Adam Kokesh | Freedom, Self-governance, & Dissolving The State

Show Notes

Join host, Greg Carlwood, of The Higherside Chats podcast as he talks freedom, self-governance, and dissolving the State, with guest, Adam Kokesh.
While we are all acutely aware of the uphill battle that must be fought in order to overcome the constant combat to our consciousness, many may differ on the best possible solutions to solve such a severe crisis. Yes, indeed there is a battle being waged throughout multiple fronts that appears hopelessly inescapable- from the systemic indoctrination through the school systems, to the wage slave scheme, it is painfully obvious that we are living in a broken system designed to indenture the masses- and while recognizing these oppressive inadequacies may be the first step on the road to recovery, what comes next is another thing.
Today’s guest, Adam Kokesh, has been a resolute figurehead of the Libertarian movement. As the author of “FREEDOM!”, and host of the popular show “Adam Vs. The Man”, Kokesh has been a passionate activist upon his return from the Iraq War. Today, Kokesh joins The Higherside to educate us on the violent role of the federal government and detail how he believes a society rooted in personal responsibility is the most viable option to restore freedom and circumvent oppression.
2:22 As an activist, author and champion of causes ranging from Iraq Veterans Against the War to gun rights, Kokesh has a rich and complex history of advocacy. Greg and Adam begin by walking through a few experiences that helped set him on a path to activism. Adam explains, his experience of Libertarianism began as far back as high school, slowly proliferated into a more philosophical perspective, and eventually expanded into an ethical examination of our society and political system. Kokesh also elaborates on how his military experience facilitated his disenfranchisement, the circumstances that lead to his 2010 Congressional campaign, and the inspiration behind his book “FREEDOM!”.
9:42 Adam discusses how his activism landed him in jail. He begins by elaborating on the catalyst that put him on the radar, his Youtube video “Freedom Plaza”, in which he loads a shotgun in close proximity to the White House. As a passionate proponent of gun rights, Kokesh articulates on how he believes matters such as gun control should be decided and what the future holds for technological advances in weaponry.
14:37 Greg and Adam debate the merits of gun rights and whether gun control should be deemed a violent policy, or if the very presence of weapons can be considered an act of aggression.
19:50 Despite understanding the elite’s agenda to create a fearful and obedient society, using false flags and coordinated acts of terrorism being sold as random chaos, escaping the campaign of mass manipulation can be difficult. And, while we would love to believe it is only institutionalized acts of bloodshed that pose the real threat to public safety, stupidity is another factor that cannot be ignored. Adam examines not simply the tools of violence, but the prevalence of violence in society, and how it’s foundation is rooted in the nefarious actions of governments worldwide. He also addresses critiques of this anti-government perspective and offers possible approaches to achieving this Libertarian utopia.
27:00 Kokesh clarifies the finer points on how we can ensure everyone evolves equally and there is a shift in paradigm even with the absence of an enforcement class. He also analyzes the ways in which agents of chaos and disruptors of the natural order can be managed in the absence of a central control mechanism.
30:00 While Adam contends that the real problem lies in government and the decentralization of power is the only viable solution, Greg questions if the nefarious acts attributed to government may in fact be the corrupt conduct of wealthy industrialists, corporate lobbyists, and corporate control in the governing process.
41:44 As a firm believer that all taxation is theft, and ultimately violence, Adam elaborates on this perspective and explains how the loss of representation in taxation is truly the underlying issue, and the social contract of pitching in for the betterment of community shouldn’t be a requirement or law.
47:00 Greg and Adam continue discussing the philosophy of Voluntaryism, the ways it can be an effective tool, and the shortfalls of human generosity in a freewill society.
Subscribe to the plus show to hear the extended episode, including:

– lessons Adam learned from his time in the Military-Industrial & Prison Complexes

– the difficult challenges Adam has been dealing with in the last year

– the true difference between justice and punishment, and how we’ve been propagandized to confuse the two

Want more Adam Kokesh? Check out his book “FREEDOM!” , his Youtube channel, or his show, “Adam Vs. The Man”.
Want to hear more THC? Become a plus member and gain access to the additional hour as well as the THC forums! If you want to stay connected to The Higherside Chats, like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, check out our YouTube channel, find us on Reddit, or review us on iTunes. Thanks for the support, and until next time.
A few valuable resources from the interview:
“The Ethics of Liberty” by Murray Rothbard:
Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University:
“Adam Vs. The Man”:
Adam Kokesh’s Youtube:

PLUS Content

75 Responses

    1. I agree somewhat about the military. I think the military is being used as the corporate American sword chopping up anything and everything that doesn’t fulfill their financial goals. I do not agree with any of the wars in the past 100 years. I have woken up a few years ago about the last year in the military for me after a year in afghanistan. I got to afghanistan and realized, “what the fuck are we doing here”. I realized a lot. We know about the bull shit weapons of mass destruction and chasing a cia dude named bin laden in Astan when he wasn’t even there. So I realized all of it was bullshit. It was an occupation.
      It was to fill pockets of greedy fucks in DC for their own interests. I realized a lot. Why is it that a bunch of Vietnam vets, and vets in general come back and become anti war? It’s because they realize it’s bullshit too. I didn’t join because I was patriotic, I finished bull shit college after 4 years and decided to go see one of the biggest things of our generations first hand. I guess it was curiosity. But we never tortured anybody. I know what Bradley Manning released, that shit was happening, fucked up and illegal, but happening all the same. Even the torture he engaged in is largely frowned upon and still illegal in any military court. I think that was an issue of a several people making individual decisions to commit illegal acts. I know it happens in the military, but it’s hidden. It’s like pedophilia in the federal government. People still do that sick shit.
      Basically we would go out on patrol to little towns, walk around, bring goods and medical supplies and basically help the locals. We played cricket with the local kids, and had fun. Then these Iranian fighters would come in and we would get in a firefight. Our job was to literally walk around waiting to get ambushed, and try to help the locals, winning hearts and minds in the mean time. Then when the locals would start talking on the radios after the fire fights, the SF goes in and nabs the perpetrators. Yeah
      ….. sounds really fucking dumb right? Like I said, the locals told us the fighters were from Pakistan and Iran. We found money from those places in their pockets. The only reason they were there, is we was there. So yes the situation is fucked. But I only say all this to stress the point is that torture shit. There’s a bad apple every now and then. He had terrible leadership at a low level in the military, and he made some bad decisions under his idea of service to America. I’m guilty of my own things, but this is not that wide spread and violates many ethics of the other brainwashed guys still in. This is exactly like a cop beating a guy in handcuffs. I feel sorry for those people who do that.

      1. I can never say that we had the same experiences in the military. Everyone’s different in their own experience. I think his more extreme experiences lead him to more extreme reactions, as saying no to all government. My experience was different. We stayed in the mountains and hung out with the locals. The foreign fighters were who we were fighting. I think we never should have been there period. But we also only fought guys with guns from a few hundred miles away. My experience was more like gang warfare. I work for the US gang, and they for the Iranian. They were getting paid because they hate American encroachment and I was getting paid as an ignorant thrill seeker. So my mind is more like, let the gangs kill the gangs if that’s what they are in to, but don’t kill an innocent, and don’t violate moral codes.

        I think it’s a violation of a moral code to commit unwanted violence against anybody. What if both parties consent?

        Iraq was a way different can of worms though. That was house to house and not good for anybody. I can’t imagine that. I just wanted to clarify my position on this subject. It is controversial. I just wanted to give a different point of view because I didn’t necessarily agree with his. But I didn’t want my strong anti military/war views to get lost in the subject. But as I have also learned, violence is a universal language. That’s why it will always be with the human race.

  1. I’m not sure if I helped or hurt my reputation with this episode. I’m actually quiet curious to hear what people say.

    I just have a lot of problems with extreme free-market Libertarianism- chiefly, that it ignores (or maybe even glorifies?) the profit motive. When you remove the general rule of law, (despite how corrupt is it) and don’t address the ever-dangling incentive to subvert morality for greed, I think you get chaos- not community.

    The idea of absolute freedom is great, but it’s fantasy. There are too many competing desires for everyone to get their way, always- and without some structure, compromises will generally go the way of the guy with the bigger gang- Wild West Style. Is this really what we want?

    In a world of absolute freedom and no regulations, can blind people drive cars if they decide they want to? Can emotional teenagers carry guns without any type of qualifications or input from parents? Do college kids decide for themselves when they’re too drunk to drive? I guess if nobody gets hurt, it’s not a problem, but when someone does- you can’t bring them back. Accountability in the aftermath doesn’t mean much when someone loses a person they love.

    What happens if a large, well organized group, (like the Hell’s Angels for example) decides that it wants San Francisco? Will people in desirable areas just constantly have to defend their homes?

    I am all for smaller, localized government. I just think Libertarianism is a simplistic ideology that only addresses one head of a multi-headed hydra. It has a lot of good points that should be incorporated into a wider perspective, but it’s not The Answer in my opinion.

    1. Granted and I agree. I sympathize a lot with his answers but a non corrupt government will not be aiding these corporations. I think it’s both, but instead of anarchy I think the Cory Eib and Todd McGreevy agenda 31 stuff is the better option. I think the Fed over reach is a main contributor. Turn it back to the local level of the state.

    2. The interesting thing about libertarianism is exactly what you mentioned Greg, the naive notion that unchecked business will somehow monitor itself. I would add also that voluntary contracts in a voluntary society is still a sort of government, just maybe not as inclined to such douchebaggery as now. As for your reputation: you put your reps in. Your whole show is about hearing new ideas. If people can’t handle kokesh, even if they disagree, how the Fuck are they able to process any of this other fringe thought? Btw libertarianism isn’t thought all the way through as you also observed.

    3. I agree with most of your points during the discussion and saw some of Adam’s points but my only question is ….if we have small government ….how do we keep that from eventually becoming corrupt?

    4. People aren’t perfect, and small numbers of them can wreak total havoc on other humans or on nature; it doesn’t matter if those people are in government or in private life. Libertarians want good things, but I think their religion hampers that pursuit of pragmatic steps towards those goals.

      Libertarian-ism is just another dumb ideology like communism or any other pseudo religious creed. At its extreme worst its a cult with weird cult leaders. The world is way too complicated for any ideology to manage it or direct it. It just ends up as another rhetorical ploy to attempt to advance the interests of certain groups.

      If you look at historical cases of the things libertarians constantly promote, you will often find a total horror show. When railroads were unregulated, companies cheaped out and built crappy train trestles and crappy tracks that fell apart. What good is “free market” correction for the dead people? When hunting and land use were unregulated, Americans snuffed out species after species in the 19th century. They were like locusts on the land. When there were no labor laws, there was child labor, which not only led to exploited children, but also made kids compete with adults for crappy jobs and lowered wages, etc…

      That said, since people aren’t perfect, governments aren’t perfect either, obviously, and today the federal government seems to be as toxic as its ever been–at all levels.

      The struggle is really about defining what you want and how you think you’ll improve the world rather than gov’t versus free enterprise, or any other bullshit.

    5. I think you hurt it Greg… You’ve had on some great guests and some obvious disinformation mongers but Kokesh… If I wanted to listen to this stuff I could stream Alex Jones.

    6. Greg this was a very thoughtful,indepth conversation. I enjoyed listening to you guys go back and forth, laying out your ideas. This is how we, as adults should handle disagreement. You may have felt as though you were hard on him, but any idea HAS to stand up to the scrutiny. You were more into this one, it was obvious. But listening, I didn’t feel like there was any animosity. I felt as though it was 2 intelligent people discussing ideas and perspectives that differ. We all agree there is problems, we just don’t agree on the solutions. Which creates another problem. How do we fix what is broken if we can’t agree on the steps to take to fix it. This conversation was important. Both of you had good thoughtful points that most people never think about. And this brings up a fundamental issue that we are going to face. -none of us alone, will have all the answers for the challenges that lie ahead. We have to put our perspectives together to see the whole picture, and come up with ideas and solutions. But we fundamentally disagree on key points sometimes. And at some point a decision will have to be made, and steps taken that a lot of people disagree with. How will those of us that disagree respond when this happens within the alternative community? We have to be able to respect each other number 1, and handle it as adults. Or else nothing will ever change, and we will just complain about everything the way it is.

      I’ve got my own ideas, as I’m sure many here do. Mainly, until we each individually fix ourselves, and live what we preach, we are just fighting our own reflections, which will get us nowhere. Worry about ourself and respect others. We can’t tell others what to do if we won’t even do it ourselves.

      But anyway, I think it was a good show. I really enjoyed you being more a part of this one Greg. I had never heard Adam lay out his ideas before I don’t think. And you challenging his ideas got him to go more indepth with his explanations, and ideas. Almost anyone can sound good if they speak without any counterpoints.

    7. Hello all, I feel I must disagree with those saying this was an insightful, thoughtful episode. I actually had a very difficult time listening to it. This is an issue or platform in which few people are able to take a stand and articulate themselves very well and there was some real excitement this ep would help the guest to do that. What actually occurred was the host breaking the flow from the very beginning. Greg, I’ve been with you for a bit, and I’ve listened to all the shows – you are a fantastic host in my opinion and seem to be a very cool cat, but your issues/opinions with guns and personal freedom has cropped up quite a bit and it is always in a very unresolved and undecided way. Your questions always seem to be based in hypothetical fear and uncertainty. Overall, I haven’t heard you make much progress on your opinions, or non-opinions, since the beginning. I deeply appreciate you facing this reality and putting together what you have and then sharing it with the rest of us – period – that respect will never fade, but i really would suggest that you take some time and form some coherent conclusions or at least a temporary framework to work from in regards to guns and civil liberty, etc. – I really do enjoy your shows and your presence and your opinions, but I also enjoy those of the guests. To me, the job of a good host is to lay the groundwork and draw out the highs or lows of a guest for everyone involved, you know, directing the symphony man. Instead, I could actually feel the guest trying to articulate himself and you just kept pounding him with the same questions in different ways over and over, breaking the flow and honestly creating a mess here. It would have been different if you had your own opinions to debate, yet what kept coming out was just a sort of vague, conservative-style fear, not the well-reasoned stance of a conspiracy talk-show host trying to get to the core. I personally got the feeling that all your questions were for the purpose of cutting or breaking down rather than building up – mostly negatives and very few positives – isn’t that the stamp of those you are fighting against? A 2 hour show is barely enough for a guest speaker to cover much ground especially if the host is working on his own agenda, do the bickering before or after the show, let your opinion matter at those times or in thoughtful, well-timed rebuttals during. Don’t waste any airtime on things that aren’t constructive in one way or another, those are my feelings on the matter, and no, I probably couldn’t do it better myself – just to get that out of the way.
      I get it that I’m on the attack here, and I’d rather not be, but I have actually paid you to listen to your thoughts on this over and over – and I would just like you to pony up and build a structure for yourself to work from if I have to keep paying to listen to it in the future. Man, I never thought I would use this sort of card with my own speech! I don’t know Greg, these latest episodes, it really seems like you could use a break for a minute, I know I would. How about taking a road-trip and doing a couple interviews in person at random little cafes or on the edge of area 51 or something, get back to what your passions are rather than thinking about the opinions of your listeners like myself. You have created a very unique and wonderful thing here, fighto fighto to keep it real! I will endeavor to balance this rant out with some positive feedback on many of your other excellent episodes – the way you handled this one just got to me.

      1. After some thought I would like to backpedal a bit. Going on nearly 70 episodes, in which you Greg have handled the flow of things as well if not better than anyone could, it is now my opinion that it is perfectly acceptable for you to bring out your own passions and questions in an interview you, yourself conduct. I guess the issue this man was discussing is just of personal interest to me and I really am eager to hear more on the subject in a more organized way. I do wish you would have held back at parts as I wanted to hear more of his case-building, rather than having him jump from piling to piling, but I can read his books for that.
        A man named Jeffrey Sachs, from the huffington post – and I’m paraphrasing here, mentioned that government should, at base, focus on the needs of the majority of it’s constituents in terms of providing clean water, health-care, education, and erecting a structure of “meaningful” employment ( I would add to this organizing and maintaining physical societal infrastructure such as roads, bridges, schools, etc). I personally feel that any discussion about a governing body, be it existing or theoretical, should address these topics first and foremost until resolution is reached, and then move on to the details. And yet it seems our society has reached the common practice, whether through engineering or stumbling, of beginning at the opposite end – that of endlessly bickering over the minutiae and personalities of the vast number of individuals composing the temporary seats in whichever branch or office seems important at this moment. It is much the same with how my friends discuss sports and the personal lives of actors and actresses. When I hear bigger questions asked at the campfire there is always this general thought echo in the group that someone has just said something kind of silly and embarrassing.
        No one can really change things… so let’s just discuss the easy stuff yeah?
        To me, like a house with a rotten foundation, endlessly remodeling the upper parts is truly a waste of precious resources – the proverbial money/energy pit. Rebuilding from the ground up is really the only viable option in some cases, and yet I think there is great efficiency in sorting through the structure and saving the materials that can be saved. So it may be that the first thing to do is have a real discussion on whether those basic needs just mentioned are really the agreed-upon basic points of a government – I didn’t say the ONLY points, I said the basic points. The ones that should be met before moving on to serious army building and taking part in wars on other countries or telling the rest of the world what to do or attempting to tackle any other issues. – I completely understand that it is a monumental task just to conceive of how to get there from here, but if all we ever discuss is minutiae, how can we seriously arrive at a new idea to begin replacing the old one in as hopefully a peaceful and mature manner as possible.
        My position is that regardless of how seemingly fucked the present state of affairs may seem, or in some plutonic and perfected future system, the basic concerns of government should never include dictating and regulating the morality of those it was built for. These concerns should be met through family, community, and culture. I cannot think of a single instance in which it would be a healthy choice to hand over control of personal mental and spiritual freedom to any one group of people, most especially to all the various religions and governing systems historically prone to corruption and over-control. Has there ever been a case above the mentioned (in another comment) “150 people” in which appointing them to tell us how to be good citizens actually worked in the long run – I can only think of conglomerations of power and authority that were finally taken over by those with rather ill intents – rebuttals? there have to be a few happy endings out there, I’m just bad with factoids. Rather, I feel we form governments in order to systematize all the other necessities of daily living so we can focus on creating strong and healthy families, which if accomplished on a large scale, eliminates the need for large chunks of regulation involving control of things like guns, prisons, and birth control. Kind of like building a strong immune system (family, community, religious and spiritual social orders) to take care of the sicknesses and letting the brain do its thing. Encouraging individuals to ponder on and simulate what a better government can be, wherever that lies on the development timeline, seems like something we should do, rather than heckle one another until anyone is too wary to rise to the challenge. Lets not help the bad guys by trying to keep down our neighbors, peacefully speaking! Ok, getting to be another novel – apologies for the earlier Blow Up Greg – signing off.

        1. Visualize hitting Enter twice in a row now and then. Some paragraph breaks would be easier on these old eyes.

          I would suggest checking out the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching for pondering the relationships of rulers to the people. The Tao, or “way,” is evident to us only when we ourselves are on the way. We can see what and where, whether or not the system is reflecting the Tao. Imbalances cannot remain, and systems without balance will, by nature, topple. Having arms is neither a good system, nor a bad one. And I for one, would hope Greg sees this eventually. There are some I would want armed, and some I would not. One size does not fit all. The Tao Te Ching is thought of in many quarters as a libertarian manifesto. The arms will be laid down when and where the time and place for that comes.

  2. I haven’t listened to the episode yet. Just turning it on now.

    What is your definition of the rule of law? Most people confuse rule of law with rule of legislation. So I’m just curious?

    With a world a full regulations, like we have now, don’t some legally blind people still drink? Don’t some emotional teenagers carry guns? Don’t people now drink when they are trashed? The question you should be asking, what would the justice be in a libertarian minded society versus the justice in a statist world. Do you think most people harmed in today’s society get the justice they deserve?

    Well organized groups? You mean governments? So we need government to protect ourselves from government?

    Like I said, I have just started the episode so I’m not sure how Adam articulated the philosophy of libertarianism. Personally I think it is the least simplified philosophy. Since most philosophies boil down to might equals right and the philosophy is the furthest from that.

  3. Greg, it’s my heart’s desire to find my own ability to more eloquently express my thoughts (a bit too much “my”, apologies) and ideas. As of yet, mission not yet accomplished. That being the case, my thoughts on Kokesh…Horseshit. Simple, bloviating, well-presented horseshit. Thanks ;]]

  4. It is interesting to note, when you were discussing the rating system in China as exemplified by the Black Mirror episode (sorry I am forgetting the technical term of its usage), that if it were in place -your guest would seem to have an abysmal rating concerning the atrocities he committed in Iraq. I just found it interesting that he would support this device as an “ethical justice”, yet if it were implemented currently his reputation in society would be in tatters.

    1. I don’t want to speak for Adam, but let’s think about a system that amazon or eBay uses. Aren’t we all going to buy from a 5 star at 10$ instead of a 1 star at 2$.

      Isn’t that common sense?

    2. I liked Greg’s rebuttal about the Chinese social rating system and reference to the Black Mirror episode “Nosedive.” Apparently, the system in China is called Sesame Credit, and in some cases, if a person’s score is too low, they are not allowed to travel to other countries. I’ve listened to some other podcast episodes on that subject and it sounds pretty sketchy to me. Really sounds like what is depicted in the Black Mirror episode could actually happen.

      The funny thing is that Adam says how something like this would be a good thing so you don’t do business with murderers, thieves, and other unethical people. But, then goes on to say that you can’t go off of a person’s criminal record because those records are useless and they might have bad charges on them. Subsequently, that doesn’t mean they are a bad person. However, how would you even know by scanning the person that they have committed murder or are a thief if you don’t include the criminal records? How would we know what atrocities a person might have committed during a war? Those kinds of things rarely get recorded and even if they do, rarely tell the full story. Now, I’m not saying that all criminal charges on a record are accurate, but if there isn’t some sort of governing system that tracks it, then how could you ever implement crimes or unethical behaviors into a social rating system?

      I’m with ghostgonerogue on this one. If this kind of a system was in place, Adam would likely have a very low score. Ultimately, I’m in agreement with Greg in that a social rating system is very scary. If anyone out there hasn’t seen the Black Mirror episode, it’s worth a look to see how out of hand something like this could get very quickly.

    3. There’s only one person’s ethics we can control, and it’s so easy to spin off into a made up world of hypotheticals about others’ and justify compromising our own. If we want pie in the sky, we can only put our own pie up there.

  5. The myth of “the common good” has plagued society since day one. Google ” the tragedy of the commons ” and learn why public goods are always the worst choice. Politicians always have and will continue to preach logical fallacies to the uninformed.

  6. Greg, you seem to think profit is a greedy motive. On the contrary, profit is essential. Profit is what enables our society to grow as money is reinvested to make all the goods and services which improve our lives.

    1. I don’t think profit is essential for our society to grow. Fair trade for a good or service you provide I think is more important. Profit is fine but I feel there are way more important things in society. If I owned a business and a person wanted a good or service and could only provide a good or service in return that would be great with me. Still profit but in a different form but I’m probably wrong.

  7. A voluntary society free of coercion will undoubtably be a better choice . Sure, people will die. But not nearly as many that have died under the leadership of tyrannical governments, and every government is tyrannical!

  8. I actually enjoyed the more combative nature of this interview in the context of this topic. When I started “waking up”, I really did believe that the biggest problem was the government. Now after browsing so many topics of corruption, I honestly think the ultimate solution (at least in this country) is that more people need to be aware of certain facts and/or ideas. A major paradigm shift has been long overdue.

    Just think hypothetically, if everyone in America was forced (with violence haha) to listen to every episode of THC in chronological order? Even people who believe the official narrative of 911 will at least question it, I would argue a significant amount would doubt it completely. The analysis and contemplation of grander or alternative ideas is needed to break the average zombie away from his/her souless consumeristic hunger pangs.

    I’m saying all that to say this, I think you both made fair points that presented a much wider perspective than if you didn’t challenge him. I think a more localized basic income type of community would be a good starting place for further positive change. I have a long commute from my 9 to 5 shackles but it just flew by listening to this intense interview!

  9. It still makes me laugh that everyone where says “the government hides this, fakes this, and is behind this attack.”

    But the moment anyone says “well maybe we shouldn’t have government ”

    Most of you attack.

  10. Greg, what are your thoughts on Tellinger’s Ubuntu movement? Personally, I find it very interesting, but much like Kokesh’s ideas on self-governing, in my opinion humans are a flawed species with a serious bug in our system that will never let us co-exist in harmony for long periods of time. There seems to be an inherent need to dominate and destroy within just enough of our species to rule out our ability to live in a society with nothing in place to govern the potential hazard existing within those select dominant type’s. This is an instance where I hope for the day that I can proudly admit I was wrong.

    1. I agree with you. It only takes one selfish person to turn something good into something bad. With humans, anything and everything is exploited because we are flawed

  11. The flaw is false identity. Therefore, the only way past this is self-realization, which is done one person at a time, and cannot be done for anyone else, and certainly not by the imposition of systems of control. So, the ball is ever in our own court. We simply must each be the change we wish to see and stop minding the business of perceived others. This could take a considerable amount of sucking it up for the average ego. But again, that would be on them, whilst I am minding my own business. We would all like to say, “be reasonable, do it my way.” Another word for this is arrogance.

    All that said, false identity is overlaid on true identity. We all are what we want already. There’s nowhere to go and nothing to get. We just need to see our own bullshit and start denying that, for the love that we all are.


  12. great show. First time I’ve heard you really challenge a guest’s point of view. I hope this is a sign of things to come! (not complaining, just saying… was happy to hear it today.)

  13. Regarding how fragile human life is, and suggesting we are alive only because nobody wants us dead. That’s flawed for this simple fact the reality of that situation is people wont kill you because there are laws in place that will put them in a 6 x 9 for life if you decide to violate someone’s right to live. It’s the punishment that comes with certain laws that prevents most people from killing others. Humans, to a certain degree, at this point in time…MUST be governed in some way. We show absolutely no sign of having self-control and/or self-responsibility. Yes, our Government is a disaster, and smaller government makes much more sense. In fact, at any level it’s got to re-designed and in and of itself needs to be policed. But no governing at all….I don’t see that as possible.

    1. If people had no self restraint, how would they exercise self restraint to avoid the punishment for the lack of restraint? So this self restraint must exist even if for purely utilitarian reasons. But reflect on your own reasons for not killing someone every day. Is it because you fear being caged, or do you simply have no desire to harm most people? Remember you are making statements that include you as well regarding lack of control. I would also question if we cannot collectively control ourselves how can we control ourselves long enough to control others? A thousand people have the opportunity and means to kill any one of us each day and you have the same opportunity yet it is infrequently exercised. Why not? I’m not saying that this is the best argument for no governing body of some kind and indeed it seems that government of some sort is unavoidable in society, but it does seem to point that there is something more to us than pure utilitarianism and perhaps we should reevaluate our assumptions about ourselves and others. Just something to consider.

  14. Greg, you’re being way too hard on yourself. This was a hell of a good interview…even more so due to the fact that you didn’t fall back. The transparency within your responses was delivered respectfully and I don’t think Adam was offended…more like he was inspired by the challenging questions. Suggestions that I would really enjoy as future interviews….

  15. I chuckled to myself at the idea of ethical insurance companies. Henh. As capital renders everything to some value in tokens of trade, all things are devalued. The markets destroy in their blinding everyone to the real value and costs of all things, natural.

    I have to say I am quite sympathetic to much of Adam’s thought on intellectual property rights, while a bit antagonistic toward other property rights. Any good Libertarian can overlook the fact that he’s squatting on stolen lands, whatever tokens of trade he may have given for the artificially created right to do so. This is a continent that had no land ownership when the Euro-Christian barbarians landed. These notions were their gift to the survivors amongst the wild peoples they so needed to save by killing and displacing. To this day, nothing frightens a control freak more than the idea of wild people.

    I am just watching and waiting as Kali Yuga winds down while going through its death throws.

    Don’t worry, be happy.


    1. The ethical insurance company gave me the what-the-fucks too. It would make the insurance company a de facto government. More humorously though, I just pictured this Gollum like creature looking at everyone asking “cans wees insures it, precious?”

  16. Seems to be quite a bit of different opinions on this episode. I thought it went well and I like Adam’s passion, willingness to act and high ideals of humanity itself. That being said this would essentially just make us 50 different countries. This would hurt standing in the world community and open us up to aggression and occupation/colonialism by others nations that see the weakness.
    Greg I also whole heartedly disagree with your view on the military that you stated in the episode but hey to each his own, I still love the show!
    Also I’m not trying to down play Adam’s experience in Iraq but I’d like to clarify that not everybody had those experiences. I have 4 Iraq tours that equal over 40 months, saw my share of combat, received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star with Valor and I can say me or no one in my platoon tortured anybody. In the end though everyone had their own experience and you have to respect that. Just wanted it out there that there are selflessness actions that took place over there, although they may have been unjust on a bigger scale the individual soldier thought he was doing right and did what they could for the people.

  17. This was an awesome show. I agree with a lot of stuff Kokesh says, not all of it. Cool hearing you two debating about it. Made for a really kickass podcast that I’ll probably listen to a couple of times.

    Don’t become like a Fox News debate program, but this podcast was thoroughly good my main man!

  18. My antiwar activism stemmed from learning, late on, of atrocities in Vietnam. Not that I witnessed any, but that I heard the perps bragging about how many ears they had on their belts. I found myself in a surgery ward in Yokosuka Naval Hospital at the same time it was filled to overflowing with med-evaq Marines from Tet ’68. I was there to get a surgery for a service related injury before my four years on active was ended. I was already over four years in, as I had been involuntarily extended on active duty, when the North Koreans seized a US Navy spy ship, the U.S.S. Pueblo. We had to go into the Sea of Japan and I saw my separation date pass in the cold of a Siberian winter blowing into the sea.

    I had believed everything my Navy lifer Republican father had told me about the US military state and I believed everything the Navy told me after I got in, five days after my 17th birthday. I had been to something called, “Military Leadership School,” which would have been better called, “Why We’re In Vietnam School.” So, I knew why we were there. They had told me in 1966. It was rubber, copper, and to keep that away from the Commies. They neglected to mention that the off-shore drilling rights had already been divvied up by the seven sisters of big American oil.

    So, I served my time, volunteered for submarines, and continued to believe the stories I’d been told. It was when I was in a huge surgery ward, one of many wards that were all surgery wards, that I met the two kinds of Marines that most impressed me. The braggart murderers, and the guys who were there with self-inflicted (or friend inflicted) wounds to get their third Heart and get the fuck out of country for good. The military had just changed the requirements for the award of a Heart from any wound suffered in battle, to any wound requiring three days of hospitalization.

    I soon came to love those boys and their honesty, and detest the braggarts. The braggarts showed me the gold taken off the “gook” officers. They couldn’t wait to get back, as it was a lucrative game for them. Both types were hurt deeply by that illegal war, but in very different ways. I started remembering the lessons of Leadership School, and started pondering how much money the corporations that backed the war were going to make off this human destruction, and I never even saw in country. I didn’t even know about Bell Helicopter and their dirty deals. I had seen plenty of corruption though, just doing my job as a submarine electronic spy. I saw the scams that were business as usual in the military in general.

    So, let’s have a war sometime that isn’t a racket! I was duped by family and country and it took four years to figure it out. And no, no one spit on me when I got home. That meme came out of the movie, First Blood, and almost everyone still believes it and repeats it. And, the way I hear it, fucking Sylvester Stallone missed the war, teaching women’s PE in Sweden.

    So, support the lives of the veterans, because they had the best intentions, but the worst of disinformation. We vets have all been had in war after illegal war. And the recruiters are still in our schools, telling lies, because that’s what the recruiters are paid to do. Stop making every Memorial Day and Veterans Day, Military Recruiting Day.

    Make peace.


  19. I like the some of the points he makes, but the problem is, as with a lot of people in the alt world; he offers no realistic of attractive alternative. Gregg asked him questions, but he seemed to sidestep and go back to rhetoric that addresses none of the problems that would occur if we went down s full on no government route.

    Good show, a tad frustrating but if Greg hadn’t kept pressing him on it I would have lost respect

    1. Well there are some good examples of the no government route. Like Belgium went almost 2 years without one. Then there’s Nutbush, Tennessee and Max, Nebraska. Neither have local government anyway. But the bad examples of no government are severe like Somalia, Libya, West Yemen, etc.. I would say it’s too risky and there must be a level if accountability for actions that the government provides. Although I think our government system is a good one we just need to empty it and start anew with more representation of the people.

  20. Great lively debate!

    I still most closely identify with Libertarianism but have realized a few problems with it.

    I think we make a mistake of pidgeonholing the problem into the term “government”. Government is essentially systematic organization for combined action. Adam even advocates a form of government when he says neighbors can get together and decide that xyz should be this way or that.

    Let’s identify the real problem: hierarchy + a population of 1% sociopaths.

    Most governments happen to be heavily hierarchical and so over time they grow corrupt as the hyper-rational sociopaths filter to the top of the power pyramid.

    We need hierarchical organization, we just have to recognize that it will be dangerous as it presents an opportunity for a feedback loop to amplify the worst aspects of human nature.

    The way we dampen this feedback loop or keep it in check or hold back the sociopaths from taking it over and corrupting it is through the other form of systematic organization: networking or crowd-sourcing.

    Hierarchy is the masculine form of structure/organization and networking/crowd-sourcing is the feminine form. When the two are joined in benevolent balance, an explosion of creativity occurs.

    So the problem is not limited to the nebulous idea of government. The problem is government that is excessively hierarchical and that has lost the check on its power from the people.

    The US constitution embodied an attempt to balance the masculine and feminine forms of organization. The bill of rights protects the people’s right to assert their own narratives, organize their own defense, and be free of violent intrusions by the hierarchy.

    American government became corrupt because hierarchies outside of government became corrupt and powerful and took over narrative control (press / media) so that the people still falsely believed they had narrative control.

    The internet is restoring balance by empowering the feminine form of organization leading the people to regain narrative control. As long as the people are free to network, to choose their own narratives, and to organize themselves as they wish, and to not be forced by threat of violence to render up their labor in the form of currency, they will have the ability to keep the hierarchy honest and benevolent.

    1. A good summation. How to stop corruption from always being one step ahead, as it is with the MS Internet and press being owned by the sociopath/psychopath class? The powerful rich are not liking the narrative and moving to control it, and they are just getting started. Big Brother is Google and Amazon, amongst others, and they are on the job, and using leverage from the Pizzagate meme, the changes have begun.

    2. Well said. I think Adam’s deep commitment to non-violence would definitely dampen the feedback loop if more of us adopted it in organized ways with even a fraction of his apparent commitment.

  21. This was a great show. I appreciate Adam kokesh sharing his thoughts and his passion. He opened up to some really personal things in a honest way. I agree with most of what he views as problems but his solutions are way too utopian for my taste. I don’t have a lot of faith in the vigilance and diligence of one and all to be as ethical as possible at all times or for those ethics to always be congruent between all of us. I disagree with some of his solutions but I respect that he is a man who was willing to put his own balls in vice for what he believes is a higher purpose. He has passion and whatever else he might be, I consider that respectable.

  22. This guy is a pompous douche bag. He hasn’t thought everything through, which was probably willful as he began to sense all the holes in his own position. Whenever he’s pressed to answer for these obvious and gaping holes such as, “why in the hell would we think we can trust people to behave and treat their fellow man fairly without any consequences for not doing so?”, he sidesteps and evades the question or equivocates with unrelated analogies that miss the point.

    He is in love with himself and has deemed his reason to be superior to others and therefore believes he is in the position of granting or withholding validity to other points of view. Kokesh is naive and willfully ignorant of human nature. He asserts that the way to non violence is through having no government. This implies that violence is a product of government and didn’t exist before them. That is the most glaring fallacy in all of this. Violence has existed for as long as people have and long before government was even a notion. Most likely, governments probably first came about to provide a unified front against human aggression, bullying, and organized oppression. Not everyone can defend themselves and so it made sense to organize and put matters of protection in the hands of the willing and capable on behalf of the many who had better things to do with their time in the interest of providing for their families.

    This was a necessary guest, I suppose, but a show I didn’t enjoy.

  23. Greg, I just caught your apology at the end of the podcast. In my opinion, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for. If anything, you didn’t press him hard enough. I didn’t think your show was simply about letting a guest ramble just to get an idea out there. All ideas should have some merit and completeness. The merit of Kokesh’s ideals is debatable, but the their completeness is not – they are not complete. He was not prepared and obviously didn’t care to be by the way he spent all of his time evading and avoiding answering your questions.
    I thought your show is about getting to the truth and exploring ideas and alternative realities. If a guest is spewing nonsensical and shortsighted ideologies, then they should be taken to task to defend these positions.
    Every time Kokesh was pressed to provide something concrete in regards to what happens when the government is gone, he had nothing. NOTHING AT ALL. It was embarrassing… the ego on this guy. With endless false humility, he continually pumped himself up as some kind of savior to us all; or as if he is the only one with all the answers and everyone who doesn’t agree with him is sadly ignorant or waiting for their “awakening”.
    Please don’t bring him back and please never go easy on a guest just to be polite. It would be impolite to subject your listeners to a guest who offers no real solutions, yet goes unchallenged; or at the very least won’t admit that their ideas are simply that and not yet ready for prime time. To ignore that, would just make you a tool for their propaganda.
    I suspect that you actually feel much the same way. That there was a subconscious reason for you delaying this broadcast for so long. I resist everything I don’t believe in too.

  24. So, I think that yeah, you were a dick. I’m used to listening to your guests without your interruptions and would like to hear Adam flesh out some of his ideas a little more. There were a couple of times I felt you knocked him off track and he wasn’t really able to get back to making his point. I like your show a lot and think you have every right to expound upon your own ideas, but I really felt you weren’t fair to Adam. Let me say this about your concerns, and if Adam ever does another show with him maybe you can bring up this point. I am in complete agreement with Adam’s point of view and think you sell the human race short with your assumptions that the most unscrupulous will rise in the business world, but what if corporations didn’t exist? They are, after all, government entities. Without government, corporations wouldn’t exist. They are made by government. When you incorporate, you have to do so through some government agency. All you would have is businesses, and the owners of those businesses would have no government protection whatsoever, so if they did something wrong they could get punished or have justice done upon them by the free market dispute system that would evolve. Would that help to alleviate your fears somewhat? As for profit motive, I hate to tell you this, but even you are working under the profit motive. It’s your desire to make money that has led to your success, otherwise you might never have thought of the plus program, or you might not have even done this podcast.

  25. I’m halfway through the podcast – and I skimmed the comments above to make sure I’m not just being the fourth voice to something… and it looks like I’m the first?

    You’re in the right, TheCarlwood (up to where I am in the podcast) — big money will have their way whether that’s through governments or mercenaries:
    – Dyncorp doesn’t exist because “government” – Dyncorp exists because some people are happy to commit violence for payment.
    – In the Labor movement, there were cops out busting laborers’ heads, yeah – but there were also gangs of mercenaries hired directly by management.
    – Before “rule of law” came to the West, Pinkerton Security was a private police force. Who paid for them? Big money interests, of course!

    While I think a Libertarian argument can be made despite the above, Kokesh’s response to your questions indicates a blind faith in his philosophy. Somehow, magically, the rich will just roll over and let better ideas win the day… when a long history of mercenaries and gang politics would be a better indicator of how unregulated capitalism would play out.

    He’s made no convincing arguments that abolition of government has a better chance than reformation of government.

    1. 20 minutes later, he rebuts your observation that monopolies disallow market correction with “The monopolies come from government limiting choices” — this guy is out of touch with reality, and I’m heading to bed. What he’s selling is conversion to an ethos and replacing “violence” with “canon law.” Instead of regulation, you shun the non-believer.

      Thanks for giving ear to a perspective, and for being honest in your interview! I’ll probably skip ahead to your conclusion later tomorrow – I’m tired of hearing this guy preach the same two dimensional gospel over and over.

  26. Great you all can be honest, still scared of a reality without your imaginary “protectors” and regulatory systems , that you will eventually
    have to accept, do nothing to prevent the few arguments in which Greg upheld his need for Gov.Co., Kokesh Is Right!, this thing will not
    turn around till we spread knowledge of the success that comes from adopting new ethical standards, and learn to let go of the need to
    control others, thus a new un-predictable possibility can arise, part of the indoctrination is to believe that we create the controls appropriate
    for success, which of course then cuts us off from and puts us in resistance to the natural order that all ready exists, which i think provided
    the kind of harmony discussed in the “new Chronology” body of work. these changes in perception do change our world, funny, we are always talking magic, but this evolution, is the authentic magic you seek, REAL LIFE. thanks for the great show!
    i try unpacking this more in videos…… youtube:the sovereign earthling

    1. To think that this is actually a possibility baffles me… I love the idea of ascension and personal growth and adopting new ethical standards. Do I believe I, or you or this guest could sit down a radical or the leader of NK and convince them that nonviolence is super duper? No.

  27. so sad seeing comments of individuals who still justify having” killed on command” by saying they believed they were doing right.
    your beliefs mean nothing, your actions change everything!!

  28. Bring on Passio, he rounds this argument nicely, 99% of populations world view is poisoned, the lie being, because people by nature will
    do wrong, we will make a punishment administered by other people, the threat of which will keep people from doing that wrong.

  29. I started reading the other comments and that was exhausting ha-ha… I always enjoy this show over all other podcasts. Greg, I appreciate that you want to create a safe space for your guests to comfortably express their viewpoints, and so you don’t really push your guests too much. That being said, this was totally my least favorite podcast and I found myself yelling at my screen many, many times.

    I tend to agree with most libertarian stances, but I think this guy is living in a fantasy world! I cannot comprehend that (especially having been in the military) that he believes if he sits down any one person that he can convince them that nonviolence is superior to violence?! I mean, common…

    And that, if we are a nation or world of small governing bodies, that they won’t begin to take corrupt or violent action against one another over property issues, religious issues, etc. ? And that corporations won’t try and have a say in this “evolution” he speaks of? It’s a lovely thought and “cute” if you will, but it is not based in reality.

    Yes, 90% of violence may be done in the name of government, but to say that getting rid of government all together is the answer is an oversimplification of a very complex issue.

    This guy should go to Burning Man. He sounds like this guy: (funny spoof on burning man and what it looks like with an absence of government).

  30. Its ironic as we are firmly entrenched in fascism that the government is to blame. Fascism is when the corporations have absolute control over the government and the economy. Not the people, not the (s)*elected* representatives but the multi-national corporations that have no fealty to the nations they dominate. We are living in a corporatist economic system. Like most Libertarians he mistakes cause and effect and thinks things through about 40% of the way and then declares he’s got a plan.

    1. My friend. All of the ism(s) have failed as well as every single form of governance. No economy or governmental system has ever survived itself. I would not call any of this success. If we are intellectual honest; forcing people against their own self-interest under the treat of violence is not success. Harming one person with the intent of helping another is at best, assurance for the creation of widespread distrust. It has and will always end in more violence

      1. Oh I would settle for a lot less than success. What we are living through is a backslide in every sense of the word. However no government would not get us there nor is that going to happen. Our government and economy will carry on just fine despite the doom and gloom proclamations of certain alt-right pundits. How well you do in it on the other hand will diminish for most people as the elite continue to take and take and take.

        1. The truth holds no opinion of the Alt-Right nor any other belief: It is simply the truth. Every civilization’s ruins echo the calling card of ignorance: “This time it’s different”. I would recommend asking them for yourself but then again, they all have failed to survive, which is not Alt-Right but historical fact. Your assessment is blinded by your political ideologue and desire for things to continue. You wish for them to go on in this state of un-success, understandable so. It could be far better than what comes next. However, labeling and blaming does not alter what has happened. I wish you the best of luck, my friend. We are not adversaries I assure you. I leave you with a quote ~ if you wish to see the truth than hold no opinions. Be well Greyowl.

  31. Greg,
    Your position is understandable and empathetic however it lacks a fundamental truth about the human condition’s prescription for governance. The idea of government exists as means to protect us from lying, murdering, thieves. This is its root of justification in its simplest form. Most fail to grasp that the government is made up of the same people they cry we need protection from. So I ask all of you ~ Who protects us from them? And… What protection do we have when the state fails to serve our interests?


    ” Idealists may appeal to individuals caught in such a system, asking them to let the long-term effects govern their actions. But each individual must first survive in the short run. If all decision makers were unselfish and idealistic calculators, a distribution governed by the rule “to each according to his needs” might work. But such is not our world. As James Madison said in 1788, “If men were angels, no Government would be necessary” (Federalist, no. 51). That is, if all men were angels. But in a world in which all resources are limited, a single nonangel in the commons spoils the environment for all.

    The spoilage process comes in two stages. First, the non-angel gains from his “competitive advantage” (pursuing his own interest at the expense of others) over the angels. Then, as the once noble angels realize that they are losing out, some of them renounce their angelic behavior. They try to get their share out of the commons before competitors do. In other words, every workable distribution system must meet the challenge of human self-interest. An unmanaged commons in a world of limited material wealth and unlimited desires inevitably ends in ruin. Inevitability justifies the epithet “tragedy,” which I introduced in 1968.

    Whenever a distribution system malfunctions, we should be on the lookout for some sort of commons. Fish populations in the oceans have been decimated because people have interpreted the “freedom of the seas” to include an unlimited right to fish them. The fish were, in effect, a commons. In the 1970s, nations began to assert their sole right to fish out to two hundred miles from shore (instead of the traditional three miles). But these exclusive rights did not eliminate the problem of the commons. They merely restricted the commons to individual nations. Each nation still has the problem of allocating fishing rights among its own people on a noncommonized basis. If each government allowed ownership of fish within a given area, so that an owner could sue those who encroach on his fish, owners would have an incentive to refrain from overfishing. But governments do not do that. Instead, they often estimate the maximum sustainable yield and then restrict fishing either to a fixed number of days or to a fixed aggregate catch. Both systems result in a vast overinvestment in fishing boats and equipment as individual fishermen compete to catch fish quickly.

    Some of the common pastures of old England were protected from ruin by the tradition of stinting—limiting each herdsman to a fixed number of animals (not necessarily the same for all). Such cases are spoken of as “managed commons,” which is the logical equivalent of socialism. Viewed this way, socialism may be good or bad, depending on the quality of the management. As with all things human, there is no guarantee of permanent excellence. The old Roman warning must be kept constantly in mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall watch the watchers themselves?)

    Under special circumstances even an unmanaged commons may work well. The principal requirement is that there be no scarcity of goods. Early frontiersmen in the American colonies killed as much game as they wanted without endangering the supply, the multiplication of which kept pace with their needs. But as the human population grew larger, hunting and trapping had to be managed. Thus, the ratio of supply to demand is critical.

    The scale of the commons (the number of people using it) also is important, as an examination of Hutterite communities reveals. These devoutly religious people in the northwestern United States live by Marx’s formula: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” (They give no credit to Marx, however; similar language can be found several places in the Bible.) At first glance Hutterite colonies appear to be truly unmanaged commons. But appearances are deceiving. The number of people included in the decision unit is crucial. As the size of a colony approaches 150, individual Hutterites begin to undercontribute from their abilities and overdemand for their needs. The experience of Hutterite communities indicates that below 150 people, the distribution system can be managed by shame; above that approximate number, shame loses its effectiveness.

    If any group could make a commonistic system work, an earnest religious community like the Hutterites should be able to. But numbers are the nemesis. In Madison’s terms, nonangelic members then corrupt the angelic. Whenever size alters the properties of a system, engineers speak of a “scale effect.” A scale effect, based on human psychology, limits the workability of commonistic systems.

    Even when the shortcomings of the commons are understood, areas remain in which reform is difficult. No one owns the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, it is treated as a common dump into which everyone may discharge wastes. Among the unwanted consequences of this behavior are acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and the erosion of the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Industries and even nations are apt to regard the cleansing of industrial discharges as prohibitively expensive. The oceans are also treated as a common dump. Yet continuing to defend the freedom to pollute will ultimately lead to ruin for all. Nations are just beginning to evolve controls to limit this damage.”

    1. “The experience of Hutterite communities indicates that below 150 people, the distribution system can be managed by shame; above that approximate number, shame loses its effectiveness.”

      Adam K’s solution?

      A technological rating system, like Über, but for people not cabs.

      Some kind of Freedom, eh?
      Like it or not,
      the Technological System
      is taking us for a ride.

      This tyrannical rating system already exists for the use of a few,
      So perhaps, it makes sense to give this power to everyone,
      horrible as that idea is.

      Thus the TS grinds
      and eats a little more
      human dignity.
      Umm, num-num.

      But in the end
      there is no privacy.
      Only one mind,
      which must love

      Better get good.
      Better practice death.

  33. To whom it may concern: Greg…? I, as many others am a fan of the show. I enjoy it quite a lot. I jam and dig all sorts of Podcasts. Lots of NPR, The Moth, Decode DC…etc.
    So about a year or so ago, when my brother-in-laws sister got hitched, I began chatting up with this real gone dude at the reception, he was the brides cousin. We talked shop about how this country has gone to “yada, yada” and when podcasts came up he mentioned THC. I am hooked and it is the most listened too of all the shows I dig. Thank you for the continued work, for what yall do and, I especially appreciate the humility in the end when you apologized. Humility is good. Love the show. I am now a current and official member.
    – Timothy Charles Owl Davis

  34. As a veteran myself, I can see both sides of the argument. I lean more towards Greg’s side. Evil is evil, I do not know I am confident this will decrease with the absence of govt if money still exist.

  35. I LOVED this. Greg Carlwood, you are THE best interviewer anywhere. I really enjoyed the back-talk and the debate. Lots of interesting ideas came out of it, points of view I wouldn’t have wanted to consider.

    I suppose it doesn’t hurt that I almost always agree with Greg on almost all points.

  36. A thought: Like Greg, I feel the powers who have infiltrated the government and the corporate structures are the main problem. Look at all the ways they’ve controlled us — food modifications, entertainment programming, news programming, chemicals in the sea, sky, and land, etc. Once these things are exposed and dealt with, more people will wake up out of their programmed stupor. We’ve all been programmed to be polar opposites. Once that gradually ends, people can be a lot more free to evolve in a positive way.

  37. hey greg. long time listener and love the show, but I really had to comment and say I felt this guy is disengenuine and I just don’t believe his story. that’s my opinion. thanks for the great podcadt

Leave a Reply