The Regime: Something Must Give Way Soon…

Thoughts on a “Right Wing Insurrection”

Mistrust of those around you, envisioning of enemies and evil doers behind every door, corner and mask, cowering under your congressional auditorium seats, well, we’ve all seen the pictures and the videos.

It’s scary out there!

Beyond the images of regular people sitting, boots on desk, in the Speaker of the House’s office, and beyond the lethal shooting of an unarmed protester by a Capitol policeman “defending” the already breached and swarmed capitol, there is a lot we can observe and learn about this relatively unusual event.

It wasn’t insurrection, despite endless repetitions to that effect by mainstream and left wing media.  Insurrection means, “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”  What we saw was not a revolt – marchers intended to influence an upcoming actions and decisions by the Congress and the Vice President.  It was not a rebellion – marchers went to the accepted headquarters of the legislature to influence them, not to replace or destroy them, or steal their stuff.  With the possible exception of the unarmed physical breaching of the facility by a tiny portion of the far larger crowd of demonstrators, there was no resistance to any civil authority or any established government.

If this action had taken place with force of arms, after the Senate and House had accepted the disputed electoral votes submitted by the state legislatures, in an attempt to reverse the decision or take over government, we could call it an insurrection.  For those of us watching from the safety of our living rooms, the show of strength of so many Trump supporters, people who more importantly do not trust government, whether it be made up of Republicans or Democrats, was impressive.  One imagines that such energy and civil disobedience could be effective in coming years, and one day we could see actual popular insurrections occurring all over the country.  But that didn’t happen on January 6th.

There is another key point that mainstream media, and the Democratic thought guardians, have wholly missed, or misconstrued, and that is the idea that the Trump phenomenon going on five years now, is remotely right wing.  It is structurally anti-empire, and emotionally populist, a kind of greater Appalachian/Rustbelt/Cowboy populism.  It is given to common sense, a strange combination of old time religion and no religion at all, simultaneously cynical and yet holding vivid imaginings about the greatness and glory of the idea of America.  While the Q aspect (overwrought by the media) touched only a small portion of Trump populists, there is no doubt a widely shared desire among Trump supporters to “believe” in the government we have, and hope beyond all evidence that a person, or a party, can save the system.

That Trump kept many of his promises, and was relatively consistent in his energetic contempt for elites, at home and abroad, who “run” the world, was enough to keep the faith of the 74 million voters who wanted four more years.  But even these people, deep down, recognize that four, or eight years, would be little more than a stopgap.  Too much damage has been done, and the republic is today, as it was a decade ago, a dusty artifact

Unlike what any self-respecting “right wing” would be after, Trump populism (and his army of 74 million) sought to expand power to the people, and disrupt elitist, politicized, administrative tyranny of the state.  There is a reason Trump successfully expanded his base, year after year, with immigrants, Black and Hispanic voters, as well as young, old, men, and women of all religions, races, and occupations.  These actual trends belie any accusations by mainstream media talking heads – funded by big defense and big pharma – that his supporters, or the man himself, was “right wing.”

What can we learn from this particular misuse of language?  To skip to the punchline, it’s truly delightful!  We are learning that the deep state, with its real right and left wings, the status quo, the tax- and power-enriched bureaucratic government class, is beyond frightened of the cynical populist population it seeks to control, to rule, to surveil, and to eventually consume.  We are learning that they know that their quiver is empty, their knives are dull, and they are bereft of leadership, and without heroes. They are running out of words and phrases.

Half the country probably has some economic sense and yet they also cashed their Covid checks, and will continue to do so!  In fact, they may demand more of them – and my goodness, how could things have gotten this out of whack, and out of control?  The End the Fed movement, started by Ron Paul so long ago, and even once espoused by Trump himself, is being accelerated as the next administration seeks to pay back and solidify their “half” of the country, all of their elite supporters, and the Trump crowd too.  “Buying the vote” no longer works –  everyone is getting “free money” now, thanks to the those mating porcupines known as Trump and Anti-Trump.  We like it, we expect it, and Biden-Harris not only promised more, much more, they had absolutely no choice in the matter.  Imagine, Biden wakes up on January 20th (I know, right?) and decides all this money printing is going to be the death of the United States, and we need to bite the bullet. Instead, government central banks will collapse this country, and others, and in due course, themselves.  The instability of this situation will dog the next administration every day, and create impossible situations.  With half the voters so distrustful of Washington that they pulled a “January 6th” and another 30% of the population refusing to participate in the electoral scam at all, it won’t be pretty.  We are becoming hard to “govern,” and impossible to pay off.

The elite fear is palpable.  The tools the state uses, so far anyway, have been education, propaganda, and political division along lines they imagine they can control – generational, cultural, occupational, and political.  Yet the generations are more diverse than ever, with interesting and confusing alliances. American culture is largely consolidated, while we (whether we are three or 93) pick and choose what we will consume informationally, and every other way.  Occupational skill sets are converging and evolving, and no longer lend themselves to unions or the idea of “being spoken for.” Political parties are being held together by duct tape and slogans no one believes anymore.  The vast majority of people in this country hold their government in contempt, and have done so for an entire generation, if not two.

At this point, the governing elites need new tools.  They have a full range on electronic surveillance, sophisticated opinion-conforming and -tracking social media, vehicle GPS and cell phones to monitor, track and record our locations and movements, and of course, they might have the police and military. That darned second amendment, and all those hillbillies and cowboys in 2,000 counties across the land make it a tall order to use police and military force.  Fear (like of Covid) and any similar manipulated crisis that attempts to convert contempt for government into dependency – these are also excellent and proven tools, but it’s just not as easy as it used to be for the elites.  Maybe our modern elites just aren’t up to the task.  They are worried, and they should be.

Elite panic is all we are hearing and seeing on mainstream media. The logarithmic explosion of memes, articles, audio and video all questioning, challenging, ridiculing, and laughing at the government as a class is our new politics.  It’s shallow, it’s reactive, and it produces cynical angry men and women, not statesmen.  Thanks to the wonderful world we live in, that anger leads some of those cynical and angry people into the territory of new ideas, and builds a new awareness of both history and future possibilities.  For every misunderstood marxist, we also get one agorist, a constitutionalist, a future member of the Leave Me Be Party, and a couple of people whose profiles say “loves chickens, gardening and making my own bread.” There is very little room in the future for parasitic elites telling us to sit down, shut up and do what we are told.

From LRC, here.

They Don’t Need to Know Your Name…

On Sacrificing for an Idea

Gary North – October 08, 2020

Lew Rockwell gave a lecture on the trials and tribulations of three free market economists: Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Murray Rothbard. He showed that their commitment to free market economic theory cost them their careers in an era of Keynesianism. Yet today, they are remembered by a growing number of readers. Their bureaucratic opponents are long forgotten: lost in the noise of “we, too.”

Rockwell did not mention this fact, but his efforts have been important in preserving this legacy. So are the skills of his digit-master, Jeffrey Tucker. The technology of the Web — the ultimate price competition in mankind’s history — favors ideas over institutional influence. The gatekeepers are now unable to restrict entry based on money and guild certification.

Ideas have more long-run clout that money does. Now the time frame grows ever-shorter. We have entered a new era: the triumph of digits. It is cheaper today to be a promoter of unpopular ideas than ever before. There are still career costs, but the barriers to entry for ideas are much lower. We should recall a fundamental insight of economic theory: At a lower cost, more is supplied. The gatekeepers today are on the defensive as never before. They are like elephants trying to stamp out ants. So many targets, so little time.

Mises, Hazlitt, and Rothbard were men of the pre-digital age, when access to book-publishing houses could make academic careers. Blocked ideas in their day had reduced consequences and longer time frames. Mises was blocked by his critics more successfully than Hazlitt was. Hazlitt had access to print media because he was a master of the written word. Rothbard labored in obscurity, but at least had some outlets, because of minor early funding by the William Volker Fund and later in the underground world of newsletters, the pre-digital realm of the dispossessed.

Rockwell did not have time to comment on the importance of all of the key gatekeepers who opened their gates. He did mention that Mises got Human Action into print at Yale University Press in 1949 because of the intervention of its editor, Eugene Davidson. Davidson was not afraid of controversy. A year earlier, he had succeeded in publishing Charles A. Beard’s masterpiece of historical revisionism, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War. That book would have ended Beard’s career, had he not already been retired. The historical guild turned on him like a pack of jackals, for he showed that Roosevelt’s foreign policy had deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack the fleet. Beard was one of America’s most distinguished historians in 1947. By the end of 1948, he was a pariah.

Rothbard saw Man, Economy and State get into print in 1962 only because of the support of another anti-state economist, F. A. Harper. Harper had been with the Foundation for Economic Education, but his position on anarchism led to his dismissal by Leonard E. Read. Then he went to the Volker Fund. He ran it, but he did not control it. He was fired shortly before Man, Economy, and State appeared in print. Volker Fund money had funded it. He then founded the Institute for Humane Studies. In 1970, the IHS published Power and Market, the Volker Fund—the suppressed final section of Man, Economy, and State.

THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE

Rockwell made an important point regarding Rothbard’s career in academia.

He taught for many years at a tiny Brooklyn college instead, at very low pay. But as with Mises, this element of Rothbard’s life is largely forgotten. After their deaths, people have forgotten all the trials and difficulties these men faced in life. And what did these men earn for all their commitments? They earned for their ideas a certain kind of immortality.

This forgetfulness is altogether fitting and proper. Austrian School economists strive their entire careers against the widespread public acceptance of an idea that is incorrect: the labor theory of value. This idea was basic to classical economics. It was rejected most forcefully by the founder of Austrian School economics, Carl Menger, in 1871.

The labor theory of value teaches that the value of final production rests on the price of the inputs. Menger showed that this explanation is the mirror image of the truth. The price of a factor input is based on competitive bidding by producers. Entrepreneurs bid up prices because of their expectation of greater revenues in the future. Value moves from contemporary expectations to factor prices, not from factor prices to final output.

If this is true, then the value of an idea is not based on its cost of production. The cost of production is a factor cost. It is a barrier to entry. To overcome this barrier, an entrepreneur of an unpopular idea must find a way to fund the production and distribution of the idea. As Rothbard taught, it is not possible conceptually to separate production from distribution. (Man, Economy, and State, 1962, 1993 reprint, pp. 554—56) The same principle of non-separation applies to ideas.

There are some people who select their ideas in terms of the existing market. Rockwell summarizes the career of one such economist, Hans Mayer. He is forgotten today. As a university bureaucrat, he compromised with the Austrian government and the hierarchy of the University of Vienna. Then Mayer compromised with the Nazis. Then he compromised with the Communists. He never lost his job, but his name is not associated with an idea or anything else. He is forgotten.

He cared about his job and his bureaucratic power. That was what he got. He cared nothing about ideas. He is forgotten. His actions cost him little, because he did not care for ideas or fame.

Mayer distributed ideas that the academic system wanted promoted. He produced none. He was well paid for his efforts. But ideas that are subsidized by the state and its apparatus in one era do not survive the demise of that state and apparatus.

In 1972, I heard a lecture by the conservative Austrian scholar and gadfly, Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. He delivered it to a well-named little group, Ed Opitz’s “Remnant.” I remember only one point in that speech. It was a profound insight. He said that his father had been the loyal servant of four nations. First, he swore allegiance to the Austrian emperor. Then he swore allegiance to the post-war Austrian republic. Then he swore allegiance to the Nazi regime. Then he swore allegiance to the second post-war Austrian republic. There was no oath-bound continuity in his father’s life. There was only a series of broken oaths and defeated armies. There was no loyalty to any idea. The ideas changed. The governments changed. The oaths changed. Employment was the only constant.

He who is in the business of producing and distributing unpopular ideas can rejoice in such a world. The success or failure of ideas is not based on the labor theory of value. Idea-mongers may forecast incorrectly about future demand for their ideas, but the value of those ideas will not be determined by how hard they work. Someone else may work even harder. So what? The ideas will survive or perish, not in terms of whatever price a producer pays, but on whether consumers of ideas see a benefit in holding them.

So, a good marketer of ideas should begin with the old marketing principle: “Lead with the benefits. Follow with the proof.”

Today, distributors of Austrian School economic ideas should begin here: “Well, here’s another fine mess Keynesianism has gotten us into.” We should make it clear that “not Keynesianism” is a major benefit. This message has begun to get across. Demand is increasing. It will have an expanding market over the next decade.

Isn’t digital price competition grand?

CONCLUSION

Mises cared about ideas. His lack of stable employment was an annoyance to him, but career success was not high on his value scale. The same was true of Rothbard. Both men got what they paid for. They paid in a currency that did not matter much to them, especially Rothbard.

I think this is why heroes dismiss their own heroism. They paid for their acclaim in a currency that matters more to the general public than it matters to them. They faced a lower subjective barrier to entry than the public imagines.

If you believe in an idea, and the market is not responding as fast or as widely as you would prefer, donate some money. Or write something. Create a blog. Shoot a YouTube video. Ideas have consequences. Digits are cheap. Your time is short. The gatekeepers are in trouble. The elephants are stamping. The ants are winning. Climb on board. The feast has only just begun, one byte at a time.

However, don’t expect many thanks in the future. Your sacrifice today may be a good story for your posthumous print-on-demand paperback biography, but it is irrelevant for ideological success.

As Leonard E. Read used to say, “Here is how you will know when your idea has been a success. Someone will repeat it to you, and he will have no idea where it came from.”

From LRC, here.

אין טעם ברצון – רמז במשנה

משנה כתובות פרק ו ב’:

הפוסק מעות לחתנו, ומת חתנו, אמרו חכמים, יכול הוא שיאמר, לאחיך הייתי רוצה לתן, ולך אי אפשי לתן.

הרע”ב שם:

…ואע”ג דאחיו עם הארץ והוא ת”ח יכול הוא לומר לאחיך הייתי רוצה ליתן ולך איני רוצה ליתן.

קול הרמ”ז שם:

הרע”ב ד”ה יכול וכו’, והוא ת”ח וכו’. ומש”ה לא תני לאחיך, ליתן (ר”ל לאחיך הייתי נותן), אלא רוצה, כלומר ואין טעם לרצון.