"Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements...."

"Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind... Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships. The political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens. It means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed."

~ Ayn Rand from her article 'The Roots of War' [hat tip Objectobot]

"Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate."

"Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)"

~ Ayn Rand from her 1967 essay "The Wreckage of the Consensus," collected in her 1967 book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [ read it here on p.249]

"The real battle of our time is a cultural one, is a philosophical one, is a moral one."

"There are moments in history when a civilisation must choose its future.

"We have been told that the State is our protector; that bureaucrats are our saviour, and that politicians know more than the free man. That we must obey, that we must depend. 

"But the truth is different. 

"The world only has two types of people: those who live off what others produce, and those who produce everything that makes modern life possible. 

"The former draft regulations, the latter create wealth. The former promise [to equalise everyone], the latter generate prosperity. The former spread poverty, the latter multiply abundance. 

"The real battle of our time is a cultural one, is a philosophical one, is a moral one. 

"That's why we chose the system that lifted millions out of extreme poverty: free-market capitalism. 

"Because you don’t negotiate freedom, you defend freedom." 

~ Argentine President Javier Milei from his inauguration speech 'Moral Values as State Policy'

"Death to America" is now a categorical imperative, apparently

 

According to The New York Times, Ali Larijani has effectively 

been running Iran since January 2026. He was in “charge of

 crushing, with lethal force, the recent protests demanding the 

end of Islamic rule.” He is now the key power broker in Iran’s transition.

Larijani is a Ph.D. in Western Philosophy and a specialist

on Immanuel Kant. He wrote his dissertation on Kant and 

three published books [on the German Philosopher].

"Religious fanaticism and radical subjectivism are two sides of the same false coin. One enables another: 

    "Radical subjectivism annihilates metaphysics.
    "The religious fanatic fills his 'void of reality' with his arbitrary assertions (God, miracles, angels, devils, afterlife, etc)."

~ Paulius Lebedevic [hat tip Stephen Hicks, Quote-Unquote Marrk-Goldblatt]

"Ideas have consequences - and in today's volatile world (March 2026), with US-Israel strikes escalating against Iran, regime continuity under power broker Ali Larijani, Russia's enduring war footing in Ukraine, and multipolar fractures everywhere, the intellectual foundations rejecting liberal democracy in favour of "higher duty" and civilisational destiny stand out starkly.
    "In Russia, Alexander Dugin supplies the metaphysical fireworks: a heady mix of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and traditionalism remixed into Eurasianism and his "Fourth Political Theory." ... Duty isn't optional-it's ontological, an existential imperative justifying sacrifice, expansion, and absolute obedience to the state as civilisational guardian. ...
    "[And so] with Iran, where Ali Larijani -- the current top power broker effectively steering the regime ... -- is a genuine Kant scholar .... 

    "Operating within Shia theocratic-revolutionary Islamism, Larijani's Kantian toolkit emphasises deontology: i.e., absolute duty over personal happiness or utility, and reason's limits that 'make room for faith.' This lends philosophical rigour to prioritising collective obligation to the Islamic Republic-categorical imperatives of regime preservation, anti-hegemonic destiny, and order -- over Lockean individual liberties or empirical critique. 

    "Lethal force against dissent or external threats? Not mere power grab, but duty-bound necessity to sustain the higher moral-political order.
    "The parallel is striking: Both reject the British Enlightenment path (Locke, Smith, Mill) that grounds secular democracy in individual rights, free markets, and a limited state that serves citizens. 

    Dugin does it with apocalyptic, anti-modern mysticism and civilisational clash. Larijani does it with measured, pragmatic deontological reasoning adapted to clerical-authoritarian stability.
    "Russia gets the wild-eyed prophetic theorist; Iran gets the calculating insider philosopher. Yet both scaffold regimes where the individual is subordinated to a transcendent collective fate - whether empire or revolutionary faith—precisely when global power shifts demand such justifications.
    "Philosophical coincidence? Or a deeper pattern in how anti-liberal thought sustains authority amid crisis?"

~ Paul Steeper from his comment 'In Our Current Geopolitical Moment - A Contrast of Anti-Liberal Scaffolds: Dugin's Eurasian Destiny in Russia vs. Larijani's Kantian Duty in Iran' [hat tip Stephen Hicks]

"...unhinged bragging about a booming economy, which isn’t; wars he has settled, which he didn’t; falling gas prices & inflation rates that were none of his doing; winning so much that imaginary people are begging for less; & touting an utterly delusional golden age future that is not even remotely on the horizon."

"Well, if there was ever any doubt, now we know. Donald J. Trump is a very badly deformed personality, who is a walking grievance machine. And he has turned his own demons into a toxic form of Rightwing Statism, which threatens to ruin what is left of free market prosperity and constitutional liberty in America.

"Having apparently accumulated 79 years worth of wrongs, slights, rebukes, disses and disappointments, the Donald is now, and for most of his adult life has been, all about getting even. He pursues his revenges via a combination of self-glorifying braggadocio and pugilistic verbal aggression against any and all designated enemies who come to top of mind at any given moment.

"That was on full display Tuesday night in the form of his unhinged bragging about a booming economy, which isn’t; wars he has settled, which he didn’t; falling gas prices and inflation rates that were none of his doing; winning so much that imaginary people are begging for less; and touting an utterly delusional golden age future that is not even remotely on the horizon. ...

"We have had the privilege of viewing every State of the Union address for the last 56 years, including 13 of them from the very floor of the House of Representatives that the Donald defiled Tuesday night.

"Over that span we have heard them all: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, Obama, Trump 1.0 and Biden. But no US president before him has even remotely approached the level of vitriol, rancour, bombast, rudeness, raw partisanship and bully-boy acrimony that flooded the Chamber in ill-tempered bursts for the better part of the Donald’s two hours at the podium.

"At the end of the day, therefore, Trump finally did it. Not only is he a loud-mouth egomaniac who sports no compass except his own fame, fortune and glory, as we have long understood. But now he has made himself a National Disgrace like no other leader in the very 250 years that he claimed to be celebrating last night."

~ former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman on 'Trump's State of the Union: Two Hours Of Demons Unbound And Rightwing Statism On The Boil'

"It’s training to be an entrepreneur, and an employer—not an employee."

Q: Governments and central banks have inflated asset prices for decades—making housing, education, and healthcare unaffordable for many.

Is the 'system' designed to turn Millennials and Gen Z into lifelong renters and debt-serfs? Is there a way out?

Doug Casey: It’s a natural consequence of Statism.

First of all, taxes are high and have been increasing for decades. After taxes, you have less money left over to save. And if you do try to save, inflation eats away at the dollars that you put in banks or investments. Worse than that, welfare and government benefits make saving feel unnecessary for many people. They feel they don’t need as much because the cradle-to-grave welfare state will cover them. There’s a reason why Klaus Schwab famously said, 'You’ll own nothing and be happy.'

A lot of people believe it. This feeling is abetted by schooling, where everyone is inculcated with this collectivist meme. On top of that, the rich are viewed as parasites. And who wants to be a parasite?

This is all caused by State intervention in the economy. Schools almost always teach students that the State is their friend. It’s not; it’s their enemy. ....

Q: We’re seeing a collision between AI/automation and a credential-heavy job market. Which parts of today’s white-collar economy do you think are most fragile?

Doug Casey: .... The bright side is that while AI and robotics will destroy huge numbers of jobs—starting now—they’ll also level the playing field. A person of less than average intelligence can have AI do things for him that he might otherwise be unable to do. A further benefit is that the world doesn’t need paper pushers and cubicle dwellers who are sitting around doing marginally productive labor. Very much like the world no longer needed people working like drones in textile mills 200 years ago, at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

While AI is going to create some major problems in the short run, it’s going to be a very good thing after those bumps in the road. Just like the Industrial Revolution itself created problems while vastly improving the world. ....

Q: What should a 25-year-old do to build real, durable earning power in the next 5–10 years?

Doug Casey: Ayn Rand answered that question in a speech I heard 40 years ago. When asked, she said: 'The best way to help the poor is not to be one of them.'

I confronted this problem with my friend Matt Smith when we wrote 'The Preparation.' The book explains why young people should avoid college. In fact, it urges them to treat college like the poison that it now is, showing how college has become a serious detriment in almost every way. More importantly, we describe what young men should do instead during the four years between 18 and 22, a time which is critically important, but generally wasted.

We demonstrate—exactly—how a young man can qualify himself with the equivalent of a BA, a BS, and elements of an MBA. That’s in addition to learning practical things in a hands-on way. We divide the four years into 16 quarters. The student will learn everything from flying a plane to sailing a boat around Cape Horn to operating heavy equipment. He’ll qualify in welding and metalwork in Canada. Cooking at a professional level in Italy. He’ll be farming in one quarter and building a house in the next. He’ll learn martial arts skills in Thailand, as well as shooting and scuba. You get the idea. It’s a productive and busy four years.

The critical thing, since we don’t know how the world is going to evolve because of AI, is to become a Renaissance man, enabling students to do anything and go anywhere. To avoid trying to climb a greasy corporate ladder, but build a web where you can reach out in any direction. That’s necessary in the world of AI. It’s training to be an entrepreneur, and an employer—not an employee."

~ from an interview with investor 'Doug Casey on Why Millennials and Gen Z are Trapped by Debt, Inflation, and Broken Promises

Should we end capitalism? Or embrace it.

"Capitalism ... has been, blamed for various ills, from poverty and income inequality to pollution, inflation, child labour, and war. ... Capitalism is misunderstood because it is often confused with today’s mixed economy that combines varying degrees of economic freedom and statism. Statism gives the government unlimited power that it uses to tax, regulate, and subsidize individuals and businesses and to hand out favors (government contracts, lower tax rates, subsidies) to companies that make political contributions and do the government’s bidding.

"Because of this confusion, people blame capitalism for problems caused by the mixed economy and statism in particular.

"Consider poverty and income equality. Poverty is most persistent in countries where the government deters wealth creation through high levels of market controls, taxation, and corruption that constrain economic growth, entrepreneurship, job opportunities, and people’s ability to work themselves out of poverty and improve their incomes. The same can be said of child labour (a consequence of poverty), inflation (caused by government manipulation of the money supply, not by business seeking to maximise profits in a free market), and war (caused by government invasion of another country).

"Capitalism does not cause the problems it is blamed for but provides solutions by safeguarding freedom. ...

"In Ayn Rand’s definition, “capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” In such a system, the government’s role is limited to protecting individual freedom ... by deterring and punishing the initiation of physical force against others ... Under capitalism, the only way to get others to collaborate is through persuasion and voluntary trade.

"Although pure laissez-faire capitalism has never fully existed ... some historical periods and countries have approximated capitalism ... [Northern] America during the 19th century (the longest uninterrupted period of peace); England, France, and other European countries during the Enlightenment (that brought about the Industrial Revolution); Hong Kong (before China’s takeover); and smaller countries like Estonia (that liberalised their economies after the collapse of the Soviet Union).

"Capitalism is good for people and their environment because it produces and protects freedom, the social condition that human flourishing requires. ... [C]apitalism did not create today’s problems but has helped solve or reduce them. ...

"If we want human flourishing to increase, we must not reject and banish capitalism but embrace and defend it ... "

~ Jaana Woiceshyn from her post 'Should we end capitalism?'

"Capitalism is the only system where the state’s role is servant, not master."

"Capitalism is the only system where the state’s role is servant, not master, limited to protecting rights and banning force and fraud. When it oversteps, that isn’t capitalism failing, it’s the state abandoning capitalism. 

    "In every other system, there’s no confusion: the state is master by design. 

    "And anarchism doesn’t escape this dynamic, without a rights-protecting state, power doesn’t vanish, it shifts to gangs and warlords. The real choice isn’t no master, but whether the state is master over men or servant to their rights."

~ Rock Chartrand

Trump’s Phony War For Bigger Government

"[T]he Trumpification of the GOP means the Swamp is destined to become ever deeper and more virulent. The Donald is the very opposite of a traditional GOP conservative because he is constantly on the prowl for ways to expand the reach of the Federal government.

"After all, that’s the essence of his insane Tariff-Palooza and the abuse of tariff powers granted to the Congress by the plain words of the constitution ...

"The push for more government is also behind his constant yammering for low interest rates and more money-printing at the Fed ... to buy shares of Intel and other tech and defence companies ... instituting national land use controls and allocation of building materials. And, of course, nothing smacks of Big Government in Washington more than a mega-fiscal bill (the OBBBA) that will add $55 trillion to the public debt over the next three decades.

"So the Donald’s latest lurch into Bigger Government and a Deeper Swamp is not surprising. We are referring to his unhinged campaign for Federal intervention in local law enforcement ... [when] policing the streets and neighbourhood's of the 88,000 units of state and local government in America is the very essence of Federalism and decentralised government power and accountability. ...

"[T]he last thing we need is Washington politicians and bureaucrats sending the uniformed national guard into local cities and towns on the pretext that the Fed’s could do the job better. ... The plain fact is, most larger cities in America are dealing with street crime challenges, but there is no emergency whatsoever that demands Federal intervention and militarisation of local law enforcement. And it’s not even a case where Dem cities and blue states are way out of alignment with the rest of the country and therefore merit Washington’s special attention. ...

"[This] self-evidently has nothing to do with a national emergency or a unique crime breakout ... [W]hat the Donald is really up to ... is using random crime anecdotes as an excuse to launch a political attack on Democrats and peddle a false narrative that everyday Americans are in grave danger because the Blue Cities and States of America have become incubators of criminal mayhem. But that’s a flat out lie. ...

"Still, there is a larger issue that the Trumpified GOP is completely missing. Namely, vibrant Federalism—which is the only antidote to corrupt, wasteful Big Government embedded in the Washington Swamp—needs to be free to fail as well as succeed without Washington politicians usurping their functions and responsibilities. ...

"At the end of the day, the real threat to average Americans is not street crime in the big cities, whether run by Republicans or Democrats. The actual crime threat is a Washington based Fiscal Doomsday machine that is burying the American economy in unsustainable debt.

"If the Donald really wants to MAGA, he’d be well advised to take on the fiscal criminals of the UniParty who dominate both houses of Congress and enable the vast extent of the Washington Swamp he [once] pledged to drain."

~ David Stockman from his post 'Trump’s Phony War On Crime—Just More Big Government'

"Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society."

"When the line between public and private is erased," explains Reason magazine's Eric Roehm, "then politics is all about special favours."

If you want to understand the silly little scene that played out between Apple CEO Tim Cook and President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday," he says, "you might start by remembering something that Vice President J.D. Vance said two years ago."

While attending a conference for nationalist conservatives, Vance offered an astonishing view of politics. The 'idea that there is this extremely strong division between the public sector and the private sector' was flawed, Vance argued. In reality, he went on to say, 'there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the American regime. It is all fused together.'

    That's a useful framework for understanding much of what has happened since Trump (with Vance at his side) returned to the White House in January. That includes various trade policies and tariffs, of course, but also the "golden share" in U.S. Steel that Trump secured for himself, and how the administration leveraged its regulatory authority to force Paramount to pay a huge settlement. In each case, the Trump administration has tried to erase (or has ignored) the distinction between the public and the private sectors ...

Trump takes a further step. To him, not only is the private public, but the public is also very personal. ... He will decide what deals are in everyone's best interest, no matter what consenting individuals engaged in peaceful, private commerce might want to do. If he's unhappy about something in Brazil, it will be your problem. And if he's pleased with gifts and tributes, then all is well.
    Do you run a foreign company trying to make a huge investment in American steel manufacturing? You'd better be prepared to cut Trump a piece of the action. Are you unhappy about Medicaid cuts that reduce the reimbursements your company receives from the government? That's nothing a $5 million donation and dinner at Mar-a-Lagocan't fix. There's a good reason why lobbying firms with direct access to the White House are reportedly keeping very, very busy these days.
    And that's why Cook found himself in the Oval Office this week, presenting Trump with a special gift from Apple: A gold and glass token of the company's appreciation for Trump's special attention."

    Shortly afterwards, Trump responded in kind. Apple is now exempt from the 100 percent tariff that Trump is imposing on high-end computer chips made in other countries. Officially, that exemption is because Apple is investing $100 billion in U.S. manufacturing. Unofficially, it sure looks like Cook's gift paid off.

This is how business is now being done in the United Police States. Make sure you give a cut of your business to the boss.

You want to secure an "export license" for chips to China, as Nvidia and AMD needed, then as they discovered too, you'd better pay your 15% bribe. That will apparently fix all security "issues. It's not about security, of course. It's just tribute to the government.

The Students of Liberty twitter feed explains the game.

Ludwig von Mises warned us 80 years ago: when governments start making individual 'deals' with private companies, we're witnessing the transformation from capitalism to something far more dangerous. The news about Nvidia and AMD giving the U.S. government 15% of chip sales to China? Mises saw this exact pattern coming. 

In his 1944 book Omnipotent Government, Mises identified a dangerous transformation he called "etatism." Think of it this way: You still "own" your business on paper, but the government tells you what to make, who to hire, what prices to charge, and who you can sell to. You're a manager, not an owner.

Mises wrote: "The entrepreneur in a capitalist society depends upon the market and upon the consumers. Every entrepreneur must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers." But when business success requires political deals, everything changes.

The pattern is accelerating across recent months: — Apple announced $600B U.S. investment after iPhone tariff threats — Intel's CEO visiting the White House after public criticism — Nvidia/AMD now paying 15% revenue cuts for China market access This isn't capitalism. It's what Mises called "etatism."

Mises warned that under etatism, "the government, not the consumers, directs production." When companies must seek political permission rather than consumer approval, we've crossed a dangerous line. Success becomes about relationships with power, not service to people.

So what's the big deal about these corporate negotiations? Mises saw where this leads. When Nvidia pays 15% to access China markets, they're not responding to consumer demand. They're buying political permission. This fundamentally changes how businesses operate.

Instead of competing on price, quality, and innovation, companies now compete on political connections. Resources shift from R&D and customer service to lobbying and government relations. The best politically connected firms win, not the most efficient ones.

Here's the terrifying part: even if current leaders have good intentions, they're building the infrastructure of control. Once government has the power to grant or deny market access through individual deals, that power doesn't disappear when leadership changes.

Future authoritarians won't need to seize control—they'll inherit a system where economic power already flows through political channels. Small businesses can't negotiate these deals. They face full regulations while big corporations get special arrangements. Perfect tools for political control.

Mises understood this doesn't happen in one election cycle. It's a slow infection of ideas that spreads across decades until everyone accepts that companies should negotiate with whoever holds power. Eventually, people forget that businesses once served consumers, not politicians.

Mises understood that ideas have consequences. Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society.

"Strangely, an entire social class has managed to go almost completely unnoticed. It is nothing less than the ruling class. And it is the most formidable and zealous enemy of free-market capitalism and individual freedom."

"Strangely, an entire social class has managed to go almost completely unnoticed. It is not to be found in history books or in newspaper articles. It is missing from academic and public discourse. Even the Marxists, who see the world entirely through the lens of class, have failed to spot it.

"It is odder still that this particular social class should be anonymous and invisible, because it is large, loud, unashamed, and bossy. It is the most powerful class in society. It is the class that constitutes the Establishment. It is nothing less than the ruling class. And it is the most formidable and zealous enemy of free-market capitalism and individual freedom.

"The problem of this missing class first occurred to me in the late 1990s, when I visited an anti-capitalist ‘climate’ rally in London. ... According to the Socialists, it is ‘the working-class’ who have most to gain by the overthrow of capitalism. ... But where, I wondered, at this anti-capitalist ‘climate’ jamboree, were the heroic, muscle-bound, lantern-jawed proletarians? ...

"The protesters cannot simply be labelled 'middle class' because ... the commercial middle class had failed to send a single delegate. ... These practical grafters I guessed were too busy doing capitalism. ... quite out of sympathy with these high-minded, anti-capitalist radicals. So what social class are we left with?

"There is, in fact, a name for the group assembled at the Climate rally, though it is rarely used. The protesters were members, or on their way to becoming members, of the New Class. ... not easily defined but may be vaguely described. It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' ... We are talking about scientists, teachers and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their career in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of larger foundations, the upper levels of government bureaucracy and so on. It is by now, a quite numerous class …a disproportionately powerful class, it is also an ambitious and frustrated class. ...

"Members of this class are remarkably conscious of their affinity with other members, they strongly identify with one another politically, culturally and intellectually, and they act, as a class, in a co-ordinated and determined way to pursue their goals. They consider themselves separate from and opposed to other classes. The ideology and worldview of this group, taken as a whole, is consistent, predictable and intractable. And those of us who value individual freedom and property rights, whether we know it or not, are at war with this class. ...

"Th[is] New Class ... has a ‘voracious and insatiable’ hunger for power. ... No other class in history has been as cohesive and single-minded in defending itself and controlling that which it holds. And this includes control of speech and thought. ...
"
As government spending has grown so has the number and size of groups relying directly and indirectly on State funding. These groups, which comprise the core of the New Class, naturally tend to look favourably on their own activities, would like to see their powers increased and their responsibilities extended over greater areas. ...

"The New Class maintains that society needs expert analysis, expert advice, direction, guidance and regulation, and they are the people who will do it. ... They demand more public spending, regulation and planning as naturally as a stream flows down a mountain, because public spending pays their wages and they are the regulators and planners.
"
Members of this class encounter one another, in the workplace and socially, and their views become honed and hammered out. ... and over time they become a coherent, distinct, moral view of the world. ...

"Members of this New Class will always call for something to be done, to solve a perceived problem, in the form of another enquiry or review or committee or institute or ministry, for more research into this or that area, for more laws and statutes and official guidance or the funding of more support groups. If there is no problem to justify an extension of their activities, a problem, or threat, or risk must be found. The problem can never be Big Government (this would be to blame themselves), it must always stem from unregulated activity, and the solution must be more State spending and control.

"To this planning class, freedom itself is an affront. ...

"But grumbling resentment and vague animosity towards the New Class is not enough. The nature of the battle must be spelled out. The need to fight must be underlined, the reasons for waging war explained, and distilled into memorable slogans.

"Most of all, the enemy needs to be clearly identified. Our failure to do so has allowed the New Class to grow and grow, and to escape responsibility for the chaos and misery it has caused. The first step must be to pronounce and advertise, loudly and repeatedly, that the New Class exists. The immense power of the New Class, as we have seen, lies in its anonymity - in the fiction that its members are neutral and disinterested experts, well-meaning ‘concerned’ scientists, high-minded intellectuals, impartial planners and regulators, rationally ordering us and our world, in our best interests. This sham neutrality must be exposed, the selfish motives called out. This invisible class must made visible. This anonymous class must be given a name."

~ Martin Durkin, from the first chapter to his forthcoming book on The New Class

Fascism. What is it?

"What is fascism, and what place does it occupy in political philosophy? There is more to that question than the standard identification with the extreme right, as echoed by the Encyclopedia Britannica:

'Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: 'people’s community'), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.'

"This characterisation doesn’t fit well on the conventional left-right axis of the political spectrum. For one thing, the mainstream left also entertains communitarian beliefs and favors “the good of the nation” against individual interests. Its devotion to democracy and liberalism, at least in the classical sense, is rather doubtful. Apart from its populist variant, the mainstream left does favor a hierarchy between elected officials and expert bureaucrats on the one side, and the populace on the other side. Finally, if we look at socialism à la Maduro or at communism, the practical difference with fascism wears thin. The favoured political constituencies of the two regimes differ but often overlap. For example, the common people easily rally behind strongmen of either the extreme left or the extreme right, and even move from one side to the other over time.'

The kinship between the extreme right and the extreme left suggests that the conventional axis left-right is not a satisfactory model. The left and the right share more than is apparent. ...

"[A]sk Benito Mussolini himself, the founder of fascism ... [who] explained :

'Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State. … It is opposed to classical Liberalism ... When one says liberalism, one says the individual; when one says Fascism, one says the State.' ...

"[Both] fascism and communism—and, to a different extent, [both] the right and the left —... are collectivist and opposed to the individualism of classical liberalism and libertarianism.

"This distinction between collective and individual choices seems to be the main line of fracture in modern ideologies."

~ Pierre Lemieux from his post 'Fascism, the Right, and the Left'

"If men want to oppose war..."

"If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged 'good' can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.”

~ Ayn Rand, from her article 'The Roots of War'

"A movement that changed a country." Peacefully.

It's been risible watching statists here struggling over recent months to get their heads around the Atlas Network think tank—and what exactly think tanks do.

What troubles them most perhaps is the word "think" in the description. Many have forgotten how to.

Nonetheless, to help them understand, the think tank Students for Liberty sets out to explain what they do. 

They begin by asking: "Why is the President of Argentina wearing THIS pin while announcing major policy changes?"

The story goes back to 1945, when a war hero wanted to save his country—and a Nobel Prize winner told him to forget about politics.

This isn't just about a pin. It's about how ideas travel from university classrooms to presidential palaces. And why every student needs to understand this journey—because you're living through it right now.

In 1945, World War II just ended. F.A. Hayek, teaching at the London School of Economics, meets Antony Fisher—a combat aviator and war hero. Fisher had read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and was terrified about Britain's socialist direction. "I want to enter politics," Fisher declared.

Hayek stopped him cold. "The political battle isn't won in the political arena," he explained. "It's fought—and ultimately won—by intellectuals." Politicians follow public opinion. But intellectuals? They shape it. 

 

Fisher listened. Instead of running for political office, he founded the UK's Institute of Economic Affairs. For decades, IEA scholars published papers, hosted debates, and educated a generation about free markets. The result? Britain elected Margaret Thatcher. 

 

Legend has it that in her first Cabinet meeting, Thatcher slammed down Hayek's book Constitution of Liberty—published by the IEA—and declared: "This is what we believe!" Ideas had become policy. Intellectuals had changed a nation. 

This wasn't an accident. Hayek had studied how ideas spread. It's like a pyramid:

        Scholars develop ideas ...

                ... Intellectuals* spread them 

                        ... Media amplifies them

                                ... Politicians adopt them

Every revolution starts at the top of that pyramid.

[* Note that the bar for "intellectual" here is clearly set very low.] 

Now look at American universities today (and this is fairly universal everywhere):  

X Professors teaching government as the solution to everything  

X Students defending socialism (70% of Gen Z consider voting socialist)  

X 53% of graduates feel unqualified for jobs in their field  

X Ideology of resentment toward achievement

 The pyramid is working—just not for liberty.

This is why Students For Liberty exists. 

Our Local Coordinators host events, educate peers, and develop as leaders worldwide. 

In 2024 alone: 3,881 events reaching 150,000+ people. 

One person who helped SFL in Argentina? An economist named Javier Milei.

Milei didn't just wear our pin—he partnered with us. 

He attended our events, explained our mission on TV, and mentored pro-liberty students across Argentina. 

Why? Because he understood: to change politics, you first have to change culture. 

 

Take Ethan Yang. Started with "no leadership experience, no professional skills. Just a small libertarian club that met in the basement of our dining hall." 

As a Students for Liberty coordinator, his Freedom of Information Act request helped halt the Biden administration's social-media censorship. The case reached the Supreme Court.

A federal judge called the Biden Administration's collusion with/threats to Big Tech "the most massive attack against free speech in US history." 

Stopped by one student. One request. Supreme Court case. 

That's the power of the pyramid when it works for liberty. 

 

Here's what every student needs to understand: 

You're not just getting a degree. 

You're being shaped by ideas that will define the next fifty years. 

The question isn't whether ideas will spread from campus—it's which ideas will spread.

Milton Friedman explains the point: "Our basic function is to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable." 

Before Milei became president, he was attending SFL events. 

That pin? It represents a movement that changed a country.

Tired of feeling outnumbered, silenced, or lost in campus groupthink? 

The College Survival Kit is your first step into this global movement. 

Learn how real change begins—with students who refuse to stay silent: DOWNLOAD YOURS HERE. 

So, what's a doge?

Canaletto: The Doges' Palace and Piazza San Marco, Venice

 oil on canvas by Canaletto; in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence

This may come as a shock to your average Magat, or Dogeling — whose knowledge of world history is as frail as their economic understanding — but a doge is historically nothing to do with government efficiency, and everything to do with statism and dictatorship.

No. surprise, right?

From Encyclopaedia Britannica:

doge, (Venetian Italian: “duke”), highest official of the republic of Venice for more than 1,000 years (from the 8th to the 18th century) and symbol of the sovereignty of the Venetian state. ...

In Venice the office of doge (from Latin dux, “leader”) originated when the city was nominally subject to the Byzantine Empire and became permanent in the mid-8th century. According to tradition, the first doge was Paolo Lucio Anafesto, elected in 697.

From the 8th to the 12th century the doge’s power was extensive ... and became more and more powerful, with hereditary successions, conflicts and violent deaths. ...  By the 15th century the office had assumed the character of prince subject to law.

You can see why Magats in inappropriate leader-love with their leader would like the idea of a prince, subject to no law.

 Maybe the rest of us could refer instead to the dog that is it really is.

REMINDER: "Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else."

 

"Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else." 

~ Ayn Rand, from her essay 'Conservatism: An Obituary,' collected in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. [See also 'Cue Card Libertarianism: Freedom']

 

"... a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics."

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s transition from semi-prominent Democrat to third party spoiler to Donald Trump endorser is emblematic of a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics.…
    "The partisan shifts of both Trump and RFK Jr. are part of a long term cycle in which .... a generic suspicion of institutions and the people who run them has come to be associated with conservative politics. Conservative cranks are not even close to new (the John Birch Society, for example), but they’ve become increasingly prominent ...

    "If I’m agitating for a 'liberal' realignment of American politics, it’s partly because I live in terror that the realignment will come anyway—but it will be illiberal….
    "Let’s talk about what kind of implicit idea would cause someone to combine a traditionally conservative proposal (keeping out immigrants) with a traditionally leftist proposal (government price controls)—and do so in a way that so overwhelms every other consideration, including democracy itself, that it causes them to flip their vote.
    "The implicit premise is that government exists to hand out favours to 'people like me'—and to kick everybody else in the teeth, especially poor immigrants coming here in search of a better life. That particular policy combination indicates a tribal mindset….
    "At any rate, this is precisely the political realignment I’m trying to avoid, one that brings together the worst of both worlds: bloated Big Government welfare-statism and paranoid, xenophobic nationalism."

~ Matt Yglesias from his post 'The crank realignment is bad for everyone.'  Hat tip Robert Tracinski who comments, "There’s still a good chance that this is exactly what we’re going to get."

 

'Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning'

"The suggestion that colonial systems are based on white supremacy is a generalisation that infects much of the debate about colonialism and colonisation. It suggests that 'white supremacy' ... was what motivated colonialism and colonisation. It did not, although there were times when, during the colonial experience, it manifested itself. ...
    "In 2017, [Nigel] Biggar initiated a five-year project at Oxford University ... to scrutinise critiques against the historical facts of empire. Historians and academics widely criticised the project ... 
    "Biggar’s book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, examines the morality of colonialism. ... conced[ing] in the Introduction to the book that the subject matter and his approach were both contentious. ...

"Many commentators of colonialism approach the topic from a critical theory perspective, seeking out any evidence to then suggest that all colonial activity was inherently evil. Biggar does not. His is a more nuanced approach and is that of an ethicist.  ...
    'Biggar’s argument is that the development of Empire and what is called colonialism was an institution that developed over centuries and no one could say that it was wholly good or wholly bad. Biggar cites examples from other imperial activities. The empire of Islam demonstrated examples of racism regarding those from Northern climes (it was too cold to be intelligent) or the tropics (it was too hot to be intelligent). ...

"He commences with the proposition that empire is not an historical aberration or a departure from historical norms. It is part of the natural order of a world that, until recently, lacked stable frontiers formalised by an overarching scheme of international law. The armed migration of peoples in search of resources might serve to unlock the riches of the world and spread knowledge and technical competence, processes which potentially benefit all mankind.
    "Certainly colonialism severely disrupted existing patterns of indigenous life. It was often achieved or maintained through violence and injustice. In the final analysis, all states maintain themselves by force or the threat of it.
    "Governments, imperial or domestic, have always involved light and shade, achievement and failure, good and evil. Biggar’s point is that it falsifies history to collect together everything bad about an institution and serve it up as if it were the whole.

"There are three major points that Biggar makes by way of mitigation when it comes to the legacy of Empire.
    "To begin with many of the worst things that happened were not the result of an ideology or a preconceived and calculated policy. There were abuses. They were recognised and were addressed although not always with the greatest success.
    "Secondly, along with the disruption that was caused to communities there were also benefits. Practices such as slavery, cannibalism, sati and human sacrifice, which were by any standards barbarous, were eliminated. The ground was laid for an economic and social transformation that lifted much of the world out of extremes of poverty.
    "Thirdly and finally not only did colonialism bring disruption but it brought order. The British brought the Rule of Law, constitutional government, honest administration, economic development and modern educational and research facilities, all long before they would have been achieved without European intervention. ...

"There can be no doubt that the British Empire contained evils and injustices but so does the history of any long-standing state. But the Empire was not essentially racist, exploitative or wantonly violent as a general proposition. It could correct errors and sins and importantly it prepared colonised peoples for liberal self-government.
    "What colonialism did bring to the table in the final analysis were liberal, humanitarian principles and endeavours that should be admired and carried into the future. Imaginary guilt should not cripple the self confidence of the British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as pillars of the liberal international order."

~ A Halfling from his post 'Colonialism - A Moral Reckoning'

"But no, he doesn't want to be a dictator."

"And there it is," says Mark Coppock. "I knew it was coming, but even I didn't expect Trump to literally order it by fiat -- he will sign an executive order to override the 14th Amendment. But no, he doesn't want to be a dictator."

But no, he's pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, pro-America. He's going to end the administrative state ...

 

But no, they should just come in "legally" ...

But me no buts: When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

"The State has two hands: a soft one to give and a hard one to remove. The softer the hand that gives, the harder the hand that removes."

"The State is not and cannot be one-handed. It has two hands, one to receive and the other to give; in other words, the rough hand and the gentle hand. The activity of the second is of necessity subordinate to the activity of the first....

    "You see that the gentle hand of The State, that sweet hand that gives and spreads benefits widely, will be fully occupied ... Might you perhaps be disposed to believe that this will be just as true of the rough hand that goes rummaging and rifling in our pockets?
    "Don’t you believe it! The courtiers of popularity would not be masters of their trade if they did not have the art of hiding an iron fist in a velvet glove."

~ Frederic Bastiat, from his essay 'The State' [the headline for this post is a popular paraphrase]