Interview 1510 – Larken and Amanda Rose Shine Candles In The Dark

by | Jan 28, 2020 | Interviews | 24 comments

Today James’ identical twin brother Statist Jim talks to Larken and Amanda Rose about Candles In The Dark, the two day workshop they’ll be running at Anarchapulco 2020 to help voluntaryists become more effective communicators of anarchist ideas.

Watch this video on BitChute / / YouTube or Download the mp4

Candles In The Dark at Anarchapulco

Candles In The Dark online

Information on The Mirror


  1. I want to thank two people who left open source information for my voluntary perusal. First who left the Summerhill recommendation. Thanks, the copy I received in the inter-library was well worn with numerous marks, and dog eared pages. It helped in understanding the past and this, this here and this now.
    Second thanks to a comment i saw for the first time James Corbett talk to a class at a Japanese University class. It probably pre dated the Ted talk and one thing stood out. ” I had to do something” is the most important thing that James said to the class.
    Freedom was the connecting thread of the two. Very much! Thank you.

    Every honest open source reporting of your observations of the world are important .

    They whoever they are sprayed the sky here yesterday like a MoFo. For it rained today . an observation with a guess on the conclusion.

      • Stephen11; thank you. TERRIFYING READ. All the carbon black studies and the one about arosolizing the influenza viruses.

        I would but James probably wouldn’t , like to see an observation of the day comment included with every comment. What’s it like outside of wherever who is posting a comment. Then any observations as to effect on environment, health ect…to see how wide spread it is.
        I noticed most of the carbon black studies were in India. I wonder how many were injured or died from respiratory problems?

    • gbw,

      I’m not sure what you mean by who left the Summerhill recommendation, but in some earlier post I did talk about and recommend “Summerhill”, written by the school’s founder AS Neill.

      If that’s the case, if you got yourself a copy of it, I’m happy.

      It was introduced to me as a 14 yr old student by my English teacher. He and I became life long friends. Back then, during recess breaks, he and I would discuss endlessly about starting our own school based upon Summerhill’s approach to teaching/nurturing. For awhile, it was a shared dream of ours.

      • Thanks Candlelight, a resent reunion of elementary school students came before the book was delivered. It would have been enlightening to have knowledge of the book to share in all the stories that went around the table. We all agreed who the child abusers where from our collective past.
        Interesting read. How Neill every existed in jolly ol England is amazing.

  2. Great video!
    Anarchy means without master, not without rules. It is the only true moral STATE of freedom.

  3. 1. How does environment protection work in a Anarchistic principle?

    People in many countries, just dump poisonous garbage into the nature or ocean. Or burn it, creating toxic substances.
    The same is for pesticides that are cheap but can damage other people’s health.

    2. And how does safety work?

    Before safety rules, people drove around with dangerous cars that would create very severe accidents. Frontal collisions due to breaking of an axis or wheel. Or stuff falling from the cars.

    Can I place nuclear power generator in my shed? It is completely safe, as my grandfather claims.

    “No rules” seemed to help people to drive more careful. But this may
    not work for safety, because safety is complex and safety often risks
    other people’s lives.

    Not as criticism/debunking. Just curious how we can find solutions,
    and how this can extend to a free choice approach.

    • It can be worked out, by following morality and living in small communities.
      There are inherent rules in nature which affect the consequences of your actions, some call them God, Morality, Karma or Natural law, so personal responsibility is the true meaning of freedom, not delegating it to government so they “keep you safe”.

      The whole safety thing is a made up construct, so you pay for insurance and give up your rights to government. You can die or cause harm even if you follow all their regulations, many “random” events happen.

      If you wanna drive a broken car thats all your responsibility and your own life is at most risk. You make the choice then you face the consequences.
      Same thing applies if you know how to build a power generator, own a gun, or do any real life action.

      Most people dont wanna destroy the environment and if you give them a good example by showing how you can live clean and creative they will follow.
      Pesticides and poisons generally come from the government and big corporations.

      Any community can have specific guidelines for behaviour if you wanna be a part of it, which should be voluntary. IF you dont like it you can make your own community or live alone, thats all your free decision.

      In a true moral and free society bad actors will be eliminated in time by design. Instead we have a system that breeds and rewards bad actors, exploitation and slavery.

      Of course big change in consciousness and actions must happen first if we are to even imagine true Anarchy.

    • To add to what Anarchon said about responsibility and our delegation of it to other entities. I always talk about common sense and I say that the “Golden Rule” (Don’t do to others something you wouldn’t want done to you.) is the backbone of common sense. This is because the personal sense of our saftey and comfort are the most primal of shared senses. You only start to lose this when you delegate your own personal responsibility away you. Along with that goes your ability to empathize with the situation because you’re letting something else be concerned for you.

      So, to your points I would say it sounds like a supposition that environmental protection and safety ‘work’ in the non-anarchy system. The truth is, they don’t, which I’m sure you’re aware of but I would say that because of our delegation of our responsibilities we actually think that there is some shred of safety of protection when there is not. California has had its aquafirs drained by Nestle, the Animus river was turned yellow by mining chemicals by the EPA, BP oil disaster, fracking, Hiroshima, depleted uranium shells in Iraq and all the destruction of our decades of war…

      Once we truly gain back our ABILTY of RESPONSE, our responsibility, will we force ourselves to empathize, see we have broken the backbone of common sense, accept culpability and respond in a matter that says, “I do not agree with this! You will not use me to accomplish this!” Then suddenly you’re not purchasing oil and bottled water, skirting taxes, and naysaying to your peers on the topic of war.

      The idea of whether anarchy will work to provide saftey or protection goes out the window. It’s all about your ability to respond to dangers that threaten you and your environment knowing in full you would never preform actions that would contraindicate your stance on such matters. That would go for you and your anarchist neighbors.

      • The keyword is indeed RESPONSIBILITY

        And a solution would be to teach the people to be
        responsible for safety and the environment,
        besides themselves.
        Safety is can include hygiene and quarantine to prevent diseases.
        Environment can include not hunting at places that have protected species.

        In a state the state takes most of the responsibility off you.
        And puts restrictions and tasks onto you instead.
        So instead of responsibility we learn something completely different.

        In the old days this meant to be proud of your land,
        to be helpful and listening to others (like “wise elders”).
        And the way this sense of responsibility grows depends very much
        on the culture of the people.

        For people that are careless, it would require some community
        interactions to help them to be more responsible.
        The different communities also need to respect each other.
        And also to be able to see wrong values and change them.
        Like: forced prostitution which is how an village in India worked.

        At the same time this could lead to some separation
        of groups/communities or even to violence.
        Especially if the cultural values are very different.

        I find this an interesting topic.

    • Generally speaking, I think it is quite the rabbit hole to go down when thinking about what an anarchist society would do with the remnants of a collectivist society.

      Without the centralization of power I would wager the technologies we see today: nuclear, microprocessor, defense, chemical, wouldn’t exist or would be very different at least.

      So should a responsible person avoid employing technologies that surpass their understanding so to not, by proxy or by accident, cause harm to others?

    • zyxzevn,
      What about the suffering that already exists under government, and because of government? That should be considered. For instance, it is the government who compacts trash and disposes of it in the ocean. It is the government who dropped the nuclear bomb on living people and the environment. It is the government that tests bombs and other weapons that are toxic to the environment. It is the government that did not protect people after the 9/11 attacks when they were told the toxic air was safe. I could go on. This is not to say a world without government would be a peaceful utopia, it just means that violence and destruction would not be there by default, as is the case today.

    • I just don’t over rate how safe the state really makes us.

      If it wasn’t for Stanislav Petrov disobeying orders on that day, none of us would probably be here now.

  4. Both of the James use the short form of their name in jestful pseudonyms. Statist Jim and DJ Tom Jimmy.

    I understand the name James to be the derivation of Jacob, which in Hebrew means to clutch at the heel, to supplant or overthrow. Certainly, some kind of ‘head over heels’ action.

    I looked up the name Corbett and discovered it refers to a black bird. Corb being a raven, Corbett, possibly a crow. I’ve heard the idiom, ‘To crow about something.’

    So in a sense, James Corbett means: talk that trips you up or, if you will, supplanting squawk.

    Pretty much a spot on name for someone speaking out about controversial subjects.

  5. First, I’d like to state for the record, I have for many years suspected that the headmaster here at the Corbett Report has an identical twin. Finally, finally, James’ twin has exposed that truth! At least for those few minutes, before the retraction and denial, the truth shone bright!

    It was nice that James the statist, and James the anarchist, equally felt comfortable with this down to earth couple. Especially pleasing was the laugh the Larkins got out of they way James typically leads into plugging his guest’s stuff. Here, James was like, hmm, wouldn’t it be interesting to have a game, instead of one on one, you hold this thing up like a mirror, etc., and the Larkins laughing, jokingly, oh, what a coincidence, ha ha, it just happens we do. Ha, as a matter of fact, what do you know? Chuckle, chuckle…. None of James’ guest are ever that flippant, natural, or easy going about their stuff, spontaneously and good-naturedly laughing at the modus operandi of James playing the good host.

    And that must be the tell of true anarchists, laughing at the system! Even James’. 🙂

    Anyway, James – both James – anarchist ou statist, obviously has a very nice rapport with the Larkins.

    • Correction: Wherever the name Larkin appears above, I meant Rose. I see I even spelled Larken wrong.

      Dyslexia or much worse?

      For some reason, Amanda’s name completely registered as Rose, with Larkin(sp) becoming the couple’s last name. Funny how Larken’s first name got lost in the mix as my mind was doing trix.

  6. Well I did subscribe to Candles In The Dark online version a few weeks back and I can recommend it.

    Must admit that I have pretty much scared away most of the Statists in my life now, so I haven’t had a lot of chance to put it into practice yet.

  7. There should be a comedy of hardcore statists that try to solve
    daily problems.

  8. REFERENCE NOTE – Bookmark –
    “Interview 1510 – Larken and Amanda Rose Shine Candles In The Dark”

    Occasionally, a Corbetteer or someone might ask:
    “How do I ‘wake up’ other people?”
    “How do I talk to someone about _____?”

    As is pointed out towards the end of the video; this friendly, non-combative, gradient approach is a great way to ‘infect’ the public with more awareness.

    • FLYERS – SIGNS are another effective tool to spread information.
      (2 minutes)
      QUEUED Video – Derrick Broze and Justin Harvey

      Hat tip to Corbett Report “Recommended Viewing” from James’ article of January 26, 2020 “Did Russia Just Undergo Regime Change?”

  9. You can’t begin to imagine a world where you’re not bossed around and robbed, for starters? The point is we don’t have to try to predict what free people will do. We don’t have to predict what institutions would spring into existence if people were free to experiment. There could be as many solutions as there are communities in the world. All we have to do is imagine a world where people are free to come up with solutions to their own problems. There doesn’t have to be a master plan. Governments do that all the time, and they screw everything up and create more problems.

    You are doing what Larken and Amanda said people will try to do. They veer off into ‘what about” questions instead of honestly answering yes or no questions and deciding how their view of the world is consistent with their own morality.

    Get your mind free first, before tackling larger questions, like how do we get there, or what would a world without government look like. I think you’re putting the cart before the horse.

    I was a minarchist before I became a full-blown anarchist (I’m beginning to think that word is so abused that it’s meaningless to use) and Larken Rose’s work was very instrumental in my ‘conversion’. I was already questioning a lot of my beliefs about limited government because I was reading a lot of Libertarian/anarchist stuff, and they go me to thinking about the inconsistencies in what I believed, even though I thought I had a very solid foundation of Liberty-type understandings. But, the constant questioning I was doing finally led me to reject Statism in favor of anti-Statist thinking.

    Lysander Spooner’s No Treason essays were another powerful weapon against my Statist thinking. They led me to see that the basis for our system of government truly couldn’t be voluntary if we have no means and no power to reject the contract. Once I saw that even the U.S. was ruled by force rather than by consent, it was inevitable that I would change my mind.

    The larger point is that I didn’t let irrelevant questions about what the world would look like, or how do we get there, distract me from the primary objective, which was to rid my mind of illogical thinking. One thing at a time.


  10. I’m not sure I follow you.

    First of all, the respondent doesn’t get to ask his own questions. He is like a witness in a jury trial. He answers questions posed to him by counsel. He doesn’t get to ask his own questions. So, in this exercise, you, as the subject, only answer their questions, with a yes or a no. You don’t get to ask you own questions, because that would end up being a debate, or an argument. That’s not what this is supposed to be. They don’t want a debate, because then you can use defense mechanisms to evade their questions. The idea is to have a debate with yourself.

    But then my confusion with your post really begins.

    “Here’s what I would ask.” As Larken or Amanda, or as Statist Jim?

    Then you say, “I would agree that other people couldn’t use the government to enforce zoning regulations on me, and in return I would agree to not use the government to apprehend other people if they break into my mother’s house and beat her up and steal her money.”

    Are you really saying that you wouldn’t want government to help you apprehend the perps and bring them to justice? What about people of your own choosing? Or, are you saying you would prefer to do that job yourself?

    Part of the confusion (mine, most likely) is that Larken uses ‘government’ to mean immoral, monopoly force, whereas you might mean government in another sense. How do you understand the term ‘government’? Is it what we all think of, a just and necessary agency, or the way Larken thinks of it, an agency of imposed order which has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force, and the agency with a monopoly on determining what the rules are for any given territory?

    Can you expand a bit so I can understand better what you’re getting at?

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member