The Replay of our June 14th Live Stream on Finding (OR Creating!) The Freedom Movement in YOUR Community! Here is the replay from our June 14th LiveStream: From Isolation to Action – Finding (OR Creating!) The Freedom Movement in Your Area! Liberty Group List at: ArtOfLiberty.org/Liberty-Groups/Etienne: Hi, this is Etienne De La Boétie2 with the Art of Liberty Foundation. Welcome to our Sunday night live stream, which is something I think we’re going to begin doing more and more of. For those that aren’t familiar with the Art of Liberty Foundation, we are a startup public policy organization exposing the illegitimacy and the criminality of government. Essentially, our thesis is that government was never intended to protect life, liberty, and property. Government is best thought of as a technique for robbing and controlling society. And as voluntarists, we don’t believe that government is legitimate, desirable, or necessary. So we are advocates of something called real freedom, and there is a real freedom movement all around the world. In some cities and towns it is much stronger than others, but there are voluntarists and libertarian and freedom-oriented groups all around the United States.So what we wanted to do is have a little bit of an overview of how you find that freedom movement. And if that freedom movement isn’t active in your town or city, then how do you create it yourself so that you can find your liberty friends and your liberty allies? I wanted to start off by telling you why that’s so important. But before that, I wanted to introduce Counterforce Alliance, our partners in this event. Counterforce Alliance helps liberty groups grow, provides tools so that they can be successful, and provides training for people that want to take their liberty group to the next level or learn how to become a facilitator of a liberty group. So I’m going to be joined by the team from Counterforce Alliance, and we’re going to give you an overview. And with that, I think we’ll start sharing the slides. So, Haley, if you wanted to kick it off and begin sharing our deck, I wanted to get started and go over why it’s so important to have a liberty group and to have freedom groups in the United States and in the world. My example is something that happened during COVID, where we helped organize resistance to the economic warfare of COVID, the lockdowns in Santa Cruz, California.And Haley, if you could put it on the third slide, I wanted to talk about what success looks like and why this is so very, very important. So when COVID kicked off, I found myself in Santa Cruz, California, which is a story in and of itself, and people were still trying to figure out what was going on, what was happening in the United States and the world. Myself and David Rodriguez, who many people know from the Education Options Summit or the Gatto Project, or from helping students graduate and get out of the government school system through Valor Academy, where he speed-graduates people out of the system so that they can get on with their lives and/or some kind of vocational education or other self-directed learning — we ended up at a little dinner party of about ten twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings and everybody was trying to figure out what was going on with COVID. And David and I said, well, I think we’ve got an idea: we’ve got an intergenerational organized crime problem. They’ve been lying to the country about everything, from what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, to what happened on 9-11, to what happened with Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators during the—Kristina: I want to — sorry, I apologize. People are saying that they can’t see the slides. Are they live right now?Etienne: We are live, so they should be getting the slides, and I’ll let Dren work on that, but it sounds like they can hear me. So I’ll keep talking and keep going over it while Dren figures out the slides. But back to my story on Santa Cruz: we knew the government and the media couldn’t be trusted about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, or Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators, or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So there was no reason to believe the government and the media that there was a pandemic. And so we made a decision at that dinner table, with about ten people, that we were going to organize resistance and begin investigating this ourselves. So that initial ten people began putting out feelers in the community. We scheduled a barbecue and a potluck at somebody’s house the next week, and the next week we had twenty-something people, and we began going into the hospitals in what the LA Times said was “the epicenter of COVID in California”. And we found empty waiting rooms, empty hospitals. Etienne de la Boetie2 personally investigating claims of pandemic conditions at Santa Clara Medical Center in “California’s epicenter of the coronavirus” and finding empty tents, empty waiting rooms and hospital employees openly speculating that the whole thing was a hoax.We interviewed the guy that was doing the testing. He told us flat out they weren’t experiencing pandemic conditions. He told us flat out that they weren’t even testing — not many people were coming in for testing. And if you know anything about Santa Clara in California, there is a huge Chinese community coming back and forth from the valley. If there really was a pandemic, you would see it in Santa Clara, California, because of the back and forth between the valley and China. And we found hospital employees that were openly speculating the whole thing was a hoax. So we were convinced that it was a hoax. Now, keep in mind that at the time the hospitals had emergency tents and they were full-scale pretending that there was a pandemic.So we began exposing, literally on camera: look, these tents are empty, there’s nobody in here, there’s nothing going on at these hospitals. And we began fighting back and organizing resistance. Within a week’s time, like I said, we had twenty-something people. By the end of the third week, we had thirty-seven-plus people marching through the streets in Santa Clara, passing out leaflets, exposing the hoax of the whole thing, exposing that masks weren’t going to do anything even if there was a pandemic. And we began trying to get businesses open, because we viewed the whole thing as economic warfare against the population. Very quickly, by the fourth week, we had over two hundred people in a Facebook group, and we began routinely turning out sixty, seventy-plus people to peaceful civil disobedience events. Some of these were free-hug events. Some of these were reopening the beaches. We would go and reopen parks. We would tear down the tape that had been wound around the jungle gyms and the equipment. They put some locks on parks; we didn’t just cut the lock off, we went with bolt cutters and cut the U-bolt off that held the lock to the gate, so they just couldn’t put another lock on it. And we began having these beach parties, because they were trying to close down the beaches, and we would step forward with sixty, seventy people and a bullhorn. And we’d say, we’re reopening this beach. And sixty to seventy people would move forward, and the police would come. And the police would say, hey, y’all can’t be here, the beach is closed. And we would calmly and politely explain to the police that, no, you don’t have the right to close down the beaches — you’re the bad man, you’re threatening people with violence over something that’s not really a crime. And we stood down the police eight times in eight weeks that I was there. We won. The police would get huffy, and sometimes they would ask everybody for ID and nobody would give them ID, and then they would eventually leave, and everybody would see what was going on. And we were having fun. We’re playing badminton, we’re surfing, people are singing with guitars, people are having a blast. And it became clear that really nothing was going on. People would watch us, and over time they realized, hey, this is the group that you want to be with. These guys know what’s going on. These people are organizing resistance. And it grew. Ultimately, the county public health officer, a woman named Gail Newell — in the LA Times, and you can go see the story today — ultimately said, we’re giving up on trying to close the beaches, we’re giving up on trying to enforce this policy, because the people refused to be governed in this way. Peggy Hall, The Healthy American, Covers Our Mask-Free Shopping at Traitor Joes. Now, a couple of other things that we did that I think are key: we created videos of us going into supermarkets without masks. We would go in twenty people at a time, and Trader Joe’s — their employees would try and stop us, and we would just walk around them, because there’s twenty people doing it together. And we would pick up all the groceries that we wanted, and we would do what’s called a cash drop, where we’d figure out how much money was owed and drop the money on the cash register and just take the goods. And those videos went viral, millions and millions of views, and they ultimately had to stop doing that. One other funny thing: some local organization tried to give Gail Newell, the county health officer that was imposing these draconian lockdowns when there obviously wasn’t a pandemic going on, an award. And the Santa Cruz voluntarists pulled up on a trailer right in front of the event. And the Funky Fathers of Liberty, many of whom were in our group, have a full sound system and drum kit, and they began playing a song they’d written called — Jail to Gail, sorry, Gail to Jail — and disrupted the entire event, while the rest of our liberty group passed out information on the harmfulness of the vaccines, the experimental nature of the vaccines, and why you didn’t really want to do this, because there was no pandemic going on at all. Etienne and David Rodriguez About to Speak to an Unmasked Crowd of 3,000+ at the State Capital in Sacramento in late summer 2020 – No cases of Covid were ever reported from any of our unmasked events. Now, I would leave Santa Cruz, and in 2020 I was in twenty different states, and in 2021 I was in thirty different states, and I would meet with other liberty groups all over the country. Some of these liberty groups were libertarian. The majority of them were conservative. All of these liberty groups weren’t wearing masks. And almost every single liberty group that I went to had some connection to a hospital in that area, where some of the members of that group were either doctors, nurses, EMTs, worked in the hospital, or knew somebody that worked in the hospital. And in twenty different states in 2020, and thirty different states in 2021, I never ran into a single person — dozens and dozens of hospital employees, like I said, doctors, nurses, EMTs, et cetera — that claimed they had pandemic conditions at their hospital. So it really was a government and media hoax designed to transfer money to these pharmaceutical companies and to get a needle into people’s arms that ended up hurting a whole bunch of people. So my point here is that having that network in your community is very, very important, should they ever try that again. But it’s also very important because it’s hard to explain to somebody what’s going on when they’re getting all of this information from every single screen — that government’s legitimate, that government’s desirable, that government’s necessary, that civilization would crumble, that it would be purge anarchy in the streets if there wasn’t a government. And you really have to have a network of people, some of whom understand economics, some of whom understand philosophy, to really drive this point home and help people understand the freedom philosophy. So what I wanted to do is take everybody through the basics of how you do this. If you don’t know where that organization is in your town, then the first place to start is at the Art of Liberty Foundation website at ArtOfLiberty.org. On our website, we have a tab in the About section called Liberty Groups, and we have a listing of all of the liberty groups that the Art of Liberty Foundation knows about. ArtOfLiberty.org/Liberty-Groups/You can go and see if there is a liberty-oriented organization in your town. We also have links to other consolidators. There’s a group called Liberty on the Rocks, and Liberty on the Rocks has libertarian-oriented drinking events — get it? Liberty on the Rocks — in almost ten-plus cities in the United States, and very popular in Colorado, where the average chapter has hundreds of people and they regularly turn out events with fifty-plus people. There is the Soho Forum in New York City. There is the Menlo Forum in Silicon Valley, in Menlo Park (Invitation Only, E-mail me if interested). There are a variety of very well established, and in some cases very prestigious, meetings where they’ve got world-class speakers. So you’re going to find, like I said, that list at ArtOfLiberty.org/Liberty-Groups/. But we’ve also got links to groups like Freedom Cells, which has a map where you can either search in your hometown or post a link, and you can do this anonymously — you don’t have to put your exact address, you don’t have to put your exact name — but you can begin to network with the Freedom Cell community, who are overwhelmingly libertarian, to find those groups that are in your town.Now, let’s say that you don’t have one of those in your town. Some of my checklist of success is, number one, to find a cool place to meet, and ideally a recurring date. To get traction, you want to try and have everybody meet on the same day, whether that’s the second Saturday of the month or the third Thursday of the month, so that people can plan on it ahead of time. You get started with your nucleus of friends, family, colleagues, neighbors, and others — you reach out to your existing social circle. You say, hey, I’m worried about what’s going on in the country. I’m worried about masked ICE goons on the street and the surveillance and the flock cameras and everything that’s going on. I wanted to get everybody together. And there’s a variety of places where you can market this event. Some of those are Meetup, Facebook events, Eventbrite. We don’t trust Meetup — we believe they’re censoring freedom-oriented events and freedom-oriented groups, so be aware of that. But I like the full-court press. I think you should do it all. You should be on every single channel that would help you find people within your area. So I call it the full-court press: be on every channel, have a Facebook event so that you can share it easily on Facebook. But also count on the fact that it may be censored, that you may be shadow-banned, that they may not share it the way that you would want. So physical flyers are the gold standard. Having both a physical flyer and a digital flyer — this is an example of a digital flyer on the screen, and this is from the Voluntarists of Austin. The Voluntarists of Austin, on Meetup, have a meetup group with over a thousand people in Austin, Texas. So you might be surprised that there’s already a group in your town, and that group might have a thousand-plus people in it, like the Voluntarists of Austin. A digital flyer is simply something that can be shared — the details of the organization. A website is great, but if you don’t have a website, then the Meetup page, the Facebook event page, your Facebook group — whatever it is, you need to have some kind of landing page. Counterforce Alliance will take you through the tools that they have to help you organize a group as well, and we’re going to get into that in a little bit. But you want to be able to share it. The physical flyers go into any place that’s got a community bulletin board — coffee shops, comic book shops, the cool hipster area in your town, bars, pubs. Everybody knows their town and where people like to gather and where those would be successful. But plan on having a digital version as well, so that not only you can share it, but your friends, your colleagues, your nucleus of the group can text it to their friends and colleagues, and you can share it through Telegram and SMS and Facebook and those avenues as well. Almost every newspaper has a “this is what’s going on on the weekend” or an events section. Sometimes those are free to list your event in, and sometimes those are very low cost. But again, I recommend using every venue. Most people have a local what’s-going-on-in-the-concert-scene-and-the-bars-and-the-pubs publication. In Memphis, where I live, it’s called the Memphis Flyer — those are the free publications that you find in the free bins at bars and restaurants and taverns and things like that. They have event listings as well. Connector.App Allows You to Search for Affinity Groups and People In Your AreaGive yourself a month. Once you start, start with the things that have the longest draw time, like an event listing in the newspaper, like an event listing in the local what’s-happening paper, and then build to that date with the things that give you the best results. And then, like I mentioned, Freedom Cells and the connector.app.Haley, take me to the next slide. So that’s really the best practice for getting your group off the ground: marketing it effectively and getting to people that are there now. So now you get people there, people show up. And now what do you want to do? Well, number one, plan on it taking some time – Your first one might only have five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten friends. Be in it to win it, be in it for the long haul, especially if you’re starting it in the summertime where people are traveling, where people are on vacations.Mix it up – Sometimes have speakers, sometimes have a documentary night, sometimes have potlucks. Don’t just make it about the problems with flock cameras in your area, or inflation. People come to this because they’re concerned about what’s going on with the government. They stay because they like the people and they have a good time and they begin to build friendships. Just keep that in mind. You want to make it welcoming for people. You want to make it so that people want to come back and want to be with the people. That’s how you’re going to attract people that other people want to be around, and that’s how you’re going to make it cool. And that’s what we did in Santa Cruz — it was the cool kids’ club, and people wanted to be part of it. They realized that, hey, the government’s lying, there’s nothing to be worried about, these people are having a blast, they’ve been doing it for weeks, none of them have COVID. I want to be with those people. I don’t want to be locked in my apartment by myself. Split up the duties so that no one gets burned out – If you’re going to have a calling tree, don’t have the same person do all the calls every week. Maneuver the duties so that one person’s in charge of marketing, one person’s in charge of putting up flyers, or whatever it is. Create a team. And that’s really my advice there: make it as fun as possible. That’s why our group thrived. That’s why we had so much success — people wanted to be a part of it. They had a good time, and we had a blast doing it. So everybody else was locked up in their homes, and we were having liberty bonfires. So now what I wanted to do is introduce Haley with Counterforce Alliance. She’s going to tell you a little bit about Counterforce Alliance and how they create and help people start groups. They provide tools for groups, and like I said, they can help train you to be an effective facilitator and a group leader, if you so desire. So I’d like to turn it over to Haley with Counterforce Alliance.Haley: All right, thank you, Etienne. So what I’m going to end up having to do — can you screen share? I stopped screen sharing. Can you screen share the PowerPoint presentation from your end?Etienne: Let’s see. Yeah, I just gotta give it up for a second. But go ahead and introduce yourself while I do.Haley: So thanks for that great example of what you guys did in Santa Cruz — it was inspirational. And I think what we’re going to talk about from our end is how we can replicate that for everybody, because that was a learning moment for all of us about how we failed as a liberty movement. You guys did a great job, but for the most part we were behind the eight ball when it came to organizing and activism at the biggest moment of our life — tyranny here in the real and now, and not just some hypothetical future — and how we can make sure that that never happens again. So I’ll just piggyback off of what you were talking about — where we are now in the freedom movement, and the Substack article that we wrote about isolation and action. So right now, a lot of freedom-minded people are frustrated or overwhelmed, or that’s what they’re feeling, but that’s really just a cover for feeling isolated. And isolation is not just emotionally draining, it’s strategically dangerous. We saw that during COVID. You guys managed to solve that problem, but most of us didn’t. We felt like one man on an island. We felt like we didn’t have support of any kind, like we were the only sane people around here while everybody else, the world, had gone insane. We felt like the only sane ones in the insane asylum. But that’s strategically dangerous. What we’ve discovered is that freedom is not meant to be pursued alone. And community doesn’t happen by accident — it happens by intention. And that’s where our aim is at Counterforce Alliance: to build community intentionally, and not by accident. So here we go.I’m going to get started on slide seven, about why it feels like we’re losing, but we aren’t. A lot of people in our community, let’s face it, have taken the black pill. And let’s be real — it’s hard not to see what’s going on in our country and not feel a little bit demoralized. We see what’s happening, we see the news, we have this feeling that evil is winning, or that the globalist agenda is just unstoppable. Etienne, can you get to slide seven?Etienne: Yeah, I’m on it. Yeah, that one.Haley: And keep scrolling forward. So the reason it feels like harmful agendas are winning is not because they’re more numerous, but because they operate in coordination. They move in tandem and they reinforce one another. It’s been an observation in politics for quite a while that those on one side of the political spectrum tend toward collectivism, and those on the other side tend toward more radical individualism. And most of us here tend to fall on the latter side of that, the radical individualist side. Meanwhile, the freedom movement, despite being filled with intelligent, principled, well-intentioned people, often operates in isolation. Everyone is doing something, but it often feels like we’re just shouting into the void, like we’re one man on an island. And we rarely act in unison together. I always joke that anyone who’s been in the freedom movement for more than five minutes and has ever tried to organize something to affect change knows it’s a bit like herding cats — it’s rough. But that’s not a sign of weakness. It just means that we’re fragmented. And fragmentation is the real obstacle, not a lack of awareness. I dare say there’s nobody here on this stream that’s not painfully aware of the problems we’re facing as a society. So the pattern that we get into is fragmentation. And fragmentation leads to isolation. And isolation leads to hesitation, which is just a combination of uncertainty and a lack of direction. And that equals stagnation. We just don’t end up doing anything, because we don’t know what to do. And so the solution is structure, leadership, and action. So the root problem is fragmentation. We’re going to talk about that.So on slide eight, the fragmentation problem. Why does it seem like the freedom movement is fragmented if so many are working hard to make it succeed? If we take a step back and really look at what’s happening, there is a lot of commotion. There’s noise, there’s energy, there’s conversation, but what we’re lacking is momentum. And that’s an important distinction, because momentum requires people moving together in a shared direction. Right now it seems like everybody’s just trying to do their own thing, and it might even be something meaningful, something important, but without support it’s hard to sustain. So you have people out there who are either knowingly or unknowingly duplicating work others are already doing. Again, it might be well-intentioned, but it ultimately leads to more fragmentation. You’re siphoning support off from one area and bringing it to the other, and then nobody’s able to reach critical mass on any one initiative or endeavor. And over time, that leads to burnout. So ultimately, this isn’t a lack of care. That’s not the problem. It’s not that people don’t care — people do care deeply. They’re informed, they’re engaged, they’re trying, but there’s no clear structure, no consistent support, and no accessible leadership. So all that energy stays fragmented. And when the energy is fragmented, it struggles to build into anything lasting. And that’s the root problem that we’re here to solve.Etienne: And I’ve got it on “fragmentation leads to isolation” now.Haley: Yep, that’s right. So carrying on about the fragmentation problem: it’s not that people don’t care about freedom. People are researching, they’re listening, and they’re trying to understand what’s happening, probably now more than ever before, thanks to our digital age. And the proof of that — just look at the overwhelming number of podcasts, articles, conversations, conferences, Substack blogs, et cetera. All this indicates that people are paying attention, but there’s something missing. Despite all this information, despite all the awareness, it hasn’t translated into coordinated action. And again, this leads to that fragmentation problem. This fragmentation is aided and abetted by the pitfalls of our modern age. All the digital media, in one way, is a blessing — we’re able to stay more aware and informed than ever before — but it has nevertheless kept us in a cycle of consumption rather than connection. And the paradox here is that, despite having the world at our fingertips, quite literally, these little algorithmic bubbles that we find ourselves in actually make our world feel smaller, not bigger. And on top of that, we have to worry about things like misinformation, which is so much harder to discern in the age of AI. We’re still dealing with the issue of censorship, especially for groups like these trying to organize around freedom and liberty. So ultimately, people start to feel alone in what they believe, even when millions of others feel the same way. And when that happens, we get stuck. We get stuck in these loops where we’re inspired for a moment — oh, that was a great podcast, oh my gosh, he really nailed it; or we hear a great talk, we read something powerful, that was a great Substack article you wrote, I totally agree, you hit the nail on the head — but then there’s no clear path forward. There’s no place to bring that energy, and so it all fizzles. It fizzles that energy, that momentum, that inspiration. And then over time, that fragmentation, that fizzling of energy, leads to isolation. And isolation is what keeps movements from forming, even when there’s a desire to act. And that’s what we’re here to overcome together.So, hesitation and uncertainty. When we get into this fragmentation, isolation, hesitation cycle, this is where most people get stuck. The hesitation gets misinterpreted as apathy or blackpilling. It can look like people aren’t stepping up, like they’re disengaged or just not willing to get involved — like, what’s the point? But that’s not actually what’s happening. Most people aren’t afraid of showing up, but they are afraid of stepping into something that feels unclear, unsupported, or unsustainable. And what most people are doing is making an unconscious cost-benefit assessment, or, as I like to say, an effort-to-reward ratio. I like to weigh that out in my mind. Say, for example, 5G cell phone towers are your area of concern. You’d say, yeah, I want to do something about these 5G cell phone towers in my neighborhood, but I don’t know anyone else who’s doing anything about it, and me going to my local city council meeting by myself isn’t going to do anything, so why bother? That’s the attitude most people have. So when it looks like nobody else is doing anything about this, or whatever little group is trying to do something is poorly organized, then hesitation becomes a natural response. And this isn’t weakness, and it’s not laziness, and it’s certainly not a lack of courage. But it is a signal — a signal that what we don’t need is more outrage and we don’t need more information. What we need is support. We need structure. We need leadership. And most importantly, we need a clear, grounded path to take action, one that feels sustainable and not overwhelming. And when that exists, the hesitation starts to dissolve, and the uncertainty shifts from clarity into direction.So, our common barriers. What are some common barriers or shared hesitations out there in the freedom movement that prevent people from taking action? There are lots of them, but the main ones boil down to three things. Some people say things like, well, I know something’s wrong, I just don’t know where to start. Exactly — there’s just so much, where do we begin? Or another one is, which issue even matters the most? Again, there’s so much, where do you start? Which issue do we tackle first? What’s the low-hanging fruit? It’s hard to know. And there’s so much that we all get pulled in different directions. For one person it might be digital privacy, another medical freedom, another food sovereignty, things like that. So we’re all being pulled in different directions. And then one of the big ones is, am I the right person to do this? Who am I? I’m just Haley Heathman, what am I supposed to do? And underpinning all this is an unspoken fear of, what if I try and it doesn’t go anywhere? That’s a common fear. Maybe we’ve already seen it happen somewhere in our own circles, where someone pours a ton of time, energy, and money into an endeavor and it never takes off. Despite all the effort, and you really try, it’s like a failure to launch. Or maybe they do gain traction, but still, despite their best efforts, they’re unable to achieve the goal they set out to achieve, and that leaves you feeling even more demoralized than before. And these aren’t excuses. These are real, honest reflections of what it feels like to stand alone without a clear path forward. But what that tells us is that it’s not that people are unwilling. It’s just that they’ve been left without a way to step in that actually works to support their efforts.So, the critical reframe. In order to get people out of this defeatist thinking that prevents them from even getting started, this hesitation that we’re talking about, this is where we need to do a mindset shift. We need to think about things a little bit differently. And one of the big ones we need to start with is that not everyone needs to be a leader. Everybody feels like, well, I can’t take this on. But that’s not actually what we need. We do need some of those, but, as they say, too many chefs spoil the broth. So what we need in the freedom movement, actually, is more facilitators and activists. We need people who are willing to connect others, to create a little structure, or simply take the next step. Because, let’s face it, the real momentum doesn’t come from one person having all the answers. It comes from many people doing small things consistently together. You don’t have to have it all figured out. You don’t have to be perfect. You don’t need permission. You just have to be willing to say yes. You just have to be willing to try, because it’s those small, steady action steps — especially when you’re in a supported team environment — that are way better than trying to delegate tasks and figure it all out on your own.And so that leads me to our mission and who and what we are. What is Counterforce Alliance, and why are we here talking to you today? I’m Haley, and I’m joined here with John, Amy, and Christina from the leadership team, to talk about Counterforce Alliance’s mission and vision for the freedom movement. At Counterforce Alliance, our mission is fivefold. Number one, we want to unify the freedom movement. We want to bring together individuals and local groups under a shared purpose, so that we, the people, move from scattered effort to coordinated collective impact. Two, educate. We want to educate members on self-sovereignty and independence. We want to provide access to trusted knowledge, tools, and experts, so that people can build more independent, resilient lives without having to figure it all out on their own. Three, facilitate. We want to facilitate local groups and activism-focused efforts through task force teams, creating simple, accessible infrastructure for communities to organize, communicate, and take action together at the local level. Four, empower. We want to empower leaders at every level, and equip everyday individuals with the mindset, skills, and support needed to step up, lead, and sustain meaningful efforts over time. Five, inspire. Of course, we want to inspire a culture of liberty, as we know politics is downstream from culture. So beyond just practical solutions to our everyday problems, which of course is important, we also want to create a culture that values freedom. And we can do this through things like visual arts, music, short- and long-form videos, gaming, and everything in between. So in short, we provide the structure, connection, and support that turns intention into aligned, consistent action, all in one place.So, our purpose. Everything we do is grounded in a shared purpose, a very clear filter. And we’re always asking some of these questions: Does this build something real? Does this empower people beyond just talk? Does this unify instead of divide? Because if it doesn’t do those three things, it’s just noise. We also have to define what we are not. We’re not a political party — we’re not trying to create a fourth or fifth political party in the U.S. We’re not an ideology; in fact, we’re actually trying to transcend all these ideologies. And we’re not built around one voice. This is not a cult of personality or a brand. We are here to empower you, not a charismatic leader in charge of everything. And this isn’t about attention. It’s not about entertainment. It’s about alignment, action, and building something that actually lasts together.So if I had to boil it down to one sentence: Counterforce is about bringing community, focus, and leadership back to the freedom movement — and not in theory, but in a way that people can actually step into. Because this isn’t something separate from you. This only works because of you. And we’re not building it for people, we’re building it with people, because at the end of the day, we are all the counterforce.Now, what sets us apart? That’s a good question, and it’s one of the questions we get most often. There’s plenty of other freedom-minded communities and networks out there, so what makes Counterforce Alliance any different? Any of you who have been in the freedom space for more than five minutes have probably felt at times disappointed and frankly let down at the lack of organization within our circles. It’s one of the things I mentioned before, that the other side does way better than us, because, as I said, they’re collectivists whereas we’re mostly radical individualists. We have this sense that the freedom movement is scattered, divided, and hard to plug into. And honestly, that’s not wrong — that’s a valid feeling. What makes Counterforce Alliance different is that we’re not here to add more noise or division. There are plenty of other freedom-minded networks out there, and most of them are just talk or meme-lording — let’s create another meme, that’ll do it. Whereas we build, we empower, we unify, and we intentionally stay away from things that pull us apart and divide us, things like politics and headline news and labels. Instead, we focus on what actually brings people together, which is a shared pursuit of liberty and real, practical solutions. We don’t try to lead for you, we help you lead. And we believe the future of freedom doesn’t come from the top down — it comes from you stepping in, taking action, and leading change in your own life and community. We are here to create a space where leaders and groups can collaborate and grow, and we do that by focusing on what truly matters: personal sovereignty, local resilience, and collective freedom. Because this isn’t just another movement. It is a space to actually build something real together.Our community framework — so, how does Counterforce facilitate action? What does the Counterforce community look like in practice? Think of Counterforce as the missing infrastructure, the framework that helps people move from being aware, to connected, to actually taking action. Because the goal isn’t just to inform people — we all know we’re well aware of the problems — it’s to help us build together. And we do that in a few key ways. First, through our local liberty groups, so that people can connect in their own communities, not just online, and turn shared values into relationships and action. Then we have our task force teams, which are focused, collaborative spaces where people come together around specific initiatives and actually get things done. Imagine that. And lastly, we have liberty leadership, giving people the tools, support, and training to step up with confidence and lead in a way that’s sustainable. And all of this is designed to answer that core problem we’ve been talking about: to make sure that no one has to figure this out alone and no effort is wasted.So, our community framework — what does this actually look like on the ground? At the heart of Counterforce is our community framework, and it starts with local liberty groups. These are dedicated spaces where people can actually connect in real life, not just online. I know those in our community value their online privacy, as we all should — that’s really important — but at some point we have to step away and step out from behind the shadow of anonymity, so that we can take the next step of meeting people in real life. We need boots on the ground, so to speak. And this is where, in real life, you can organize, communicate, share resources, plan events, and most importantly, build real relationships with people in your community who care about the same things. Because that’s where trust is built. That’s where the momentum begins. And the beauty of these local liberty groups is that they’re not one-size-fits-all. There are lots of different things you can do with them. These can be social, bringing people together casually for fun meet-and-greets; interactive, centered on discussion and collaboration; educational, sharing knowledge through talks and lectures; or hands-on, building real-world skills or working on local projects. It’s going to evolve naturally as you grow, based on the people, the needs, and the energy of that community. Because we’re not a top-down organization, it’s decentralized. We’re not trying to force a structure onto people or groups, we’re just creating a framework that allows something real to grow. And one example of that is the San Diego Freedom Alliance, which is one of our own local liberty groups. It’s kind of the basis, the genesis, the catalyst of what prompted this whole Counterforce Alliance movement — the success that they’ve had in San Diego organizing their group. They started off as maybe a dozen or a couple dozen people, and they’ve swelled to almost triple digits. They’ve done that by bringing in speakers and hosting conversations on everything from digital privacy, to having people from the Weston A. Price Foundation come in and talk about health and nutrition, to developing real-world activism strategies and doing activism efforts in San Diego. And beyond just activism efforts, it’s about personal growth and development too. They’re offering life-path courses to help people find clarity, purpose, and direction. And they’re also developing practical skills, like time management. So it’s not all heavy. They also intersperse that with fun things, like movie matinees, community gatherings, beach barbecues, shared experiences, and real connection. Because that’s the point. This isn’t just about information. It’s about building relationships, skills, and momentum in a way that actually sticks.Focused activism. So beyond the local liberty groups, our other secret weapon is our task force teams. And this is where connection starts to turn into real, focused action. Our task force teams are built around specific issues, so people who care about the same thing can stop working in silos and start collaborating. Whether it’s digital privacy, food independence, flock camera surveillance, alternative energy, or emerging issues like data centers and water rights — and that’s a big one, that’s a buzzword these days, these AI data centers — each team has a dedicated space to share research, resources, ideas, and most importantly, coordinated action steps. I’ll give an example. I’m in Florida, the quasi-free state of Florida, at least. What we did last year was make a concerted effort on getting fluoride out of the water in Florida. It started off locally, where we would show up to local city council meetings and commissioner meetings and petition them to start getting fluoride out of the water. That was spurred on by some of the work and attention that RFK Jr. brought to it and his role in the White House, and that helped build some momentum. We were actually having success at that. We were having these county commissioners and city councils start to vote to remove fluoride from the water. That compounded into being able to put forth a bill in our legislature to get the fluoride out of the water at a state level, and ultimately that passed and was signed into law by Governor DeSantis. So this is something that you can replicate on a state-by-state basis. Hey, we’ve had some success there — how can we take that success and let other people know about it? And that’s how we can use these task force teams, so that nobody has to figure it all out on their own. They can take something like Florida and use it as an example and a blueprint, figure out what’s working and what’s not working, which arguments are more persuasive than others. Because that’s one of the biggest gaps we’ve seen: people are working on the same problems, they’re just not working on them together. So the task force teams change that. They bring alignment, clarity, and momentum to making headway on some of these efforts, so the effort is not duplicated, but multiplied. And that’s just the beginning.But wait, there’s more. So, from connection to impact. This is where everything starts to come together. Our task force teams don’t just organize ideas, they create real connections between people who are ready to act. And when the right people find each other, things start to move. We’ve already seen this in our Counterforce Alliance community. About a month or two ago, we had a live stream with Brendan Trachsel of Flock Out of Flag, which is an initiative to get flock camera systems out of Flagstaff, Arizona. And he was successful — they actually got them removed. He gave us a great presentation on the step-by-step actions he took to get those flock camera systems out of Flagstaff. And after that live stream, which is on our platform too — you can view it on our platform — we were able to help connect Brendan with a university student at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. And that connection is already turning into action on their campus to push back against flock camera installations. So that’s how this grows. It’s not a top-down effort, it’s through aligned people finding each other, sharing strategies, and stepping forward together. That’s how we make a difference and have an impact. And the great thing is that that’s just the beginning. So, piggybacking off of that, building the momentum with the flock camera systems, this summer we’re actually going to be actively working to find and connect other student-led groups and local efforts to stop flock at colleges and universities across the country, so that no one is operating in isolation and every effort becomes part of something bigger. Nobody’s starting from square one. We can collaborate and communicate with each other about how we can carry this momentum forward. And that’s what Counterforce Alliance is here for — not just for sharing information, but for helping activists find each other and build something real in the real world.Stepping into leadership. So this is where it becomes personal at Counterforce. We’re not just here to connect people, we’re also here to help people step into leadership in their own communities. One of the misconceptions about leadership is that it’s about having all the right answers. It just means someone who’s willing to take responsibility for the next step. And the way we support that is through real, practical training — things like how to facilitate a group, how to set expectations, how to delegate and sustain momentum over time. We’ve got courses that are going to help you learn how to do all that. We also provide courses and tools to help you grow in communication, organization, time management, and advocacy, so you’re not just guessing your way through it — you’re supported all the way. If there’s something you don’t know how to do, or maybe you’re a little bit weak on, we’ve probably got a course on it, or we’re creating a course to help you figure out how to do it. But importantly, while all those leadership skills are important, they don’t mean anything if we don’t have the proper value systems to carry them out. So we need to act with integrity. We’re teaching about personal responsibility, truth, and service to others, because those are really the foundations of any free society and the kind of leadership that actually lasts. It doesn’t mean anything to achieve our objectives if we do it by throwing people under the bus and hurting other people. That’s not what we’re about. It’s about how to act with integrity while making headway and momentum for freedom. At Counterforce, we don’t lead for you, we help you lead. And we give you the structure, the support, and the tools to help you step forward and lead. Because at the end of the day, Counterforce was born out of a need for real leadership, direction, and focus, and it grows through people who care about their communities and are ready to take action together.All right, now, there might be some of you on the stream who are already leading. If you’re already a leader, great — that’s awesome, congratulations, thank you for stepping up. So this is where Counterforce becomes a force multiplier for what you’re already doing. If you’ve already taken the step to show up, already taken the steps to organize something and carry responsibility, we’re here to support you and to help you do it more effectively and sustainably. For those who are already leading a local group or specific initiative, we provide you with training that will help you become an even more effective leader and activist, to arm you with the tools, strategies, and skills to keep your group growing and become more resilient. So you’re not just working hard, you’re working more strategically — work smarter, not harder, right? You’ll also be able to connect with other leaders on the network, so you can exchange strategies, resources, and experience with others who are leading alongside you. As a liberty leader, you’ll be provided with the structure needed to be more successful: a dedicated and customizable space on our network to manage your group, including features such as an event calendar, forums, file sharing, members directory, alerts, reminders, and more. You’ll get one space for your local group, and you’ll also get up to two task force team spaces to address specific issues or solutions you are focused on. Because leadership shouldn’t feel like you’re holding everything together on your own. It should feel supported, connected, and built to last.Our collective impact. All right, what it’s all about here at Counterforce Alliance — our mission is to empower you. Everyone has something unique to offer. Your voice matters. Your skills, your talents, your perspective — they matter now more than ever. And what matters most is choosing not to retreat, not to feel defeatist, not to get blackpilled, but to participate, to step up, to step in and build alongside others who care. Different people, different strengths, coming together with a shared purpose for freedom. And together, we create something far more powerful than any of us could do alone, because it all starts with you.So, some examples of taking action. Action doesn’t have to be big to be meaningful — I think that’s a misconception, and it’s another one of those things that causes hesitation, thinking that in order to be meaningful we have to do something like take down Klaus Schwab at the WEF. I know he’s already been taken down, but that’s just an example. We don’t have to be toppling world leaders in order to take meaningful action. Small actions are just as important. And those small actions can look like things such as supporting a local co-op, growing your own food, bartering for goods and services, showing up to a task force, or simply starting conversations in your community. These are some of the simple, tangible steps that people can take that really make a difference. They really matter, because real change isn’t built on one big moment. And I’ll put this in a quote. If anyone’s ever read The Hobbit by Tolkien, there’s a great quote from Gandalf the Grey, and he says: “Some people believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check. But that is not what I have found. It is the small, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.” And that’s exactly what we can accomplish through our Counterforce Alliance community.So, moving from isolation to connection, as we close, I want to come back to where we started: that feeling of isolation. If you’ve ever felt like you’ve been carrying this alone, you’re not alone. I’m here to tell you that you’re not alone. Your skills, your voice, your perspective — they’re all needed now more than ever. And Counterforce exists because freedom isn’t meant to be pursued alone. It’s built through connection, through shared effort, through small, steady steps forward. You don’t have to have everything figured out. You don’t need to lead tomorrow. You just need to take the next step. With Counterforce, that isolation becomes community, the hesitation becomes action, and individuals become activists and leaders. So if that resonates with you, we’d be honored to build alongside you.And there’s no time like the present, as they say. Our time is now. There’s never been a more important moment than right now. You can feel it in the air these days — the tension, the uncertainty, the sense that something’s not right. It’s tangible, it’s palpable. And despite all the promises, not much has truly changed, and if anything, many of our freedoms are slipping faster than we expected. At some point, we have to face reality: no one is coming to save us. Facts. And that’s not meant to create fear, but it is meant to create clarity. Because we’ve seen what happens when we’re unprepared, when we don’t have strong communities, coordination, or a plan. We talked about that with regard to the COVID response. Etienne and his group were prepared, but most of us weren’t. Most of us were the only sane person in an insane asylum, and that led to bad outcomes. And we can’t let that happen again. We can’t be caught unaware, stuck behind the eight ball again. So this is the moment to step forward, to find your people, to take action, however small it may seem. Because silence becomes consent. Every step towards freedom matters. The fear we feel comes from isolation, and the way we defeat that is through action. There is another path forward, and it starts with us. It’s up to all of us to decide what happens next.So, taking the next step. Are you ready to take action? Are you ready to get off the sideline and get into the game? Are you ready to stop being a keyboard warrior and put some boots on the ground? This is the one area where we want some boots on the ground. Yes, indeed. So if something you’ve heard today resonated, then this is your moment. We want you to join the Counterforce community. Start connecting, engaging, start building. Find a local group or start one. Join a task force that you care about. Step up where you can — every contribution matters. Just take the next step, because consistent, collective action creates real change. And if you’re ready, we’re here. We’re ready to build with you. Your next step starts here.So if you’ve made it this far in the presentation, we really thank you for sticking around. At this point, we are going to open it up to some Q&A. If there have been any questions put in the chat box, we’re going to go through those — we’ve been monitoring the chat. And if you haven’t, now’s your chance to put something in the chat box, maybe something like, what’s your biggest concern or question about our platform, or something personal, like, hey, I’m feeling hopeless or overwhelmed, how can this help? And then we’ll share openly from our side what we’ve learned and what we’re building. So we’re ready to have a conversation. I’m going to kick it over to John, who is the mastermind, the man with the plan, the genius behind all this madness. He and Christina are going to be taking questions and answering all your questions. So John and Christina, if you want to take it over from here.John: Hi everyone, thanks for joining us. I see a question here about whether or not we have any courses on freedoms. And yes, we have one in the works, and it’s very much in depth. I believe it’s going to change a lot of people’s minds, especially in regard to getting out of the left-right paradigm. Because we, as the Counterforce community, are very much focused on freedom, and party politics just isn’t working, as Etienne has been preaching for years now. So we’re just so happy that he’s brought us on board. And if there are any more questions, we’re here to answer them.Etienne: Hey, John, while we’re waiting for some questions to appear, could you go ahead and give everybody an overview of what you’ve been able to do in San Diego, some of the success that you’ve had, how that got started, and any best practices that you’ve seen be successful in your group — just a little bit about your group?John: Sure. Well, our group was started on the Freedom Cell Network, and it was during COVID, right at the beginning. It was actually started by another lady named Sherry. She had some issues in her family, and I just kind of took over to keep the group going, and I’ve been doing it ever since. She just said, John, you’re doing so good, just take over. I said, okay. So it’s been about five years. I do most of the speaking, we do lectures, we have guest speakers, we do some social events, and we just try to mix things up and keep it interesting. So we’ve grown over the years, and people are very happy with what we’ve done. So we’re trying to take what we’ve built over the last five years and get it out to the freedom community. But I’ve learned that keeping things focused on freedom and focused on alternative solutions — that’s what brings people together. We have all different types. We have the whole political spectrum in our group: Democrat, Republican, everything in between, everything outside of the box. They’re all coming to our meetings, they’re all friends, and they’re developing relationships. Some people have changed their politics over the years as we’ve gone through different courses and material we’ve presented. So it’s been a growing process for all of us, and I’m just excited to bring this to the world.Etienne: And I have been a presenter to the group, so I’m an example of those voices that you’ve been able to bring to the table. If somebody is thinking about doing this in their own community, what would you tell them? What’s the first thing they could do? What’s your best advice for somebody that’s sitting on the fence and would like to do this in their own community?John: Take our courses. Just kidding. So, start small, start with just your inner circle of friends. If you have no friends that are like-minded to start a group like this, you’re just going to have to go online and see if you can find those people. Go to Etienne’s local groups page, or come to our community, or Freedom Cells, and just try to find your tribe. But if you just start with two people, that’s enough. Just the two of you can meet in a coffee shop, and over time you’re going to meet other people and you can start growing your group. And eventually you can bring in guest speakers. You can mix it up by having social events. We have a Christmas party every year at a nice restaurant, and that’s always a blast. We invite musicians in our group to come and play. Just keep it, like Etienne said, keep it fun, keep it interesting, but you’ve got to keep the focus on freedom and working toward activism efforts too. Otherwise, it’s only a social event. We have members that are highly active in the local community, standing up against the flock cameras, 5G towers, and they’re very successful. So we take what they’ve done and we learn from them, and then we spread that knowledge to everyone else. And then they, in turn, take it to their cities and they can make things turn around for liberty.Etienne: Christina, do you want to chime in? Do you want to throw out your favorite suggestion for somebody that’s getting started, that wanted to put together a group in their city or town?Kristina: Yeah. First, I wanted to say what led us to this moment. When John and I first connected and started talking, it became evident very quickly that we both shared a similar vision of creating this way for people to come forward, connect with each other, become more self-reliant, learn the knowledge, learn the skills, get together, and pick their favorite issue and run with it. And I’m very passionate about this project, because I come from a small town, and I know what it’s like to wonder if you’re ever going to find support, if you’re ever going to find your tribe in a small-town community, especially where there just isn’t the numbers or population to support it. So if you’re listening to this and you join our community, we can set you up with your own space for your town, or your region, or wherever you are. And yes, start with a few friends. If not, you might have to start online and contribute to the freedom movement in that way until you can find your tribe that’s locally around you. But in the meantime, we’ve got plenty for you to do. If you want to join us, even small steps — there are ways to contribute to the freedom movement, whatever your skills are, whatever your talents are. We need you, because they’re going to move forward with their agenda. They’re going to keep moving forward as a united front, and we need to do the same. We need to get together. And maybe it isn’t going to be your friends — maybe you’re going to meet them later, once you start, once you create or facilitate a group. And then you post at the library, you post at the coffee shop: hey, are you guys concerned about this? Are you concerned about flock, about biometrics? Let’s get together, let’s talk about growing some food. This is what this is all about. We need to step forward in humanity. We need to step forward and take our rights back and start saying that we’re not going to take this anymore. And the way we do it is together, step by step, big steps, small steps, every walk of life. We need you, we want you to join us, and you’re more than welcome.Etienne: Well, thank you. Now, is there anything else that you guys — because we’re at the end of our hour — is there anything else that the Counterforce Alliance team would like for folks to know? Or anything that I forgot to ask you? Or anything else that we should cover before we close it out?Haley: I don’t know if we want to put the last slide up.It’s just got our QR codes for where people can find us and how they can join, and our invitation for action: the URL, counterforcealliance.com, and some QR codes that you can scan right now so you can join. It’s free to join, let’s put it that way. There are some membership tiers for those who want to be local liberty leaders and lead task force teams, but anybody can join the platform. And that’s the first logical next step that we want you to take for our movement. It’s not going to hurt you to just start connecting and meeting people and go from there. So, John, anything you want to finish off with about memberships or getting started?John: I think that one of our core philosophies that I didn’t mention is that we try to focus on people and the local needs. So if you’re starting a group or you want to start an effort, number one, focus on the relationships. That’s the most important thing. If you make it about yourself or your agenda, people are going to see through that. So if you keep it focused on the people you’re working with, it just creates a stronger bond between you. And also, as far as the group as a whole is concerned, keep it about what that area needs or what that area needs to focus on. If flock surveillance is a big issue in your area, then go after it, if that’s what everyone else is on board for. So just keep it about what the other people are interested in as well. You have to give and take. So it’s all about relationships. All right, I hope that helps.Etienne: Yeah, that was perfect. And I want to thank you guys. I want to thank everybody that joined us. And anybody that sees the live stream, please scan the QR code to get more information: CounterforceAlliance.com, artofliberty.org. You can find our list of liberty groups in your area at: ArtOfLiberty.org/Liberty-Groups/. And I hope everybody takes action. I hope everybody finds their tribe. And I hope everybody has an absolute blast with your new liberty friends and tribe. Thank you for attending. It has been our pleasure to put this together for you.CounterforceAlliance.comArtOfLiberty.org/Liberty-Groups/The Best “Go Paid” Deal on Substack! You Get REAL Stuff!!Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the https://artofliberty.org/store/.Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many OR “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! + Liberator flash drive + a signed high-resolution hardcover of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many + everything else in our “Everything Bundle” of the best in voluntaryist thought delivered domestically. International pays shipping. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.The Best “Go Paid” Deal on Substack! You Get REAL Stuff!!

Kauffman causes more divide and conquer + Etienne’s Prescient 2024 Article: Libertarian Party Shoots Itself in the Foot… Again… at National ConventionEtienne Note: As part of our support of the Free State Project, we have been covering Jeremy Kauffman’s divisive tactics, most recently in our article: What is the Deal with the Free State PARTY in New Hampshire?Video: Jeremy Kauffman calls the Libertarian Party Convention attendees: “Freaks,” “Loser Apes,” “Dumb,” “Stupid” and “Theatre Kids” Kauffman is now back in the news dragging libertarianism in NH through the mud and causing division (Divide & Conquer) in the national Libertarian Party. One of his NHLP members, Andrew Allgood, was arrested for slapping a woman who threw some NHLP give-a-way brochures in the trash.NHLP member and Kauffman ally Andrew Allgood, giving Jeremy Seig Heil, Heil Hitler salutes during his speech. Allgood would later be arrested for slapping a woman at the convention.Allgood was also photographed giving Jeremy “Seig Heil, Heil Hitler” salutes while Jeremy was giving this talk. Jeremy was ultimately removed from the Convention by the Chair, trespassed and forbidden to return.For reasons we detail in my article: New Hampshire’s Free State Project – How Freeing a Single State from “Government” Could Free Us All, we believe that the Liberty movement in New Hampshire could be the most important avenue for widely exposing the illegitimacy and criminality of “government” nationally. We believe Jeremy and other agent provocateurs are sabotaging that movement by attempting to associate libertarianism and voluntaryism with racism, nationalism, conservatism, and other divisive ideologies while “dividing & conquering” the Libertarian Party in NH and nationally.This isn’t an endorsement of the Libertarian Party, to the contrary this is yet another example of how easy it is for monied interests to hijack and sabotage the easily rigged political process. See my recent article Thomas Massie’s Loss to AIPAC Funded “CIA Republican” Ed Gallrein Proves Elections Rigged & “Government” A Scam to understand how easy it was to get rid of one of the most popular Congressmen of this century.The members of the Libertarian Party should be focused on exposing the illegitimacy and illogical nature of “government” on its face which produces a “one-way revolution” as people understand the scam and abandon “The Most Dangerous Superstition.”Here is an article I wrote in 2024 pointing out the folly of the Libertarian Party and their well-meaning but misguided attempts at playing poker in a rigged game:Libertarian Party Shoots Itself in the Foot… Again… at National ConventionIs the LP Now Counter-Productive to the Goal of REAL Freedom?by Etienne de la Boetie2, Founder – Art of Liberty FoundationOriginally Published: June 3rd 2024In a previous life, I ran a successful national campaign for the Libertarian Party, helping a vice-presidential candidate win their nomination (LP vice-presidential candidates are elected, not chosen by the presidential candidate). My takeaway after the race was that the LP was at a dead end. The party was knee-capped by the election laws that favored the incumbent parties, making it essentially impossible for the LP to compete. I went on to work at a libertarian think tank in DC instead.Among other issues, the Libertarian Party simply can’t raise the money they need to wage a viable campaign. Back in my day, contributions were capped at $2300 before the primary and $2300 after the primary. That has now been raised to $3300 or $6600 across the entire cycle. So.. You can compete with Walmart, but you can only spend $6600 on advertising. Compounding the problem, the position of the Party was, and I assume it still is?, to reject taxpayer financing of campaigns on principle. This means that the incumbent parties get tens of millions of tax-payer financing while the LP candidate refuses to take taxpayer monies. Finally, the majority of the funds raised by the Libertarian Party itself usually go to getting ballot status in all 50 states, which entails having to pay professional signature gatherers $1-2 per signature to gather, in some states, 100,000 signatures JUST to get on the ballot.In the races for House and Senate, the incumbents have the ability to send their constituents hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising disguised as communications with constituents (known as the Franking Privilege… where the Congressman gets to mail free by putting their signature or “Frank” on the envelope instead of a stamp. Each Senator and Congressman has dedicated employees known as “Constituent Services” that spend their days solving issues that voters have with government bureaucracies at taxpayer expense, generating the incumbent “reciprocity” with thousands and thousands of voters each year that is impossible for challengers to replicate similarly. Finally, the incumbents have professional video studios, full time staff, drivers, and a variety of other tax-payer funded advantages over 3rd party opponents.Now, it appears the easily manipulated LP is being used, more often than not, to give small (l) libertarians a bad name. The party seems to have completely lost its way.Here are some examples:Inviting Former President Trump, who is responsible for Project Warp Speed, which conservatively killed between 13-20 million people globally and injured 1 billion, to speak at its national convention… Where he mocked them for their 3% of the vote. – Which genius at the national LP made the decision to associate a criminal with the Libertarian Party?Nominating Chase Oliver, a former Democrat who supported masks, transitioning kids, and men in women’s sports as their Presidential candidate, making a mockery of libertarians everywhere. If you hadn’t figured out by November of 2020 that “The Covid” was a scam, you don’t deserve to be running for dog catcher.Resorting to deceptive fundraising tactics where the national leadership attempted to capitalize on the popularity of individual LP presidential candidates to fund the national Party when some candidates openly disagreed with the National Party and openly objected to the Party fundraising on their name.While there are many good folks in the Libertarian Party who use the political cycle as an opportunity to discuss small (l) libertarian solutions and political philosophy with their neighbors and town, I am starting to believe the LP is doing more harm than good for a number of reasons.The LP legitimizes the easily rigged political process, the concept of “government” itself, and the illegitimacy of voting in obviously rigged elections with unauditable black box machines and mail-in ballots. – In “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed, I argue that it is impossible to logically and morally have a legitimate government as it is impossible to delegate rights you don’t have yourself to a “representative” or a “government”; you can’t be bound by a social contract you didn’t sign, and if my girlfriend and myself can’t vote that you have to give us all your money because there are two of us and one of you, then no additional extra people make that legitimate.The LP, by participating, is essentially legitimizing the idea that the criminals in Washington DC get to rule us because 4-5 dozen slave owners on a continent of three million people got together in a room and wrote down on a fancy piece of paper that they alone get to make up rules for everyone and steal the wealth of others.The LP is easily hijacked by fake libertarians like Bob Barr, Bill Weld and Nick Sarwark AND/Or embarrasses libertarians everywhere by its ridiculous candidates, some of whom may be controlled opposition. Some recent examples include a candidate for national chair, James Weeks, who stripped down to a thong during the nationally televised convention in 2016 or the fact that two of the 2020 presidential candidates campaigned in costume headgear, including “Vermin Supreme,” who wore a boot on his head and promised voters ponies.The LP doesn’t advocate for things that would actually help the situation OR define REAL Freedom and the differences between them and statist politicians – If the LP’s presidential candidates were intellectually honest, then they would openly state that political authority is illegitimate. They would explain the moral and intellectual case for REAL freedom and campaign as Privaticians who pledge only to use “government” power defensively to protect lives, liberty and property, NEVER to steal and redistribute.The LP’s candidate should be running on a platform of a peaceful dissolution of the US federal “government,” which are issues that a sizeable majority could get behind and would, in my opinion, result in tens of millions of legitimate “earned media”There are better things that Libertarians Could be Doing with their Time and Treasure – Yes, I agree that the good folks in the LP are effecting some amount of change by talking about small (l) libertarian solutions and explaining how the free market delivers the goods BUT there are other organizations that are doing a better job including:The Advocates for Self-Government—Instead of door-knocking for a candidate who won’t win, man an Operation Politically Homeless booth at a fun event in your community. You can explain libertarian ideas and introduce the Advocates’ website and video channel of freedom resources.The Art of Liberty Foundation – Our humble effort is to widely expose the illegitimacy of “government” on its face and open criminality. We are producing a “one-way revolution” as people realize HOW they have been tricked into supporting statism. Make censorship-proof, “sneaker-net” Liberator flash drives for free with the PDF of “Government”- The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! for your friends, family and colleagues OR Print and distribute our flyer asking your neighbors not to vote to rob their neighbors and explaining the scam of “government.”The Foundation for Economic Education – FEE’s mission is to inspire, educate and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical and legal principles of a free society.The Mises Institute – The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. RothbardThe White Rose – The White Rose is an international group of activists that make pro-liberty, anti-lockdown, anti-covid stickers available globally for gas pumps, bathroom doors, airports, and police cars. The campaigners make a file of stickers available for free, and anyone with a low-cost Brother QL 800 label printer (~$100 new or $40-$60 used on E-bay) can print cool, hard-hitting stickers at a very low cost. They also distribute free stickers worldwide via postal mail (follow the directions on their Telegram page to get yours). The stickers are distributed in bulk at liberty events like Porcupine Freedom Festival, Jackalope, FreedomFest, The Rainbow Gathering, and others! They have stickers that promote “Government”- The Biggest Scam in History Exposed! and the Art of Liberty Foundation makes a series of free POSTERS available that expose organized crime “governments”About the AuthorEtienne de la Boetie2 is the founder of the Art of Liberty Foundation, and the editor of the Art of Liberty Daily News on Substack and Five Meme Friday, which delivers hard-hitting voluntaryist memes and the best of the alternative media. He is an internationally recognized expert and speaker on voluntaryism and government illegitimacy, criminality and corruption. His original writings and research can be found at ArtOfLiberty.org and ArtOfLiberty.FoundationHe is the author of To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Manywhich exposes an inter-generational psychological operation by the “government,” Hollywood, and the monopoly media to indoctrinate the population with the pseudo-religion of Statism using dozens of unethically manipulative techniques ranging from subliminal content in television programming to a hidden curriculum in the mandatory “government” schools, scouting, and police/military training.He has also authored: “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! which breaks down how inter-generational organized crime centered around banking and central banking is robbing and controlling the population using the technique of “government” with puppet politicians and monopoly media/academia. His upcoming book: Voluntaryism – How the Only “ISM” Fair for Everyone Leads to Harmony, Prosperity and Good Karma for All! explains how REAL freedom (voluntaryism) can provide all the legitimate non-redistributive services provided by “government” without the waste, fraud, abuse, indoctrination and extortion.About the Art of Liberty FoundationA start-up public policy organization: Voluntaryist crime fighters exposing inter-generational organized crime’s control of the “government,” media and academia. The foundation is the publisher of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed!- How Inter-Generational Organized Crime Runs the”Government,” Media and Academia.We publish The Daily News, a free survey of the best of the alternative media, censored videos, and documentaries, and the Daily News Digest, a once-per-day-summary of the Daily News as a premium service for paid subscribers of any Art of Liberty Foundation Substack and Five Meme Friday- a free weekly e-mail or Telegram summary of the best of the alternative media, censored truth videos, and at least five hot, fresh, dank liberty memes every week, and “Government,” Media, and Academia Exposed!- A Telegram summary of the best mainstream and alternative news stories proving our thesis that all three are being hierarchically controlled by inter-generational organized crime interests. The Best “Go Paid” Deal on Substack! You Get REAL Stuff!!Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the https://artofliberty.org/store/.Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many OR “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! + Liberator flash drive + a signed high-resolution hardcover of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many + everything else in our “Everything Bundle” of the best in voluntaryist thought delivered domestically. International pays shipping. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.

How AIPAC Money Bought Kentucky’s 4th District Primary Exposing Scam of Easily Rigged “Elections”In “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History.. Exposed! I make the case that “government” is both completely illegitimate on its face and, obviously, being run as a criminal enterprise. The Con-stitution was either a scam from the beginning or the DUMBEST idea ever. Create a ruling class with a monopoly on violence that, supposedly, is restrained by what George Bush Jr. called a “God-Damn Piece of Paper.”One of the reasons that “government” is such a dumb idea is that it is so easily rigged by monied interests and the recent primary election in Kentucky that saw one of the most popular congressional representatives of all time Thomas Massie, defeated in his primary by a no-name loser and “Ex” Navy SEAL: Ed Gallrein.When you see over $30 million dumped into a single congressional primary to defeat one man, you are not watching “democracy”. You are watching the installation of a political puppet.That is what happened to Thomas Massie — the Kentucky Republican who voted his conscience instead of taking orders. His crime? Refusing to rubber-stamp blank checks for Israel and questioning why Americans should fund foreign wars while inflation eats their paychecks and their savings.He famously exposed in an Interview with Tucker Carlson that most members of Congress have “an AIPAC guy” I.E. a handler who is coordinating donations and delivering the AIPAC voting expectations and wishlists to the candidates they are funding and installing in the Congress. His specific quote was: “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person. It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter”If AIPAC-supported reps in the US House of Representatives were their own political party, they would be THREE TIMES as large as the Republicans and Democrats who refuse to take AIPAC money.The Israel Lobby contributed at least $10 million of the $30 million war chest assembled to remove him. Donald Trump, who we have made the case was installed by Rothschild Zionist interests and is likely being blackmailed by an apparent Mossad “Brownstone Operation” run by Jeffrey Epstein, dispatched a cabinet secretary to campaign personally against a sitting Republican congressman from his own party.Read that sentence again.The Donor Disparity Tells the Whole StoryMassie’s challenger Ed Gallrein had around 98 campaign donors from Kentucky.Thomas Massie had 1,545 campaign donors from Kentucky.Gallrein’s money came from outside the district and outside the state. He was not a candidate. He was an installed political puppet— an empty suit financed by people who do not live in Kentucky, do not vote in Kentucky, and have no stake in Kentucky. They cared about one thing: removing a congressman who would not fall in line on Israel.The $10 million dollar number was just the specific support overtly coming from the American Israeli Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Zionist organizations including the United Democracy Project, and the Republican Jewish Coalition. There was even more coming from AIPAC-aligned pro-Israel donors and bundlers. This is most troubling as the Israeli MOSSAD, their equivalent of the CIA, is widely reported to have a network of Sayanim or “Helpers” in the US that assist the Israeli intelligence agencies and could be a conduit for the known bundled donations and potentially “straw donations”( donations being made by Americans BUT secretly financed by Israel). The same Sayanim network was believed to have propped up and supported Jeffrey Epstein as well. Cincinnati Enquirer/Kentucky reporting found Gallrein raised about $1.2 million, but only roughly $32,000 — about 2.6% — came from Kentucky. That means roughly $1.17 million (~97.4%) of his direct campaign donations came from outside the state.When you go through Ed Gallrein’s 1800+ individual Federal Election Committee donor records from outside of Kentucky you find Banking and Israeli Interests including:Joli Altshule – $2500 – Joli is Vice President at Goldman Sachs who lives in California according to her FEC record. She is the national co-chair of the Joshua Society, a community of Jewish philanthropists that’s part of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.David Horowitz (and Family) – $13,500+ – David Horowitz is the New York-based CEO of Tasty Brands, a “government” contractor who makes what looks like complete garbage food for American K-12 school lunch programs. He is also a major donor to the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)Isabelle Nadler – $4500 – Isabelle Nadler is the New York-based President of the Jewish Agency for Israel – North American Council.Jacques Gliksberg – $3500 – Jacques Gliksberg is the Florida-based CEO of Nexus Partners and a major donor to the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)Rebecca Adlerstein – $3500 – Philadelphia-based Rebecca Adlerstein was the co-chair of an Mizrachi Women’s Organization of America (AMIT) event to raise money for students and schools in Israel??When 20 times more Kentuckians financially support the incumbent than the challenger — and the challenger still has more money than God — you are not looking at a grassroots campaign. You are looking at a hostile takeover by foreign-aligned interests, dressed up in a stars-and-stripes lawn sign.Ed Gallrein’s Ground Game Was a MirageOn election night, it has been reported and videotaped that only 30 to 40 people showed up at Gallrein’s victory party while Hundreds packed Massie’s concession speech. It appears crowd shots from the Gallrein “victory party” have been scrubbed from the net while the Associated Press video crew shot from right behind about a dozen standing spectators to make it look bigger than it was.Picture it. The “winner” could not fill a county fairground tent. The “loser” had a movement. In what universe does a candidate with broader support, deeper donor roots, and a packed hall on election night lose by 10,000 votes to a man whose own celebration looked like a poorly attended insurance seminar?Other US Elections Are OBVIOUSLY Rigged as WellThe 2020 Presidential Election was another RED FLAG statistically anomalous event where “Sleepy Joe” supposedly won 81 million votes… 12 million more votes than Barack Obama at the peak of his popularity and the greatest voter turnout in 112 years since Taft vs. Bryan in 1908. Sleepy Joe’s total was a Masonically interesting 66.6% of the Voting Eligible Population and 81 Million Votes = 8+1=9 the Masonically secret number of 666 (6+6+6=18=1+8=9 ). Does any intelligent observer believe these results? We believe the organized crime syndicate behind “government” threw the election to Biden so he could take the fall for “The Covid,” give Israel $17 Billion in addition to the usual $3.8 Billion a year on his way out the door and keep the borders open to justify the ICE Goons that populist strongman Trump would bring in during his 2nd term. They are both political puppets but they needed Biden to win in 2020 to keep to the script that had already been written. Ed Gallrein is Illustrative of US Politicians Who Appear Installed/Bought Off by Organized Crime Israel, the Intelligence Agencies and Military Industrial Complex.At the Art of Liberty Foundation, our thesis is that “government” is best thought of as a technique for robbing and controlling populations that we call Organized Crime Theory (OCT). “Government” is obviously illegitimate on its face, easily rigged by monied interests and is being run as a criminal enterprise, with TRILLIONS of dollars flowing out the back door to identifiable interests. We recently calculated that the cost of the crooked monetary system and “government” will cost the median American wage earner ($60K annual salary) over $2.7 MILLION dollars over a 40-year career and 20-year retirement in inflation + taxes + Social Security underpayment. At the top of the organized crime pyramid is an inter-generational organized crime system centered around Rothschild banking and central banking interests, subsidiaries, and front organizations that is primarily Jewish for the same reasons that the mafia is primarily Italian and Catholic.We believe this organized crime system established Israel as a base of operations to give itself “diplomatic immunity,” safety from extradition in other countries, and the ability to receive hundreds of billions of dollars in “foreign aid” and repartitions where the US has provided over $300 billion (2025 dollars) since 1948 alone. German tax slaves have kicked in another $90 billion USD in “reparations” since 1952.The US, led by Zionist funded and installed political puppets, is now illegally engaged in a foreign war for Israel, where the ultimate cost to the US has been estimated at as much as $200 billion in addition to the lives lost and potential for additional US deaths.Donald Trump was bailed out by Zionist-connected Rothschild Inc. in 1991 during one of his six bankruptcies, was apparently swept up in the Jeffrey Epstein/Mossad “Brownstone Operation” blackmailing politicians and important people for Israel, was represented in Hollywood by Zionist Theatrical Agent Ari Emanuel (Brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) who helped raise Trump’s national exposure and “Create the Legend” of him as a successful businessman with NBC’s The Apprentice, and whose Presidential campaigns were primarily funded by Zionists, including Sheldon and Miriam Adelson who have contributed over $424,000,000 alone over three election cycles.The US Senate is also rife with politicians who have received tens of millions of dollars from Israel for their campaigns.The US House of Representatives has also apparently been funded and installed by Zionist Israeli interests.Both Senators and almost every single representative from California have taken money from AIPAC!The Same dynamic is in play in the Executive Branch, where Zionist funded political puppets like Trump and Biden appear to be forced to staff the most important positions in the cabinet, intelligence agencies, executive branch, regulatory agencies, treasury, and Federal Reserve Board with pro-Israel Zionist Jews. This is a RED FLAG LEVEL statistical improbability and not representative of the demographic makeup of the country, where Jews are around 2% of the population.The Jewish Staff from the White House alone during the Biden AdministrationWe believe these same inter-generational organized crime systems have used the unlimited fiat paper tickets they create through fractional reserve banking to buy up and monopolize the media. This keeps the theft of fractional reserve banking inflation and the transfer/theft of trillions of dollars out of the “news” while allowing organized crime to further influence the easily rigged political process.FL Congressional Rep and ex-casino exec Randy “The Hebrew Hammer” Fine, who has received almost $500K from AIPAC, was even caught illegally “Ghost Voting” ON CAMERA for other members on a bill seeking to outlaw boycotts of IsraelInterestingly, newly minted Congressman Gallrein joins the ranks of DOZENS of “Ex” Intelligence Agency Affiliated SEALS, CIA officers, and Military officers apparently being installed as a “CIA Democrats and Republicans”Please see our article: CIA Democrats (and Republicans!) – Are You Getting Your Politicians from the CIA, which examines how dozens of former intelligence and military-industrial officials—including Navy SEALs such as Ed Gallrein, who may have had ties to intelligence agencies—are being funded in congressional races at a RED FLAG statistically improbable rate. When the reporting of the tremendous growth of the CIA, Intelligence Agency and Military Industrial Complex-connected congressional representatives was exposed by World Socialists Website and the Art of Liberty Foundation, the numbers of intelligence agency specific reps has declined while the number of intelligence agency-adjacent “Ex” Navy SEALs has concurrently skyrocketed to 300-500X their percentage in the population as a whole. See below. A few months ago another “ex” Navy SEAL funded by AIPAC, Senator Tim Sheehy, broke the arm of Brian McGinnis, a US Marine Veteran, who stood up in an Armed Services Subcommittee hearing to announce that “No One Wants to Fight for Israel,” Senator Tim Sheehy, another former Special Operations “Order Follower” turned “Beltway Bandit” who has received over $640,000 from AIPAC, tried to silence the Marine and broke his arm trying to eject him from the hearing.There are also a couple of CIA-adjacent Green Berets in Congress as well! Is the CIA and the MOSSAD installing intelligence agency-connected “order followers” who have been put through the unethically manipulative obedience techniques in basic training / SEAL BUDs training that I break down in my book: To See the Cage is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many? I have a feeling that the majority of currently serving and veteran SEALs are not happy with this crew making the SEALs look bad… Maybe they will get ticked and help us fix the problem for good… BTW, the author of this article was raised in the Jewish faith, Bar Mitsvahed, now self-describes as monotheistic and spiritual, loves his family and the Jewish people and is not the least bit “antisemitic.” It’s not “The Jews,” it’s Jewish organized crime hiding within and exploiting the Jewish people and religion for selfish gain. Zionism (Jewish Statism) is a “brute force manufactured consensus” political movement indoctrinated into the Jewish people… not a religion… About The Author Etienne de la Boetie2 is the founder of the Art of Liberty Foundation, and the editor of the Art of Liberty Daily News on Substack and Five Meme Friday, which delivers hard-hitting voluntaryist memes and the best of the alternative media. He is an internationally recognized expert and speaker on voluntaryism and government illegitimacy, criminality and corruption. His original writings and research can be found at ArtOfLiberty.org and ArtOfLiberty.Substack.comHe is the author of To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many which exposes an inter-generational psychological operation by the “government,” Hollywood, and the monopoly media to indoctrinate the population with the pseudo-religion of Statism using dozens of unethically manipulative techniques ranging from subliminal content in television programming to a hidden curriculum in the mandatory “government” schools, scouting, and police/military training.He has also authored: “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! which breaks down how inter-generational organized crime centered around banking and central banking is robbing and controlling the population using the technique of “government” with puppet politicians and monopoly media/academia. His upcoming book: Voluntaryism – How the Only “ISM” Fair for Everyone Leads to Harmony, Prosperity and Good Karma for All! explains how REAL freedom (voluntaryism) can provide all the legitimate non-redistributive services provided by “government” without the waste, fraud, abuse, indoctrination and extortion.The Best “Go Paid” Deal on Substack! You Get REAL Stuff!!Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the https://artofliberty.org/store/.Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many OR “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! + Liberator flash drive + a signed high-resolution hardcover of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many + everything else in our “Everything Bundle” of the best in voluntaryist thought delivered domestically. International pays shipping. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.What is Behind the Paywall Today?DOZENS of hysterical Thomas Massie, Ed Gallrein, Donald Trump and AIPAC Memes!

Chapter 2 from our FREE paperback book: Hayek for the 21st CenturyEtienne Note: This is the 3rd Article in our tribute to the great Austrian Economist Friedrich August von Hayek better known as F.A. Hayek, syndicated from Hayek for the 21st Century, which we are giving away for FREE in paperback through a partnership with the Mises Institute. In this essay, Why the Worst Get on Top, which is one of the most quoted and controversial sections of The Road to Serfdom (where this essay was originally published) Hayek makes the case that centralized power structures like “government” tend to reward people who are:the most ruthlessthe least constrained morallythe most skilled at propaganda/manipulationthe most willing to use coercionthe most capable of mobilizing mass resentmentWhy the Worst Get on Top became influential because it reframed authoritarianism as not merely a problem of evil individuals, but a systemic selection process.Hayek’s core arguments:centralized systems require coercioncoercion rewards ruthlessnesspropaganda rewards simplificationmass mobilization rewards tribalismmoral restraint becomes an obstacle to advancementThis is Chapter Two from Hayek for the 21st Century – Paperback available for Free with any purchase from ArtOfLiberty.org/Store, “Going Paid” on any of our Substacks or by paying S&H for the book. The copies are free thanks to the generosity of a donor to the Mises Institute and they have an offer with free S&H Here.Previous Chapters from Hayek for the 21st Century: Introduction by Thomas J DiLorenzo, President of the Mises Institute & Editor of Hayek for the 21st Century + Hayek bio, quotes, rap battles and memes!Chapter 1: The Intellectuals and Socialism by F.A. Hayek Why the Worst Get on Topby F.A. HayekAll power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. —Lord ActonWe must now examine a belief from which many who regard the advent of totalitarianism as inevitable derive consolation and which seriously weakens the resistance of many others who would oppose it with all their might if they fully apprehended its nature. It is the belief that the most repellent features of the totalitarian regimes are due to the historical accident that they were established by groups of blackguards and thugs. Surely, it is argued, if in Germany the creation of a totalitarian regime brought the Streichers and Killingers, the Leys and Heines, the Himmlers and Heydrichs to power, this may prove the viciousness of the German character, but not that the rise of such people is the necessary consequence of a totalitarian system. Why should it not be possible that the same sort of system, if it be necessary to achieve important ends, be run by decent people for the good of the community as a whole? We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people must be democrats or will necessarily wish to have a share in the government. Many, no doubt, would rather entrust it to somebody whom they think more competent. Although this might be unwise, there is nothing bad or dishonorable in approving a dictatorship of the good. Totalitarianism, we can already hear it argued, is a powerful system alike for good and evil, and the purpose for which it will be used depends entirely on the dictators. And those who think that it is not the system which we need fear, but the danger that it might be run by bad men, might even be tempted to forestall this danger by seeing that it is established in time by good men. No doubt an English “Fascist” system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. And if I had to live under a Fascist system I have no doubt that I would rather live under one run by Englishmen than under one run by anybody else. Yet all this does not mean that, judged on our present standards, a British Fascist system would in the end prove so very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending towards totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civilization. The “moral basis of collectivism” has, of course, been much debated in the past; but what concerns us here is not its moral basis but its moral results. The usual discussions of the ethical aspects of collectivism refer to the question whether collectivism is demanded by existing moral convictions; or what moral convictions would be required if collectivism is to produce the hoped-for results. Our question, however, is what moral views will be produced by a collectivist organization of society, or what views are likely to rule it. The interaction between morals and institutions may well have the effect that the ethics produced by collectivism will be altogether different from the moral ideals that lead to the demand for collectivism. While we are apt to think that, since the desire for a collectivist system springs from high moral motives, such a system must be the breeding ground for the highest virtues, there is, in fact, no reason why any system should necessarily enhance those attitudes which serve the purpose for which it was designed. The ruling moral views will depend partly on the qualities that will lead individuals to success in a collectivist or totalitarian system, and partly on the requirements of the totalitarian machinery.We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough “to get things done” who exercises the greatest appeal. “Strong” in this sense means not merely a numerical majority—it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary majorities with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants. It is here that the new type of party, organized on military lines, comes in. In the Central European countries the socialist parties had familiarized the masses with political organizations of a semi-military character designed to absorb as much as possible of the private life of the members. All that was wanted to give one group overwhelming power was to carry the same principle somewhat further, to seek strength not in the assured votes of huge numbers at occasional elections, but in the absolute and unreserved support of a smaller but more thoroughly organized body. The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader first collecting round him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest. Although the socialist parties had the strength to get anything if they had cared to use force, they were reluctant to do so. They had, without knowing it, set themselves a task which only the ruthless, ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals, can execute. That socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideals; they did not possess the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task. It is characteristic that both in Germany and Italy the success of Fascism was preceded by the refusal of the socialist parties to take over the responsibilities of government. They were unwilling wholeheartedly to employ the methods to which they had pointed the way. They still hoped for the miracle of a majority agreeing on a particular plan for the organization of the whole of society; others had already learned the lesson that in a planned society the question can no longer be on what a majority of the people agree, but what is the largest single group whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible; or, if no such group large enough to enforce its views exists, how it can be created and who will succeed in creating it. There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. By our standards the principles on which such a group would be selected will be almost entirely negative. In the first instance, it is probably true that in general the higher the education and intelligence of individuals becomes, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and “common” instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes—it will be those who form the “mass” in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals. If, however, a potential dictator had to rely entirely on those whose uncomplicated and primitive instincts happen to be very similar, their number would scarcely give sufficient weight to their endeavors. He will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. Here comes in the second negative principle of selection: he will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party. It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skillful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off , than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they,” the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program. The enemy, whether he be internal like the “Jew” or the “Kulak,” or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader. That in Germany it was the Jew who became the enemy till his place was taken by the “plutocracies” was no less a result of the anti-capitalist resentment on which the whole movement was based than the selection of the Kulak in Russia. In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism because a traditional dislike of large classes of the population for commercial pursuits had left these more readily accessible to a group that was practically excluded from the more highly esteemed occupations. It is the old story of the alien race being admitted only to the less respected trades and then being hated still more for practicing them. The fact that German anti-semitism and anti-capitalism spring from the same root is of great importance for the understanding of what has happened there, but this is rarely grasped by foreign observers. To treat the universal tendency of collectivist policy to become nationalistic as due entirely to the necessity for securing unhesitating support would be to neglect another and no less important factor. It may indeed be questioned whether anybody can realistically conceive of a collectivist program other than in the service of a limited group, whether collectivism can exist in any other form than that of some kind of particularism, be it nationalism, racialism, or class-ism. The belief in the community of aims and interests with fellow-men seems to presuppose a greater degree of similarity of outlook and thought than exists between men merely as human beings. If the other members of one’s group cannot all be personally known, they must at least be of the same kind as those around us, think and talk in the same way and about the same kind of things, in order that we may identify ourselves with them. Collectivism on a world scale seems to be unthinkable—except in the service of a small ruling elite. It would certainly raise not only technical but above all moral problems which none of our socialists are willing to face. If the English proletarian is entitled to an equal share of the income now derived from England’s capital resources, and of the control of their use, because they are the result of exploitation, so on the same principle all the Indians would be entitled not only to the income from but also to the use of a proportional share of the British capital. But what socialists seriously contemplate the equal division of existing capital resources among the people of the world? They all regard the capital as belonging not to humanity but to the nation—though even within the nation few would dare to advocate that the richer regions should be deprived of some of “their” capital equipment in order to help the poorer regions. What socialists proclaim as a duty towards the fellow members of the existing states, they are not prepared to grant to the foreigner. From a consistent collectivist point of view the claims of the “Have-Not” nations for a new division of the world are entirely justified—though, if consistently applied, those who demand it most loudly would lose by it almost as much as the richest nations. They are, therefore, careful not to base their claims on any equalitarian principles but on their pretended superior capacity to organize other peoples. One of the inherent contradictions of the collectivist philosophy is, that while basing itself on the humanistic morals which individualism has developed, it is practicable only within a relatively small group. That socialism so long as it remains theoretical is internationalist, while as soon as it is put into practice, whether in Russia or in Germany, it becomes violently nationalist is one of the reasons why “liberal socialism” as most people in the Western world imagine it is purely theoretical, while the practice of socialism is everywhere totalitarian. Collectivism has no room for the wide humanitarianism of liberalism but only for the narrow particularism of the totalitarian. If the “community” and the state are prior to the individual, if they have ends of their own independent of and superior to those of the individuals, only those individuals who work for the same ends can be regarded as members of the community. It is a necessary consequence of this view that a person is respected only as a member of the group, that is, only if and in so far as he works for the recognized common ends, and that he derives his whole dignity only from this membership and not merely from being man. Indeed, the very concepts of humanity and therefore of any form of internationalism are entirely products of the individualist view of man, and there can be no place for them in a collectivist system of thought. Apart from the basic fact that the community of collectivism can extend only as far as the unity of purpose of the individuals exists or can be created, several contributory factors strengthen the tendency of collectivism to become particularist and exclusive. Of these one of the most important is that the desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority, and that therefore his want will only be satisfied if membership in the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action towards the outsider becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group. There is a profound truth expressed in the title of R. Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society—however little we can follow him in the conclusions he draws from his thesis. There is indeed, as he says elsewhere, “an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups.” To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group. The definitely antagonistic attitude which most planners take towards internationalism is further explained by the fact that in the existing world all outside contacts of a group are obstacles to their effectively planning the sphere in which they can attempt it. It is therefore no accident that, as the editor of one of the most comprehensive collective studies on planning has discovered to his chagrin, “most ‘planners’ are militant nationalists.” The nationalist and imperialist propensities of socialist planners, much more common than is generally recognized, are not always as flagrant as, for example, in the case of the Webbs and some of the other early Fabians, with whom enthusiasm for planning was characteristically combined with the veneration for the large and powerful political units and a contempt for the small state. The historian Elie Halévy, speaking of the Webbs when he first knew them forty years ago, records that their socialism was profoundly anti-liberal. They did not hate the Tories, indeed they were extraordinarily lenient to them, but they had no mercy for Gladstonian Liberalism. It was the time of the Boer War and both the advanced liberals and the men who were beginning to form the Labour Party had generously sided with the Boers against British Imperialism, in the name of freedom and humanity. But the two Webbs and their friend, Bernard Shaw, stood apart. They were ostentatiously imperialistic. The independence of small nations might mean something to the liberal individualist. It meant nothing to collectivists like themselves. I can still hear Sidney Webb explaining to me that the future belonged to the great administrative nations, where the officials govern and the police keep order And elsewhere Halévy quotes Bernard Shaw arguing, about the same time, that “the world is to the big and powerful states by necessity; and the little ones must come within their border or be crushed out of existence.” I have quoted at length these passages, which would not surprise one in a description of the German ancestors of National Socialism, because they provide so characteristic an example of that glorification of power which easily leads from socialism to nationalism and which profoundly affects the ethical views of all collectivists. So far as the rights of small nations are concerned, Marx and Engels were little better than most other consistent collectivists, and the views they occasionally expressed about Czechs or Poles resemble those of contemporary National Socialists. While to the great individualist social philosophers of the nineteenth century, to a Lord Acton or Jacob Burckhardt, down to contemporary socialists, like Bertrand Russell, who have inherited the liberal tradition, power itself has always appeared the arch-evil, to the strict collectivist it is a goal in itself. It is not only, as Russell has so well described, that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. It is even more the outcome of the fact that in order to achieve their end collectivists must create power—power over men wielded by other men—of a magnitude never before known, and that their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. This remains true even though many liberal socialists are guided in their endeavors by the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and by transferring this power to society, they can thereby extinguish power. What all those who argue in this manner overlook is that by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transferred but infinitely heightened; that by uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious when it is sometimes argued that the great power exercised by a Central Planning Board would be “no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors.” There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess, and if nobody can consciously use the power, it is just an abuse of words to assert that it rests with all the capitalists put together. It is merely a play upon words to speak of the “power collectively exercised by private boards of directors” so long as they do not combine to concerted action—which would, of course, mean the end of competition and the creation of a planned economy. To split or decentralize power is necessarily to reduce the absolute amount of power and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize by decentralization the power exercised by man over man. We have seen before how the separation of economic and political aims is an essential guarantee of individual freedom and how it is consequently attacked by all collectivists. To this we must now add that the “substitution of political for economic power” now so often demanded means necessarily the substitution of power from which there is no escape for a power which is always limited. What is called economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is in the hands of private individuals never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. From the two central features of every collectivist system, the need for a commonly accepted system of ends of the group, and the all-overriding desire to give to the group the maximum of power to achieve these ends, grows a definite system of morals, which on some points coincides and on others violently contrasts with ours— but differs from it in one point which makes it doubtful whether we can call it morals: that it does not leave the individual conscience free to apply its own rules and does not even know any general rules which the individual is required or allowed to observe in all circumstances. This makes collectivist morals so different from what we have known as morals that we find it difficult to discover any principle in them, which they nevertheless possess. The difference of principle is very much the same as that which we have already considered in connection with the Rule of Law. Like formal law the rules of individualist ethics, however unprecise they may be in many respects, are general and absolute; they prescribe or prohibit a general type of action irrespective of whether in the particular instance the ultimate purpose is good or bad. To cheat or steal, to torture or betray a confidence, is held to be bad, irrespective of whether or not in the particular instance any harm follows from it. Neither the fact that in a given instance nobody may be the worse for it, nor any high purpose for which such an act may have been committed, can alter the fact that it is bad. Though we may sometimes be forced to choose between different evils they remain evils. The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because the “good of the whole” is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The raison d’état, in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency—the suitability of the particular act for the end in view. And what the raison d’état affirms with respect to the relations between different countries applies equally to the relations between different individuals within the collectivist state. There can be no limit to what its citizen must be prepared to do, no act which his conscience must prevent him from committing, if it is necessary for an end which the community has set itself or which his superiors order him to achieve. The absence of absolute formal rules in collectivist ethics does not, of course, mean that there are not some useful habits of the individuals which a collectivist community will encourage, and others which it will discourage. Quite the reverse; it will take a much greater interest in the individual’s habits of life than an individualist community. To be a useful member of a collectivist society requires very definite qualities which must be strengthened by constant practice. The reason why we designate these qualities as “useful habits” and can hardly describe them as moral virtues is that the individual could never be allowed to put these rules above any definite orders, or to let them become an obstacle to the achievement of any of the particular aims of his community. They only serve, as it were, to fill any gaps which direct orders or the designation of particular aims may leave, but they can never justify a conflict with the will of the authority. The differences between the virtues which will continue to be esteemed under a collectivist system and those which will disappear is well illustrated by a comparison of the virtues which even their worst enemies admit the Germans, or rather the “typical Prussian,” to possess, and those of which they are commonly thought lacking and in which the English people, with some justification, used to pride themselves as excelling. Few people will deny that the Germans on the whole are industrious and disciplined, thorough and energetic to the degree of ruthlessness, conscientious and single-minded in any tasks they undertake, that they possess a strong sense of order, duty, and strict obedience to authority, and that they often show great readiness to make personal sacrifices and great courage in physical danger. All these make the German an efficient instrument in carrying out an assigned task, and they have accordingly been carefully nurtured in the old Prussian state and the new Prussian-dominated Reich. What the “typical German” is often thought to lack are the individualist virtues of tolerance and respect for other individuals and their opinions, of independence of mind and that uprightness of character and readiness to defend one’s own convictions against a superior which the Germans themselves, usually conscious that they lack it, call Zivilcourage, of consideration for the weak and infirm, and of that healthy contempt and dislike of power which only an old tradition of personal liberty creates. Deficient they seem also in most of those little yet so important qualities which facilitate the intercourse between men in a free society: kindliness and a sense of humor, personal modesty, and respect for the privacy and belief in the good intentions of one’s neighbor. After what we have already said it will not cause surprise that these individualist virtues are at the same time eminently social virtues, virtues which smooth social contacts and which make control from above less necessary and at the same time more difficult. They are virtues which flourish wherever the individualist or commercial type of society has prevailed and which are missing according as the collectivist or military type of society predominates—a difference which is, or was, as noticeable between the various regions of Germany as it has now become between the views which rule in Germany and those characteristic of the West. Till recently, at least, in those parts of Germany which have been longest exposed to the civilizing forces of commerce, the old commercial towns of the south and west and the Hanse towns, the general moral concepts were probably much more akin to those of the Western people than to those which have now become dominant all over Germany. It would, however, be highly unjust to regard the masses of the totalitarian people as devoid of moral fervor because they give unstinted support to a system which to us seems a denial of most moral values. For the great majority of them the opposite is probably true: the intensity of the moral emotions behind a movement like that of National Socialism or communism can probably be compared only to those of the great religious movements of history. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarian regimes which horrify us follow of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual, are essential and unavoidable consequences of this basic premise, and the collectivist can admit this and at the same time claim that his system is superior to one in which the “selfish” interests of the individual are allowed to obstruct the full realization of the ends the community pursues. When German philosophers again and again represent the striving for personal happiness as itself immoral and only the fulfillment of an imposed duty as praiseworthy, they are perfectly sincere, however difficult this may be to understand for those who have been brought up in a different tradition. Where there is one common all-overriding end there is no room for any general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in wartime. But even war and the greatest peril had led in this country only to a very moderate approach to totalitarianism, very little setting aside of all other values in the service of a single purpose. But where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable that occasionally cruelty may become a duty, that acts which revolt all our feeling, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, should be treated as mere matters of expediency, that the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands should become an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims, or that suggestions like that of a “conscription of women for breeding purposes” can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual. But while for the mass of the citizens of the totalitarian state it is often unselfish devotion to an ideal, although one that is repellent to us, which makes them approve and even perform such deeds, this cannot be pleaded for those who guide its policy. To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize, no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader. There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks, and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility involve. The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way. Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and spying, are numerous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Italian or Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads. It is only too true when a distinguished American economist concludes from a similar brief enumeration of the duties of the authorities of a collectivist state that they would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation. We cannot, however, exhaust this subject here. The problem of the selection of the leaders is closely bound up with the wide problem of selection according to the opinions held, or rather according to the readiness with which a person conforms to an ever-changing set of doctrines. And this leads us to one of the most characteristic moral features of totalitarianism, its relation to, and its effect on, all the virtues falling under the general heading of truthfulness. This is so big a subject that it requires a separate chapter. The Art of Liberty Foundation is honoring the Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the most important economists to have ever lived, with a campaign that will both syndicate the new book: Hayek for the 21st Century – Essays in Political Economy and provide free paperback copies of the book to anyone who goes paid on our Substack as an annual member and/or orders anything from ArtOfLiberty.org/store.This introduction to F.A. Hayek includes his biography, memes, quotes, “Rap Battles” with economist Lord John Maynard Keynes, and the first installment of our syndication of Hayek for the 21st Century – Essays in Political Economy: The Introduction to the book by Thomas J DiLorenzo, President of the Mises Institute & Editor of Hayek for the 21st CenturyWe are also adding the full PDF of Hayek for the 21st Century to our uncensorable flash drive of Freedom: The Liberator.BiographyF. A. Hayek’s life spanned the twentieth century, and he made his home in some of the great intellectual communities of the period.Born Friedrich August von Hayek in 1899 to a distinguished family of Viennese intellectuals, Hayek attended the University of Vienna, earning doctorates in 1921 and 1923. Hayek came to the University at age 19 just after World War I, when it was one of the three best places in the world to study economics (the others being Stockholm and Cambridge).Like many students of economics then and since, Hayek chose the subject not for its own sake, but because he wanted to improve social conditions—the poverty of postwar Vienna serving as a daily reminder of such a need. Socialism seemed to provide a solution. Then in 1922 Mises published his Die Gemeinwirtschaft, later translated as Socialism. “To none of us young men who read the book when it appeared,” Hayek recalled, “the world was ever the same again.” It was around this time that Hayek began attending Mises’s famed Privatseminar. For several years the Privatseminar was the center of the economics community in Vienna.Later, Hayek became the first of this group to leave Vienna; most of the others, along with Mises himself, were also gone by the start of World War II.At the L.S.E. Hayek lectured on Mises’s business-cycle theory, which he was refining and which, until Keynes’s General Theory came out in 1936, was rapidly gaining adherents in Britain and the U.S. and was becoming the preferred explanation of the Depression. Hayek and Keynes had sparred in the early 1930s in the pages of the Economic Journal, over Keynes’s Treatise on Money.Within a very few years, however, the fortunes of the Austrian School suffered a dramatic reversal. Mises left Vienna in 1934 for Geneva and then New York, where he continued to work in isolation; Hayek remained at the L.S.E. until 1950, when he joined the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. Other Austrians of Hayek’s generation became prominent in the U.S. but their work no longer seemed to show distinct traces of the tradition founded by Carl Menger.At Chicago Hayek again found himself among a dazzling group. But economic theory, in particular its style of reasoning, was rapidly changing. In addition, Hayek had ceased to work on economic theory, concentrating instead on psychology, philosophy, and politics, and Austrian economics entered a prolonged eclipse.When the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics went to Hayek, interest in the Austrian School was suddenly and unexpectedly revived. Hayek’s writings were taught to new generations, and Hayek himself appeared at the early Institute for Humane Studies conferences in the mid-1970s. He continued to write, producing The Fatal Conceit in 1988, at the age of 89.Hayek died in 1992 in Freiburg, Germany, where he had lived since leaving Chicago in 1961.Among mainstream economists, he is mainly known for his popular The Road to Serfdom (1944) and for his work on knowledge in the 1930s and 1940s. Specialists in business cycle theory recognize his early work on industrial fluctuations, and modern information theorists often acknowledge Hayek’s work on prices as signals, although his conclusions are typically disputed. Hayek’s work is also known in political philosophy, legal theory, and psychology.Within the Austrian School of economics, Hayek’s influence, while undeniably immense, has very recently become the subject of some controversy. His emphasis on spontaneous order and his work on complex systems has been widely influential among many Austrians. Others have preferred to stress Hayek’s work in technical economics, particularly on capital and the business cycle, citing a tension between some of Hayek’s and Mises’s views on the social order.Hayek’s writings on capital, money, and the business cycle are widely regarded as his most important contributions to economics. Building on Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit (1912), Hayek showed how fluctuations in economy-wide output and employment are related to the economy’s capital structure. In Prices and Production (1931) he introduced the famous “Hayekian triangles” to illustrate the relationship between the value of capital goods and their place in the temporal sequence of production.In Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (1933) Hayek showed how monetary injections, by lowering the rate of interest below what Mises (following Wicksell) called its “natural rate,” distort the economy’s intertemporal structure of production. Most theories of the effects of money on prices and output (then and since) consider only the effects of the total money supply on the price level and aggregate output or investment.Hayek’s writings on dispersed knowledge and spontaneous order are also widely known, but more controversial. In “Economics and Knowledge” (1937) and “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) Hayek argued that the central economic problem facing society is not, as is commonly expressed in textbooks, the allocation of given resources among competing ends.It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only those individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge not given to anyone in its totality.Clearly, the Austrian revival owes much to Hayek. He ranks among the greatest members of the Austrian School, and among the leading economists of the twentieth century. His work continues to be influential in business cycle theory, comparative economic systems, political and social philosophy, legal theory, and even cognitive psychology. Hayek remains one of the most intriguing intellectual figures of our time.Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek – The Original Economics Rap Battle!F.A Hayek vs. John Maynard Keynes square off in Fear the Boom and Bust – The Original Economics Rap Battle where Keynes, who advocated “government” action during periods of recession and depression and “wants to steer markets” squares off against F.A Hayek, who advocates for low taxation and savings-led investment by those who best understand their industries… Hayek “wants them set free”Full Lyrics Here: https://genius.com/John-papola-fear-the-boom-and-bust-hayek-vs-keynes-lyricsFight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek – Economics Rap Battle Round TwoFull Lyrics Here: https://genius.com/Econstories-fight-of-the-century-lyricsWhich way should we choose?More bottom-up or more top-down?The fight continuesKeynes and Hayek, second roundIt’s time to weigh inMore from the top or from the ground?Let’s listen to the greatsKeynes and Hayek throwin’ downIntroduction to Hayek for the 21st CenturyIntroduction by Thomas J DiLorenzo, President of the Mises Institute & Editor of Hayek for the 21st CenturyThe rest of Hayek for the 21st Century will be syndicated in the coming weeks.In a February 7, 2000, article in The New Yorker, journalist John Cassidy wrote that “it is hardly an exaggeration to refer to the twentieth century as the Hayek century.” He said this because of Friedrich Hayek’s prominent role throughout the century in defending free market capitalism and his critiques of socialism, especially his writings on the importance of decentralized knowledge in economic decision-making. Hayek lived to see his ideas proven correct with the worldwide collapse of socialism in the late eighties and early nineties. Watching the images of the collapse on television he said to his son, “I told you so.”The Knowledge ProblemThe “knowledge problem” is Hayek’s key contribution to the critique of socialism. It recognizes the commonsense notion that what makes the economic world go around is the use of knowledge by all kinds of people with different abilities, educations, experiences, and skills. Thanks to this international division of labor and knowledge, we collaborate “as though led by an invisible hand” in order to mutually prosper. It all depends of course on freedom—the freedom to own property, to pursue a profession of your Introduction 7 8 Hayek for the 21st Century choosing, to start and run a business, to buy and sell, to be guided in your decisions by free market prices. By contrast, socialism in all of its varieties is based on the opposite idea—that what is supposedly needed for prosperity is totalitarian powers in the hands of a small number of politicians and “planners” who will forcefully impose a single plan on an entire society. Hayek labeled this “the fatal conceit” of socialism in his last book. The entire world now knows that he was right, and all of the socialist tyrants and their propagandists and court historians were (and are) wrong.Hayek’s “The Use of Knowledge in Society” and “The Pretense of Knowledge,” reprinted here, are the two best expositions of the Hayekian knowledge problem. Indeed, John Cassidy credited Hayek with providing an explanation of the workings of “the information age” of the internet that would develop some fifty years after he first started writing about the importance of decentralized information in society. This is not mere speculation on Cassidy’s part. As just one example, the cofounder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, claims to have gotten the idea for Wikipedia as an Auburn University undergraduate finance student aft er Mises Institute Research Fellow Mark Thornton got him to read “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” Hayek called free market capitalism guided by private property and free market prices a “telecommunications system,” which Cassidy suggested was “one of the great insights of the [twentieth] century.”Hayek’s Demolition of Socialists and Their IdeasHayek wrote in a 1961 Southern Economic Journal article (“The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect,’” republished here) that for over a hundred years socialists had argued that “the problem of production” had been solved, so that “only the problem of distribution remains.” At the time, the “latest form of this old contention” was in the form of numerous books by the socialist Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, the best known of which was The Affluent Society. Galbraith argued in books and articles that all “essential needs” are already met, and that most of what people think are other “needs” are really fake needs created by the brainwashing effects of advertising. Only “innate” needs that we think of ourselves are useful, said Galbraith; everything else that is brought to our attention by others is therefore useless and wasteful. Therefore, the argument went, government should tax more and spend more for what it deems to be our genuinely useful needs. What is genuinely useful would of course be determined by politicians—presumably with the assistance of John Kenneth Galbraith.Hayek called this argument “a complete non sequitur.” It implies for one thing that “the whole cultural achievement of man is not important.” The only genuinely innate human needs, said Hayek, are food, shelter, and sex. Everything else is brought to our attention by someone. Hayek’s article is a complete demolition of the Galbraithian system and his life’s work of promoting what Hayek called increasing “the share of the resources whose use is determined by political authority and the coercion of any dissenting minority.”In 1949 Hayek authored “The Intellectuals and Socialism” in The University of Chicago Law Review. His argument is as relevant today as it was then—if not more relevant. Contrary to the common argument that “intellectuals” have little influence on day-to-day discussions about public policy, Hayek argued that “over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today.” He pointed out that socialism was never a “working class” movement but was always hatched from the utopian dreams of “theorists” who spent 10 decades preaching their socialist utopianism in university classrooms and all throughout the culture. In many countries the result of this decades-long propagandizing for socialism was that the views held by socialist intellectuals became “the governing force of politics,” wrote Hayek. The “intellectual” spreaders of socialist ideas were not just academics but also “journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists,” among many others, including “scientists and doctors.” It is “the intellectuals in this sense who decide what views and opinions are to reach us.”Eventually, so many institutions are taken over by socialists that an intellectual who espouses the philosophical foundations of a free society, by contrast, “soon discovers that it is unsafe to associate too closely with those who seem to share most of his convictions and he is driven into isolation.” This sounds like a perfect description of today’s American university world. Nevertheless, all is not lost, Hayek concluded. What is needed is education about a classical “liberal Utopia” to counter the endless promises of socialist utopias—not a “diluted kind of socialism,” he wrote, but a “truly liberal radicalism” that does not pull punches to please any special interest group. Leave the compromising to the politicians, he advised.Hayek was relentless in his devastating critiques of socialism and interventionism, and nowhere is this more on display than in his essay “The Meaning of Competition.” By the 1940s the academic economics profession had adopted a straw-man argument version of competition. Rather than the Austrian School conception of competition as a dynamic, rivalrous discovery process, competition was newly defined as a static situation where “many” business firms all produced a homogeneous product and charged identical prices in a world where all market participants had “perfect knowledge” of everything—what consumers wanted, how to minimize costs and maximize profits, and so on. They called it “perfect competition.” In his essay Hayek explained that “‘perfect’ competition means indeed the absence of all competitive activities” because all of it—product differentiation, price cutting, mergers, advertising—was all assumed away by the perfect competition “model.”This method of analysis was later labeled a “nirvana fallacy” by UCLA economist Harold Demsetz. Positing a utopian never-never land and comparing it to the real world, and then condemning real-world markets as “failed” because they are “imperfect,” is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated by the economics profession.In “Choice in Currency” Hayek did not oppose government issuance of money but instead opposed governmental monopoly and governments’ “power to limit the kinds of money in which contracts may be concluded.” Competing currencies could be valued “in seconds” with “electronic calculators,” Hayek wrote, long before the invention of the cell phone. Competition in currencies would be the path to honest money, for “even the slightest deviation from the path of honesty would reduce the demand for their product.” It is little wonder that Hayek’s writings on competing currencies have become enormously popular among advocates of cryptocurrencies.Hayekian Political PhilosophyOddly enough, despite all of his contributions to economic science and his Nobel Prize, what Friedrich Hayek is most known for among the general public is his writings on political philosophy, in particular his infamous book The Road to Serfdom, a critique of collectivism in all its forms. Hayek did not distinguish between fascism and socialism, the former being just a variant of the latter, with a common hatred of private property, free enterprise, economic freedom in general, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. The most famous chapter of The Road to Serfdom is chapter 10, “Why the Worst Get on Top,” republished here. Since any kind of socialism requires a central plan for all of society, it also requires the use of massive governmental force (and censorship of critics) to implement the plan. Consequently, the kind of people who would rise to the top of such a system are those with the fewest qualms about coercing, imprisoning, and brutalizing (or worse) their fellow citizens, wrote Hayek. That is why, he wrote, “the practice of socialism is everywhere totalitarian.”Hopefully, this brief introduction has helped the reader to understand why the journalist John Cassidy was so inspired by the power of Hayek’s scholarship and writings that he made a case that the entire twentieth century (the good parts of it, anyway) should be thought of as “the Hayek century.” Ludwig von Mises was surely right when, he said that “Doctor Hayek . . . will be remembered as one of the great economists of all time”.Thomas J. DiLorenzoQuotes & Memes“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time”― Friedrich August von Hayek, Constitution of Liberty“Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.”― Friedrich von Hayek“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine the can design.”― F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism“Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another. In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe.”― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom“The more the state “plans” the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.”― Friedrich A. Hayek“Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his absolute mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system of the country would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable…it would have complete power to decide what we are to be given and on what terms. It would not only decide what commodities and services were to be available and in what quantities; it would be able to direct their distributions between persons to any degree it liked.”― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.” ― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom“I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.”― F.A. Hayek“I was quite depressed two weeks ago when I spent an afternoon at Brentano’s Bookshop in New York and was looking at the kind of books most people read. Once you see that you lose all hope.”― Friedrich August von Hayek“Emergencies” have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”― Friedrich Hayek“While an equality of rights under a limited government is possible and an essential condition of individual freedom, a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice“Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances but on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad.”― Friedrich A. Hayek“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”― Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism“It is because every individual knows little and, in particular, because we rarely know which of us knows best that we trust the independent and competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when we see it.”― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty“From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.”― Friedrich A. von Hayek“It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark.”― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom“To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behaviour as individuals within the group.”― Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom“Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions and will receive praise or blame for them. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.”― Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty“Although we had been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by Tocqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism.”― Friedrich Hayek, The Road to SerfdomGet a paperback copy of Hayek for the 21st Century for FREEAs part of the Art of Liberty Foundation’s Tribute to Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, in cooperation with the Mises Institute and the US Justice Charitable Foundation who provided free copies, the Art of Liberty Foundation is helping promote and distribute the book to anyone who “Goes Paid” as an annual member on Substack OR makes a purchase at ArtOfLiberty.org/Store.Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many, the PDF of Hayek for the 21st Century and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the https://artofliberty.org/store/.Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many OR “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive PLUS a paperback copy of Hayek for the 21st Century if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! + Liberator flash drive + a signed high-resolution hardcover of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many PLUS everything else in our “Everything Bundle” of the best in voluntaryist thought PLUS a paperback copy of Hayek for the 21st Century delivered domestically. International pays shipping. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.