Is Larken Joking? [Nah, He's Just Jerking Off To The "NAP"]
As some of you cumload fans may already be aware, it recently came to everyone's attention that Larken is one of the biggest cunts in the "freedom movement". As of now, for two years he has been engaging in a sick, sexual affair with another man's wife who are raising a child together. He fucked and sent dick pics to woman that thinks she's some human dragon. Peaceful parenting is the solution to ridding the world of violence, i.e. the state, but Larken doesn't give a fuck about children. People without principles are born to parents without principles and without stable, functional, adult relationships, just the way Larken now has chosen to live his life. Larken is doing everything in his power not only to not take down the state, but to be as horrible of a role-model for children as possible. How's that, you may ask:
Because the state is an effect of the family!
"I can do anything I want as long as it's not against the non-aggression principle! I will fuck your mom and pretend she's a rainbow... or whatever." - Larken Rose
If we're ever going to have a free society, then the change needs to occur within the family; not outside of it. Human civilization is built upon the stability of a functioning, whole family, something Larken does everything to destroy, so there's a clear reason why Larken chooses to never talk about dysfunction within the family and moral principles in interpersonal relationships: He's already made his bed by annihilating his own. The only thing he does is to spew the same old anti-state arguments (which everyone understands at this point) while he continues to rage against the state as if that will ever achieve anything. On top of his useless word drivels, he has an affair with a mentally disturbed woman which has little child, telling her son that "God has brought you a second dad!" while sleeping with her for two years without her husband's knowledge. Larken doesn't give a fuck about children. At this point I think it is safe to say Larken won't have an impact on anything other than people's already-existing prejudice about the freedom movement, which is very close to being completely shattered as more and more of the "heroes" in it turn out to be sick, disgusting, abusive, manipulative cunts in their own lives (But hey! As long as they don't violate the NAP!!!) They set examples of how not to change the world, because as long as children continue to be brought up in horribly dysfunctional family situations of complete and utter psychological destruction and mental anguish, absent any stable model of the world, this world will not improve a bit.
According to Larken Rose, this thing has nothing to do with the future of society. Image
If the freedom movement chooses to continue to to ignore child-rearing and principled interpersonal relationships— things which we can actually do something about, then next generation will not be of peaceful, stable and functional nature, because their childhoods will feel like some sick Dungeons and Dragons level on hardcore mode, and the whole movement ceases to be about arguing against the state, because no amount arguing will ever matter as these freedom fighters not only aren't behaving ethically and with principles in their own lives, but are outright acting against the interest of the next generation, i.e humanity. Children of said cunts will not "turn out fine", because abusive anarchist parents like Larken reject the importance of stable relationships and moral principles as a means to secure the well-being of children, and no fucking anti-government arguments will ever outweigh the consistent, peaceful rearing of our children. The child of the wife Larken has now fucked for two years will not turn out stable, much "thanks to" Larken. If Larken would've wanted a peaceful world, he would've rejected her immediately and said something like "No, I can't have a relationship with you, because you have a husband and you have a child, and I don't want to destroy any relationship or hurt anybody, because that goes against my values. Go to therapy." But he didn't, because he doesn't give a fuck about children, don't empathize with other people, and therefore doesn't give a crap about the world.
Other than an adulterer, a hypocrite is another thing Larken is good at being. Image
"The state is bad!" - Larken Rose.
"However, it is completely OK to fuck other people's wives, play real-life Harry Potter (and simultaneously believe it's for real), destroy relationships and end entire marriages, screw with an innocent child's head and mental capacity, damage his model of and sense of reality by brainwashing using religion to justify fucking his mother saying he's sent by God and totally fucking up his understanding of what grown-up relationships should be like. Yes, this is indeed the way to mold a stable foundation on which to build a better world with a consistent, moral future." - S.S. Earnstein*
Absolutely!
If Larken ever shows up at Huggson E. Inc he will probably be arrested by our free-market capitalist non-aggression moral ethical anti-government privately owned and funded security team which in no way violates the NAP because Huggson E. Inc is private property... or something.
- Stratched Scratchford Earnstein
*Yes, it was fucking sarcasm.
Ugggh, I hate arguments like this.
... because they should never happen in the first place!
The NAP is not an argument for morals. Nor is it an argument from morals.
It is an argument on how to run a society legally. Or basically, what the constitution should say.
So, yes, nothing should happen to Larken "legally". All parties consented... except for those who were hurt by betrayal. (but none of that is legally binding) What Larken did was morally wrong. Well, morally from a society who places a high importance on family solidarity. (in a free love society, what he did was morally correct, but in that society, marriage has no meaning)
Sadly this is all the state's fault. The state is evil. The deep state is pure evil. The deep state, and their propaganda arm, hollywood, have destroyed the moral principals of marriage. They have destroyed the underpinnings of marriage. If we were true to the ideals of marriage, we, the society, would have marched on dizney studios and burned it to the ground seventy years ago.
Another piece is the destruction of marriage from a social, and socially enforced, contract to the weak pathetic excuse for lawyer fees that exists today. You see, the movies all tell women that what they want is the bad boy. The bad boy is hot, exciting. And then, when you have had your excitement, you then settle (that means accept 2nd best) for the good guy to marry and have kids. But, how long will you "settle" for 2nd best? Especially with all the divorce-porn that is out today saying older women still have a chance. (In reality they have about the same chance as winning the lottery, but the movies show it as 1 in 10, maybe better if you try hard)
Today a marriage has no benefit for a man, legally speaking. He thought he was getting a family. That he was paying forward; gaining equity. But the reality is that in getting married, he lost his only trump card. The wife now owns him. Owns all of his labor until he dies. He may stay and help raise kids as long as she is content to let him do so. At any point she can have him removed from the home. It is no longer his castle, it is hers, and he can only visit by her whim.
Yes, a solid marriage of a man and women is the best place to raise children. But do not confuse this marriage, with the legal definition of marriage.
To me, it was obvious what Larken was doing a couple years ago. Was it apparent to any of you out there?