Archives for category: Institutional Reality

I like cryptocurrency (especially Bitcoin) as a hedge. Trouble is, crypto definitely does not serve as a hedge against the inevitable global electromagnetic storm. It is the opposite of a hedge.

To something inevitable but unpredictable in time.

While electromagnetic pulse warfare and even old-fashioned nuclear war could be as devastating — and similar in effect — as a coronal mass ejection such as the one that caused the 1859 Carrington Event, these conflict scenarios are limited by MAD. Solar flares are not so limited. They are not under any human control at all.

Given this, and given blockchain’s huge redundancy aspects (involving astounding energy consumption and economic costs), I’m not exactly gung ho on crypto.

But I’m completely negative about blockchain’s usage as inside money by the globalized banking system. Politicians’, bureaucrats’, bankers’, and the Davos Men’s lust for a completely digital currency must be opposed at all costs. Their much-ballyhooed move to get rid of cash is an End Times Scenario — it would spell the death knell for freedom, sure, but it would also rigidify the system and make civilization even more fragile than it is now . . . from the inevitable disaster of a major coronal mass ejection hitting the planet.

The fact that this is almost never mentioned during discussions of computerized money strikes me as insane. Our civilization revolves around electromagnetic technology. We are utterly dependent upon this, even more than on fossil fuels. And this must be factored in to our assessments of risk.

People sometimes look at me condescendingly, for my presumptuousness in taking on “the experts.” Well, call me a crank; no matter: for on this issue, I’m not wrong.

My number one policy aim is antifragility. Always has been — long before Taleb gave it its name. And post-modern politics is utterly oblivious to the notion, despite the popular buzzword ”sustainability.”

One of our political considerations must always be concern for ”external hits” to our ecosystem and socio-economic system. Right now, we have progressed our way into a predicament. Further progress must not jeopardize civilization to an even greater degree. And right now both the globalist totalitarians and the “ancap” libertarians seem hell-bent on pushing just such ”progress.”

twv

Winnie the Pooh is a (fictional) female bear. “Winnie,” after all, is a feminine name.

Humpty Dumpty is not an egg in the original (satirical) verse.

The United States is not a nation. They constitute a political union, and even the Constitution makes this quite clear. Of course, nationalists — like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln — pushed ”national” union, but their pushes are wishes, not truth. These United States contain many nations, and those nations are becoming increasingly froward and prone to disunion.

It is quite possible to make associations that belie original intention and even reality. Most people think of Winnie the Pooh as a silly boy bear, Humpty Dumpty as a broken shell of an eggman, and the U.S. as a nation. Most people are wrong.

But in the realm of myth, error’s easy.

twv

America’s decline is, as Anoop Verma says, probably irreversible:

Due to the excessive projection of American military power, many nations (including those in Europe) could not build their own military might — they became dependent on America and could not develop a regional balance of power. As the American economy and culture continue to decline (a process that I believe is irreversible), America will be forced to cut down its military expenses. The disappearance of American military power will create in several parts of the world a geopolitical vacuum, which other powers will rush in to fill. This could lead to a series of new conflicts which could go on for decades.

But a precarious, dying empire’s last graspings at power and security can be very dangerous.

A note of caution: the extent of American military predominance also includes secret/top-secret installations — of technology such as the fabled 20-foot-long/one-foot-diameter tungsten rods from outer space, much talked about in the military journals. This Project Thor toolkit is devastating in its firepower, rivaling and even beating thermonuclear devices. I suspect (and the military-watchers concur, as far as I can tell) that this technology is now in place, skirting with technicalities the existing space treaties preventing the militarization of space. No warheads. Just shrapnel, so to speak. Ha-ha! But traveling many times the speed of sound, and going deeper than surface-exploding nukes can go.

I bring this up not to contradict Mr. Verma, but to put a wrinkle on his overview of the present situation. The U.S. Deep State likely possesses far more strength than the legitimate forces of the U.S. It has a number of reasons — quite a number, actually: not small at all — to keep its most advanced weaponry secret. There is even some reason to believe that some of the secret weapons have been used for defensive and offensive purposes and kept hushed up. (For example, the real antagonism between the U.S. and North Korea may be almost nothing like what reaches the papers. Shots may have already been fired and counter-measures taken.)

So, this Deep State military overlordship is likely a huge part of America’s actual complexion of military relations. How much does it make actual diplomacy a mere show? I don’t know. But the stronger and more secretive Deep State arsenals and technology are, the less likely the U.S. is to fall from dominance, though when the dollar goes, the American Deep State could just possibly do something marvelous and awesome and disturbing: completely break away. But would Americans and the world know when that happens? If we refuse to recognize the extent of Deep State operations, the development of a new form of international power could occur almost entirely in the background.

As anyone who has read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress knows, command of orbital space is a huge political advantage, the ultimate sheer-force-based hegemony. If the Deep State already has a huge military advantage in orbit, then this puts the world order in a somewhat new light. The reason for secrecy is obvious. . . . But, as reasonable as skepticism is about all this, the evidence for secret tech within the Deep State is not insignificant. Indeed, the whole bizarre UFO story may somehow be tied up with this. It could be one not-necessarily “alien” explanation for observed anomalies.

In the Alastor tales of Jack Vance, peace through overwhelming strength is obtained by the galactic leader called “the Connatic.” His overwhelming force is a military organization called, aptly, “the Whelm.” The Connatic does, in these stories, what neocons and Pentagon folks seem to be playing at today, but not to the pathetic effect of today’s military, but to an imagined perfection of a science fiction writer. If I am right about hidden, secret reserves of military power within the American Deep State, these assets are “in play” mainly behind the scenes as negotiating points, if at all. The problem is that the people who run them only can manage these resources because they are unknown. Once brought to the light of day, their huge advantage becomes subject to sabotage and espionage and even — in a possible future revolution — by the torches and pitchforks of an angry mob.

America’s Whelm is hampered by the secrecy, but that secrecy (if I am right about it) is also the source of its stability. Once the Secret Whelm becomes public — incorporated into the new Space Force, for example — then things become more turbulent. For instance, it would have to go under congressional control.

And that is the last thing the secret government would want. There is no way a truly effective Whelm could be controlled democratically.

twv

Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadows about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

P.J. O’Rourke, Parliament of Whores (1991).

The late P.J. O’Rourke got this a bit wrong, I think. In a democracy, every citizen becomes both whore and whoremonger, hooker and john. Politicians are the procurers whom we hire. Politics is the art of trying to negotiate terms in which one plays the part of the client to be served more often than clients’ servicer — and since, historically, the number of transactions tends to increase in which one or the other is going to happen, and since the brothel house procurers take a cut each transaction, it is quite evident who, at net and in the end, gets . . .

Well, you complete the sentence.

twv

“Overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.”

“The people that will suffer from this naïve, inappropriate policy of global universal forced vaccination when the potent virus escaped mutants develop will be those people at high risk, the people who most need the vaccine.”

Malone appearing on Jimmy Dore’s show.

Dr. Robert Malone, initial developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, basically (but not explicitly) backing up Geert Vanden Bossche’s fear of massive immune escape driven by universal vaccination with a limited-utility vaccine.

He goes on to say that he believes this technology can be good, but only if targeted at specific populations. Previously, he had noted that forced universal vaccination goes against everything he was taught about bioethics and proper, moral medical practice, which entirely rests upon informed consent. Everyone, he says, has the right to reject medical treatment.

I am only 17 minutes in, and cannot watch the whole thing right now. But Dr. Malone — whom if you have been following the subject* is almost certainly known to you — provides an important perspective on the current contagion and immediate over-reaction by governments and the karen class.

As all my friends know, I hazard that the current pandemic response is revolutionary: a psy-op, as well as an act of war by China and the elites against the American and world population. I also believe that . . . oh, well, you know what I suspect . . . that the new fascism has arrived, that Democrats are establishing it with lip-smacking glee at their new-found grip on power, and that all you who parrot the psy-op slogans (the CDC’s clever-but-evil assurance that the jabs are “Safe, effective, and free!”) are behaving like (and are the moral equivalent of) those Weimar Germans who saw hope in the chancellorship of You-Know-Who.


I hope I don’t understate things. I believe it is evil to promote universal vaccination with experimental technology whose utility is diminishing right before our eyes during the rollout.

If you spread the idea of universal vaccination, you are not merely wrong, you are morally wrong, and should stop. You don’t need to reject all vaccines or the idea of widespread use of some vaccines. You just need to look at the risks and look at standard Hippocratic practice to know that you are morally wrong to demand others “get the jab.”


Yesterday I shared on social media Richard Dolan’s excellent discussion of the current situation:

My only disagreement with Dolan is his underplaying of China’s role.

But be that as it may, we are now seeing the Therapeutic State, which Thomas Szasz warned about for decades — he saw its emergence in institutional psychiatry — come into its own as a totalitarian global order. The New World Order as prescribed by billionaires and Deep State operatives like George Herbert Walker Bush and “crazed futurists” is being established right now.

Dolan thinks there is hope, that we have time to stop it. I won’t be the one to dash that hope. For now.

twv

Unlike “Democrats,” I have no desire to increase the ease of voting in a quasi-democracy such as ours. I don’t see any evidence of better quality voting with laxer ballot-box access. And since there is no natural right to vote, increasing voter participation has at best a merely tangential relationship to rights. Further, since voting is inherently illusory, it requires careful reasoning to resist being fooled by what you are doing when you do vote — so increasing the number of dupes voting is no boon in my book. And yes, it seems likely that increasing the number of voters from the pool of lazy, uninterested voters would increase the number of fools voting.

I would prefer if most of today’s common voting techniques were set back at least 40 years, before networked voting machines and, frankly, before any kind of mechanical or electronic voting. We know and have known for years that computerized voting machines and their software, provided mostly by military-industrial complex contractors, are horrendously insecure. This has been repeatedly shown. Yet Americans, witlessly, yawn and forget.

We want a system where it is hard to commit fraud, either by gaming or rigging the system. Old-fashioned precinct-only voting — with explicitly requested absentee ballots — are fine for this, so long as there are no computerized voting machines and digital-only ballots.

Returning to privately printed ballots, as was done in Jacksonian times — perhaps with color-paper partisan ballots — might make sense. The color coding might make recounts easier. There should probably be separate ballots for every level of government.

There are, actually, many ways I can conceive of to make a secret ballot secure.

But if people want remote, Internet-based voting (mail-in balloting being idiotic), then let that be their option, only make it public. Open. Not secret!

That would give the voter a choice: open voting online . . . with secret voting at the precinct. Eminently rational.

twv

Oops, We Did It Again: Slavery

I was never much a fan of Britney Spears’ pop music. As the Nineties ended and the Aughts began, her music seemed to be everywhere. So I certainly heard a lot of it. That was a long time ago, and my memory for such things being so bad, I could be wrong to think that her popular image went from bubblegum/cheerleader type to slut/whore. She is nowhere near as popular as she once was, but she still regularly performs and, we are told, makes a lot of money. But one thing she does not have is her freedom. After a bout of recklessness and rebellion, she was placed under a conservatorship, and has been living as a slave to her family and managers.

This I gather from Tucker Carlson’s odd segment with Rose McGowan on Fox News, and the ramblings of Glenn Beck, who called Ms. Spear’s form of servitude “conservatoryship” and “conservativeship,” which was mighty peculiar.

But the whole story is mighty peculiar. This is a famous woman who is not allowed to marry, remove her implanted birth control device, or make her own business decisions. Her conservators run her life.

And here we thought slavery was not allowed in America, 13th Amendment and all.

Yet, we who love liberty know that slavery comes in several forms. Chattel slavery is not the only form. A conservatorship can be modified to serve in place of a whip and a deed of title.

Now we know one can be super-rich and a slave.

The modern form of slavery is indeed the conservatorship. We still walk around as adults, making decisions, working, etc. But we must pay exorbitant taxes, and our political and personal decisions — including about our health — are so circumscribed as to irrelevant. The native populations of most first world countries have settled into “negative growth,” and that is the result, perhaps, of the design of the system.

For some time now I have been saying that we do not live in a democracy or a republic, but under a military conservatorship. The American people know very little about what the Pentagon does, and the Pentagon and HUD have so cooked the books that spending and revenue into these two outfits of the United States Government are unknown — the amount of money that cannot be accounted for is about the same as the explicit federal debt. And then there is the bizarre aspect of our conservatorship: UFOs. The government has been lying to us about UFOs for years, and has engaged in an astounding degree of the control over our news media to mould public opinion to dutifully accept lies.

Indeed, I now suspect that one reason we now get these insane ideologies rolled out through our institutions, redefining how we think about slavery in terms of bizarre theories of race and power, is to distract us. From our current form of servitude. Why the witless 1619 Project? Critical Race Theory? All that buncombe? To control us all, to have us fight it out with each other. So that we do not notice how our lives and government are being run by the Deep State.

Sure, that is a conspiracy charge. A “theory.” A conjecture. I do not know it to be true. But we do know how corrupt and secrecy-based our government institutions are. Well, we have an inkling. As Jeremy Bentham said, secrecy is the tool of tyrants. Americans accept it because they have been moulded into serviles.

Slaves.

We should all sympathize with Britney Spears. For we are not unlike her.

We even elected a president — well, we are punished when we deny that we elected Biden, so let’s just say Biden was elected — who himself appears to be “managed” as if himself under a conservatorship.

It’s conservators all the way down.

And up.

twv

Nearly every reference to “conspiracy“ is stupid.

People use “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracist” often incorrectly, and with baggage from their benighted instruction in public schools and from the hectoring of major media news readers.

It is common to accuse someone of [unwarranted] belief in [non-existent] conspiracies at the first drop of the hat, upon almost zero evidence. Mere association of an idea with even the whiff of “conspiracy” taints it like the lingering body odor of Seinfeld’s toxic valet.

The funny thing is, this inculcated fear of “conspiracy theory” is very likely the result of a conspiracy. Tales of Operation Mockingbird tell how the very term ”conspiracy theory” itself was encouraged by the CIA to its cadres of news readers and reporters, to dismiss anyone who brings up critiques of the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination.

Are these tales true? That is, are the reports that the CIA directly told its moles within the news media to dismiss those who question the Lone Gunman Theory as “conspiracy theorists” true? We hear this a lot online, especially from . . . conspiracy theorists.

Wikipedia belittles the lore of Operation Mockingbird as “an alleged large-scale program” of the CIA, despite quite a lot of evidence for the operation’s existence (most of it not mentioned), and despite the many, many links between the legacy media’s news staff and the CIA (not to mention the dominant Ethnicity We Must Not Mention), but I have had enough run-ins with Wikipedia’s editorial staff to understand that Wikipedia was long ago taken over by the same kind of propagandists who overrun most successful start-ups of influence-peddling. The history of non-profit foundations is littered with ideological takeovers. This shouldn’t be surprising. It is more class-based than anything else, and much of what is condemned as “conspiracy theory” is actually some sort of class-based analysis.

But in American intellectual culture only leftists are allowed to engage in class analysis. All others are “conspiracy theorists” — and even the left is controlled, somewhat, by the obsessive implementation of the “conspiracy theorist” charge.

It is nevertheless the case that all conjectures about conspiracies should be judged on their factual merits, with recognition that conspiracies are evasive phenomena that do not present evidence in the innocent manner that we see the phenomena of the natural world. Clues of a conspiracy often appear first as evidence of a cover-up. Elementary praxeology should warn scientists of the danger of using the smell test in these areas, pro or con, for scientists generally do not have to fight against consciously withheld data.

”The greatest trick the devil ever pulled”: successful conspiracies would hide behind a taboo against looking into conspiracies for the same reason that true, exploitative egoists would hide behind the smoke of official altruism.

Don’t be a stooge. Reject the lore that says ”conspiracy theory” must be the province of the psychotically paranoid.

For if “they” are out to get you, it is not paranoia to notice. And there are a lot of theys out there in the business of defrauding us, stealing from us, subjugating with us.

More importantly, we must not be shamed by the shameless.

To be a conspiracy theorist should be no more controversial than an “invisible hand” theorist. A conspiracy theorist is someone who has theories about conspiracies, and considers conjectures about conspiracies as legitimate subject for inquiry and disputation. Someone who believes in a conspiracy is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. Someone who merely suspects a conspiracy lurks behind some observed events would better be labelled a “conspiracy conjecturer”!

The first question to ask an actual conspiracy theorist is not “what conspiracies do you believe in?” but “how can we learn which proposed conspiracies might be real?”

twv

“The police are simply going to stop policing.”

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, on his Daily Wire show, often argues that the left’s concerted attacks upon policing over the past several years have led to the recent rise in murder rates in particular and crime rates generally. Partial defundings of police departments and policing programs, and misguided checks on policing, have directly contributed to the rises in crime, Shapiro says.

“As soon as you start loosening the restrictions with regard to criminal behavior,” Shapiro asserted on Tuesday, “you get an uptick in violence.”

True enough?

Well, what if assertions of racial injustice and police bias encourage black criminals to resist arrest?

Black Lives Matter rhetoric sure looks like a case for interpreting all searches, traffic stops, and warranted arrests as oppression. And since oppression is bad, resistance is good. Sure smacks of a dangerous excuse to resist arrest.

It is in situations where suspects resist arrest that most shootings by police occur. Then the results of resistance get pushed through the corporate media’s propaganda mill as yet more evidence of racist cops, decreasing respect for lawful standards and law enforcement, which in turn leads to

  • protests, which have led to
  • riots and
  • general mayhem and looting and
  • more robbery and, yes, murder.

These social forces are not utterly mysterious. Mr. Shapiro’s repeated focus on the simplest analysis (more police=less crime) may be regrettable, for the wider-angle view that the left’s “institutional racism” mantra could have deeper effects with broad consequences.

What we may be witnessing is a cycle of violence and misinterpretation: more crime along with more dangerous police-suspect encounters that feed mistaken impressions to bolster the initial charge of racism: rinse, wring, repeat.

twv

In the Summer of 2016, I answered a question on Quora that does not look very good in retrospect, “Will we ever see a Libertarian president in the USA?”

Until this crazy year, 2016, I said “no.”

Now, after all these years, it appears that the Johnson-Weld team might pull off something astounding. The intellectual death of the two major parties, instantiated in their terrible candidates for office, Hillary and the Donald, might send desperate voters left and right and center into the LP camp.

The Johnson-Weld team did not pull off something impressive. The vote totals, while better than for any other LP ticket in the party’s now long history, were not all that impressive, considering the terrible candidates of the major parties. Surely they could have done better.

One reason that the team did not do better was obvious from almost the first day. When asked about Hillary Clinton, Bill Weld — apparently leading the team — and Gary Johnson, the ostensible Presidential candidate, said she was a good kid, basically, a good and faithful public servant.

If a Libertarian candidate cannot come out swinging against a statist like Clinton, he (or she) is not even a little libertarian.

This milquetoast anti-provocationism could be seen in 2020, too, where Jorgensen-Cohen spent more energy courting the SJW anti-racist vote than the anti-lockdowner vote. It was almost as if the mask-wearing pair didn’t really believe their alleged ideology.

But the problem with the LP remains. Its membership is too radical to succeed in a big way. Their choice of two marginal-to-the-movement candidates suggest the membership’s recognition that the old PlumbLine stance will get them nowhere.

While in 2016 I wrote, above, that Libertarians are “too radical,” the most obvious problem with the candidates since Harry Browne has been that they are not radical enough.

But mainly, the candidates and their supporters in the party do not seem to understand their place in history. They do not understand what they are up against.

So, in that, they are very much like Donald Trump.

They do not see the American union as highly unstable, constitutionally — having lost most of its original federal character — and dangerously over-stable — being run as a nation-state-cum-empire, fed on sectoral greed and guided by Deep State psy-op.

Libertarians do not seem able to grok the most important fact of contemporary partisan electoral politics: the two parties are driving each other insane, ratcheting up their levels of ridiculousness, as can be seen easiest in the fact that Americans just swapped one allegedly corrupt billionaire of erratic temperament and dubious moral character for a super-corrupt, senescent puppet of DNC/Deep State hacks. Libertarians have no sense of story. They do not seem to understand the roles they are playing.

And before you can succeed, you must first understand what you are doing.

Libertarian Party members do not understand what they are doing. They do not understand why they are losers. In 2016, I at least had a clue:

The even bigger problem is that the party has the stink of death about it. Americans give political upstarts a fairly narrow window to show their mettle. (Because of how votes are counted, only two parties can remain viable for long, simultaneously. See the work of Condorcet; view FairVote.org. This systemic two-party bias nudges voters to accept a challenger parties only when there is immediate hope of displacing one of the current major parties.) The LP lost in 1980, with the Clark campaign, and hasn’t had a significant chance until now. Americans see it as a party of losers. The brief time in the early 1980s, when there were several Libertarian state representatives in the Alaska legislature, has long passed. No significant wins have occurred since. Each presidential outing an irrational hope bubbles up, for one candidate or other. I remember economist Murray N. Rothbard’s insistence that Ron Paul could win over social conservatives for new life for the party, in 1987. The 1988 Paul campaign was an embarrassing bust. My colleagues claimed Harry Browne as the breakout hope several elections later. As good a speaker as he was, he received few votes. Candidates Michael Badnarik and former Rep. Bob Barr likewise fizzled.

I’ve been saying for 28 years: the party should fold, and reorganize as several vital activist groups, none of them running presidential candidates — though running deliberate mockery runs, a là Pat Paulsen, might be worth a shot.

But I underestimated the Libertarians’ predicament, here. Libertarians are not serious. They are merely earnest. No Libertarian candidate challenges Libertarians to actually make a difference. No Libertarian candidate dares take the bull by the horns and acknowledge, as a bedrock truth, the party’s always also-ran status, and therefore cannot overcome the Wasted Vote argument — an easy argument to destroy, logically, but Libertarians haven’t the wit to see that their only hope is to face it head on and rub Americans’ noses in the inherently scammy nature of electoral politics, of pretending that democracy can rule an empire.

In other words, Libertarians are intellectual cowards. They have been staring down the Wasted Vote argument since the beginning. Somehow, it never occurs to them to give a good answer. I say that a good answer is to be found, but running with it would be honest and therefore dangerous.

Libertarians would get further by pushing initiative and referendum measures, lobbying Congress and state houses, protesting bureaucracies, etc.

Some day, forming a less radical, explicitly Libertarian Lite party might make sense, a Liberist Party, or, more entertaining and useful, a Receivership Party to fold a bankrupt federal government and form new unions in its place, might make sense.

The idea of a Receivership Party still makes sense, but a Libertarian Lite party is a bad idea. That is what the Libertarian Party is right now. What Libertarians need is not lite, but enlightenment.

But for now, let us see if Johnson-Weld can at least send the 2016 presidential election into the House of Representatives! (Or win?) Right now the campaign’s strategy is to offend as few people as possible, capitalize on their experience, and create whimsical, light-hearted tugs at our heartstrings, hoping to grab NeverHillary and NeverTrump voters, along with disaffected independents, to really send the system into an epochal change.

Best of luck. It is a long shot. But no one else is worth voting for. So why not vote for them?

Yeah, that was dumb. There was no hope. Not with two former Republican governors.

And while the Libertarians’ pathetic hope for respectability, seen in choosing such candidates, may merely parallel the ratcheting-up of ridiculousness by the major parties — all part of the Law of Nemesis that we should (were we paying attention) understood as well now as our ancestors did in ancient times, when memes were myth — take a breath: something more nefarious may be afoot.

Libertarians should ask themselves: are they being played?

Specifically, by the Deep State.

The CIA and NSA and other behind-the-scenes manipulators of public opinion have had a huge hand in politics from the JFK assassination on. The FBI’s James Comey tried to blackmail Trump, after all, and the hidden hand was in plain sight in trying to remove the outsider prez from office for his first three years. In the last year, we must wonder, did the Deep State go back to being professional, bringing out the Big Guns to take down Trump?

For remember, prior to the pandemic, Trump was set for reëlection, the Democratic presidential candidates being so horrifically unimpressive and all, and the economy doing surprisingly well. But in comes the Wuhan bug, and Trump crumbles. While he resisted going as authoritarian as Democrats demand (and that was funny, I admit) the way he handled Fauci and pushed “vaccination” meant that he was doomed. The Democrats worked mightily both behind the scenes and in plain sight (as Time so niftily explained) to ensure that the pixillated puppet, Joe Biden, got more votes than Trump. It was an astounding thing to watch.

Libertarians should wonder whether they have also been manipulated. By infiltrators into their ranks (like, say, former Libertarian National Committee chairs and former state governors as candidates) and by strategically placed temptations.

We should speculate and inquire: what has the Deep State been thinking about us?

Wonder, especially, what to make of Brennan’s new direction, of placing libertarians under direct investigation — “even libertarians”!

I suspect that libertarians are the group in America that the Deep State most fears — intellectually. Because libertarianism has such a strong connection with the tradition of American independence — the United States began as a secessionist revolution spouting ideas of liberty! — libertarian ideas are potentially the most destabilizing for the Deep State’s mission of managed politics. So, Libertarians have been managed. For a very long time.

But with Brennan’s floated idea of treating libertarians as open enemies of the State, libertarians might want to now rethink their insignificance.

Could we be insignificant by design?

And if we made ourselves significant, by confronting reality as it is, not reality merely theorized and dreamed about, would we survive?

The question then becomes, are libertarians brave enough to take the next steps? So far, bravery has been associated with dunderheaded stupidity, as in the whole Tea Party movement and Trump moment. But for actual libertarians, the bravery will become necessary after the stupidity is foresworn. Do libertarians have the necessary courage?

I doubt it.

As far as I can tell, witlessly pushing the LP rock up Sisyphus’ hill is what libertarians want to do, over and over, forever.

Scant savvy and no courage required for that.

twv