other words, when his argument really is completely idiotic, to the point where he probably knows it himself, back off and be gentle. “Going in for the kill” may win the argument, but it won’t make it any easier for him to change his mind.