Those of you who’ve read Todd Gitlin’s fantastic account of ’60s Era political activism are well aware of the New Left’s descent into chaos, infighting, and terrorism during the course of that decade. However, I’m not sure how many of you realize just how much destruction the sectarian left inflicted upon our society during the 1960s and the ensuring decade. That’s why this blog post, which explores another book about this tumultuous chapter in American history, is so fascinating. Although I’m not sure I agree that we are on the same trajectory as the baby boomers, there are some unsettling parallels, including the near universal support among the left for using violence against its perceived opponents, and passive acceptance of the terror visited upon completely uninvolved parties who are allegedly obstructing the militant left’s objectives.

Beyond any legitimate critiques of President Trump-whose administration has yet to take any significant executive action-the fact that the left, ranging from conventional liberal apparatchiks to hardcore Marxists, has become completely unhinged is not a good sign for political comity in the days ahead. While some progressives have taken anti-Trump Democrats to task for their hysteria, and even questioned the utility of identity politics, the vast majority seem obsessed with demonizing their opponents and purging those engaged in heretical thinking. It’s a far cry from large scale urban terrorism, but it would still be wise to keep George Santayana’s admonition in mind over the next 4 years.

Addendum: For some more historical context, here is Ayn Rand on The Return of the Primitive. 

As we pointed out last year in our social media series, the neutralization of non-leftist perspectives by the gatekeepers of the world’s most popular websites is rapidly shrinking the sphere of acceptable public debate. While European countries-as well as Canada-are using the state itself to suppressing dissenting views, there is also parallel effort by these site’s owners-and in the case of Wikipedia, its users-to erase inconvenient truths. A concrete illustration of this phenomenon occurred recently, when The People’s Cube-a satirical conservative website-had its Wikipedia entry deleted.

The fact that it had received extensive national coverage over the course of its existence-on prominent blogs, from respected journalists, on terrestrial and satellite radio-that Oleg’s artwork had been displayed at dozens of protests throughout the country, was completely irrelevant to the unpaid mandarins of Wikipedia. Even the favorable discussion of The People’s Cube by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a patron saint of drearily conventional progressives, could not spare Oleg’s site. The debate surrounding the article’s deletion-which you can read in its entirety here-is illuminating for a number of reasons, not least because of the complete refusal by leftist Wikipedians to acknowledge the existence of alternative points of view.

When confronted with the inescapable fact that these perspectives do exist, their response is to ensure that they did not have a platform on their website. This is the universal response from the left to this past year’s stunning repudiation of their political philosophy. Rather than introspection-scrutinizing how they could have been so egregiously wrong about so many things they believed to be true-their response is to create a cordon sanitaire, both online and off, around beliefs they cannot countenance. And this attempt to sanitize the entire public sphere from the virus of non-leftist thought is only beginning.

The unjustified and unjustifiable deletion of The People’s Cube created a handy pretext for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about Communists for Kerry, which anticipated Oleg’s current website. And even as Wikipedia is purging problematic content, other online titans are pursuing an agenda-at the behest of national governments-to suppress samizdat perspectives. Facebook is now helping Germans curate their newsfeed by eliminating any “fake” news which might reflect badly upon the woman who has spent the past 2 years attempting to obliterate German nationhood and culture.

This relentless assault on truth is occurring across the globe and in nearly every aspect of our culture and politics. It will only increase in intensity as the left recognizes their hold upon our civilization growing increasingly tenuous, and the decades-long march through our institutions rendered meaningless. It’s up to us to ensure that their resistance does not succeed. We can’t allow the greatest age of global communication to be controlled by high tech Stalinists.

I’m sure our followers are starting to tire of winning-or, at the very least, want to take a leisurely break-so we thought we’d present a fascinating philosophical debate completely unrelated to this past week’s presidential election. The Zeitgeist movement-as best as I can surmise from this debate-is a strange mixture of anarcho-syndicalism, techno-Marxism, earth worship, and a quasi-religious denial of the economic concept of scarcity. It also seems to be constructed upon a baffling edifice of contradictions. At one point, the opponents of the resolution assured the audience that their proposed solutions involved no coercion, then insisted that every society involves the use of coercion, then proclaimed that no coercion was necessary in a Zeitgeist civilization!

If this all seems like delusional, incoherent gibberish to you, then we’re in agreement. However, I’ll let you watch the debate and decide for yourselves.

Alas, I wasn’t able to watch Tuesday’s VP face-0ff. Thankfully, we can all view the debate in its entirety-including Tim Kaine’s numerous interruptions-thanks to the Internet. When Hillary selected her running-mate, most analysts were perplexed. Aside from giving her an advantage in the purplish swing state of Virginia, there didn’t seem to be much to recommend him. With a large, somewhat infuriated group of Sanders supporters she needed to assuage in order to unite the party, the selection of a bland, wonkish white CIS male didn’t strike many as a masterstroke.

However, Kaine might have been a much savvier choice than anyone-myself included-thought. It turns out that he is a radical leftist, committed not only to the open borders dogmatism of cultural Marxists, but a former enthusiastic supporter of traditional Marxism, of the variety seen in Central America during the 1980s. Like our own Mayor DiBlasio, Mr. Kaine was what used to be known as a Sandalista. Ken Blackwell explains in The Hill.

Even as the collectivist enterprise in Venezuela implodes, spreading misery, resentment, and hopelessness among the 30 million people suffering under Chavismo-whose tales of woe are easily accessible-there are those who refuse to acknowledge the destruction their ideas have caused. The allure of Marxism, in spite of its astronomical body count, to public intellectuals and elite opinion-makers cannot be underestimated, in spite of its dismal track record.

That’s why organizations like the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are absolutely necessary, even in our post-Cold War world. This week, the foundation will hold a commemoration of the dedication of its memorial to the millions of martyrs sacrificed on the alter of Communism over the past century. I would urge all of my readers who live in the Washington D.C. Area to attend. You can register for the event here. We must never forget the crimes of this heinous, inhuman ideology, both past and present.

Although the ferocity of the Never Trump protests has diminished-in tandem with the Great Red Hope’s impending demise-that doesn’t mean the regressive left has quietly retired from the public sphere. A slightly more sedate Communist rally was held last Sunday within Union Square to commemorate what I like to call fascist Christmas. As usual, Pamela Hall documented the annual parade of economic and historical illiteracy for The Silent Majority No More.

Read it and weep for the future.

For Beginners Books

I just hope everyone there – and all of you out in blogland – keep in mind Bryan Caplan’s Ideological Turing Test: Strive to model your opponent’s thinking as human and well-intentioned, not demonic. I always do, even though everyone is stupid.

–Todd Seavey 

I love the above quote for a number of reasons, not least because, although laced with irony, it gingerly hints at a fundamental ignorance among vast swathes of the population. Not simply of economics, which, admittedly, is a seemingly abstruse, esoteric area of knowledge that routinely confuses even credentialed experts in their chosen field, but of simple cause and effect relationships. It also illustrates the acerbic wit of its author, who’s used his withering sarcasm-along with a broad-based knowledge of American history, as well as economic and political philosophy-to great effect in service of libertarianism for the better part of the past two decades.

The latter is deployed liberally throughout  Libertarianism For Beginners, which, as Mr. Seavey’s introduction to the philosophy of Spooner, Mises, and Rothbard for laymen, is available for purchase today! Although his trademark caustic humor is sublimated throughout this book in order to explain the essential philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism-and persuade you of their pertinence to human civilization-the book itself is replete with amusing anecdotes and descriptive illustrations which puncture the logical fallacies upon which collectivist ideologies are constructed.

In fact, this work is actually something of a graphic novel, with artist Nathan Smith providing the reader with visual cues to basic libertarian concepts. The tone is set prior to the introduction, when you see a cover displaying a Randian Atlas figure shouldering a globe containing a large land mass in the shape of a porcupine-the personification of the Free State Project-as he kneels before a Gadsden rattlesnake pictured in the foreground.

The whimsical nature of the cover art, slyly winking at those readers already deeply steeped in libertarian culture, is a bit of a tell. Because even as this thorough exposition of libertarianism gives the novice-or those completely unfamiliar with the precepts of libertarianism-a solid grounding in the teachings of free market economists, individualist philosophers, and anarcho-capitalist professors, often through the use of colorful analogies, it also reaffirms and solidifies the beliefs of those ideologically committed to thwarting the ever-metastasizing encroachments of the state. It reveals that the author of this work is indeed an insider, although one who is willing and eager to share the fruits of his knowledge with an audience whose thinking on this subject is muddled, to say the least. 

One of Mr. Seavey’s great achievements is to fully delineate the differences between separate strands of libertarianism, from agorism and voluntaryism to mutualism and left-libertarianism-as well as to define the fundamental difference in approach between natural rights and consequentialist libertarians-without getting bogged down in minutiae that would be of little interest to laymen. He concentrates the reader’s mind on the cornerstones of this philosophy, which include a non-negotiable opposition to any policies which condone fraud, theft, or violence, as well as a belief in the inviolability of private property, including your own body.

It is a philosophy which hinges upon the rejection of coercion as a form of public policy. Notwithstanding the negative connotations left libertarians have applied to the term, every libertarian properly understood is a propertarian. In the sense that he or she subscribes to the belief that any and all contracts are valid only through the mutual consent of the contracting parties, and that the mediating bureaucratic institutions with which we have become so familiar are wholly illegitimate, even if they are sanctioned by current law.

The other great accomplishment of the author is his simple, yet utterly persuasive, explanation of why these principles-terrifying, if not repellent, to a large segment of the population-are not only practicable, but yield outcomes superior to the collectivist approach in virtually any human social interaction. We live in a society where property rights are conditional, and rest upon the property owner’s obeisance towards an evolving set of social norms determined exclusively by the state-and which are often enacted through the lobbying pressure of interest groups who don’t realize that the only true rights are those held and exercised by individuals.

The notion that it’s not in the economic interests of a business owner to discriminate against any class of  potential customers, or that the harm inflicted by a bigoted entrepreneur upon a theoretical customer who’s denied service is vastly outweighed by the harm done through the coercive intervention of progressive government functionaries, is simply inconceivable to a modern, university-educated citizen. A person who, more often than not, views this debate exclusively through the prism of feelings rather than rights. Although by no means a comprehensive rebuttal, Libertarianism for Beginners goes a long way towards explaining why this is a short-sighted and ultimately counterproductive way of viewing things, and why consensual exchange, even if not resulting in a perfect outcome under every circumstance, is the most likely route to the maximization of happiness. Something that is of the utmost concern to a utilitarian like Seavey.

When not debunking popular misconceptions about libertarians, including the mistaken perception that opposing government redistribution of private wealth is synonymous with enmity towards the poor-when, in fact, they sincerely believe that government anti-poverty programs are simply a misallocation of resources, which ultimately eradicate more successful voluntary efforts-Seavey is describing in colorful detail the historical antecedents to contemporary libertarianism. One of the main reasons libertarian ideas are greeted with such skepticism by the general public is because most people don’t realize how recently the managerial state came into being. One of the chief conceits of government is that it is perpetual, whereas even a cursory examination of history would tell you that banking, health care, the court system, transportation, and even as vital a function as national self-defense were all once capably provided by private institutions to one degree or another in nations throughout the globe, including our own.

The deep skepticism faced by exponents of free markets and individual rights actually harkens back to the pre-Enlightenment era, when the pronouncements of the aristocracy and clergy were given precedence over human observation, discovery, and experimentation. Although the bishops and kings have been replaced by jurists, congressmen, administrative heads, and obsequious journalists (courtiers), the dynamic at work remains largely the same. That’s why Todd’s mini-biographies of classical philosophers and economists, sprinkled throughout the book, are essential to any coherent understanding of libertarianism’s evolution. The views of contemporary libertarians don’t seem so alien-like a bizarre, Dr. Frankenstein-like creation cooked up by the Koch brothers and Peter Thiel-once you discover their lineage in the writings of Locke and Burke, as well as much more recognizably libertarian thinkers such as Frederic Bastiat and Lysander Spooner.

The framers of libertarianism as a cogent political philosophy are presented, as well libertarianism’s economic forebears from the Austrian school, i.e. Böhm-Bawerk and Menger, and their intellectual heirs, Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The monetarist school of thought is also outlined in the form of the much-maligned Milton Friedman and his anarchist son David, who’s done as good a job as anyone at explaining why privatizing the law won’t result in rival gangs of marauding mercenaries putting bullets through each other’s skulls-when they’re not murdering innocent bystanders in the lurid fantasies dreamed up by statists.

And for those intersectional feminists among you, Todd Seavey has given his readers a tantalizing primer on three titanic figures of the contemporary liberty movement: Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand, who-despite her various critics on the left and the right-managed to create a work of literature which remains the single most popular evisceration of egalitarianism and self-destructive altruism ever published. Lord knows why notionally  independent women believe their lives should be directed by a paternalistic-presumably non-misogynistic-overseer, but the biography of a penniless, persecuted Russian immigrant who manages to escape government oppression to find wild success and acclaim for her ideas in the land of opportunity-in an intellectual sphere dominated by men, no less-would seem to disprove this misguided theory of female empowerment.

Finally, the author gives us a brief overview of some of the issues that continue to sow discord within the movement itself, including antitrust regulations/corporate consolidation, immigration, and the morality of codifying the rights to intellectual and artistic works. One of the animating if not the central principles of libertarianism is property rights, which is contingent upon the scarcity of resources, but if intellectual property-by definition-is not scarce, does the state have a right to restrict access to it, even in a minarchist society? Libertarians believe individuals have the right to travel to and live wherever they choose, so long as they do so without encroaching upon the property or rights of others. But should people in a non-libertarian society be forced to defray the expenses of someone-or many people-who want to migrate to that society in order to elevate his standard of living? Why should the wealth of an individual be seized in order to facilitate the freedom of movement of someone else? Also, how does the fact that the newcomer can use his franchise, i.e. force, to enhance his own life at the expense of others’ property  factor into this conversation?

These are all knotty conversations that will not be easily resolved, however the fact that they are occurring is an indication that libertarianism, for all its faults, is at least a philosophy which takes ideas and their implications for humanity seriously. As Todd Seavey readily concedes throughout this volume, libertarianism does not presume to have all the answers, but it at least tries to ask some useful questions of those who would have us accept their dogmatic solutions without further examination or question.

Like the brilliant anti-prohibitionist classic Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, written by the late Peter McWilliams-who many consider to be a martyr in the horrifically misguided War on Drugs-Libertarianism for Beginners explains why the desire to control the lives of other human beings is not only morally unjustifiable, but ultimately futile. Like that book, it presents its case in a witty, lively manner-with abundant quotes and pictures-while also being intellectually potent.

Buy this book, either for yourself or a friend tentatively exploring libertarianism for the first time, or even for that Bernie Sanders devotee who doesn’t quite understand the laws of supply and demand-perhaps packaged with Chomsky for Beginners, in order to make it more palatable.  It’s a wonderful gift in any of those cases, one which libertarians and non-libertarians alike should be grateful exists. Even if, as Mises rightly inveighed, they’re all a bunch of (crummy) socialists, it’s always good to be reminded of the exceptions to the rule.

New York City can often feel like an alien environment for those who prize rationality and individualism over collectivist groupthink and social justice campaigns designed to distract you from the fact that public section unions and non-profits exercise a stranglehold over the decision-making process. Our mayor is a Cold War Era relic who fetishizes policies that  the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists abandoned decades ago, while there are members of the New York City Council who are not able to communicate in the English language.

That’s why the upcoming We Are Breitbart Meetup in midtown Manhattan is a cause for celebration. To converse with individuals who are not completely and utterly delusional, and who have an actual understanding of how the free market works-rather than a set of regurgitated Paul Krugman talking points-is a rare opportunity for most New Yorkers. I invite you all to come to this week’s event, the details of which can be found below.

Where: Emmett O’ Lunney’s, 210 West 50th St. 

When: Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 6-8 PM 

Limited to the first 200 people 

Update: Photos from the melee. 

As most of you might have heard, this weekend saw a spate of anti-Trump rallies in both Arizona and New York City. Although the demonstrations here did not result in widespread lawbreaking and disruption, they did give you a sense of the mentality pervading open borders fanatics and socialist political activists within this country. Our good friend Pamela Hall was there to witness and record the scenes outside of Trump Tower and Columbus Circle, including a spirited counter-demonstration by NY ICE.

You can watch Part II here.

My apologies for tackling this over a week after it occurred, but more pressing issues commanded my attention, obviously. That said, there’s much more great coverage of the May Day convocation of Marxist lunatics and open borders brigands from our friends at New York Ice, including more footage from the event uploaded to Vimeo, as well as some stunning photos of the rabble-and the steadfast NY ICE opposition-on Flickr.

You can also scroll through a fantastic photo-essay of the event posted to The Silent Majority No More, one of this site’s  most trusted and valuable allies. We should all be grateful for their tireless work on behalf of rational, non-Marxist New Yorkers and patriotic Americans everywhere.