by John Walker
In any conflict, it is a deadly error to mistake or underestimate the adversary's capabilities, will to employ them, or ultimate goals.
Around the globe, what was once confidently deemed “Western civilisation” is in an end-stage battle with champions of a collectivist and statist ideology which, over the last century, has enacted programs of redistributive taxation, borrowing, and spending whose unsustainability has now become self-evident and which, unless the present course is altered, will collapse in at most ten years. Further, the second- and higher-order effects of these policies have led to demographic collapse in the societies which have adopted them, crippled capital formation and the creation of productive enterprises, and been used as a justification for mass immigration from regions hostile to the culture and values of the West which have been responsible for its prosperity.
Those who would destroy a society, destroy first its language. As Orwell observed, when the terms of discourse are corrupted, the corruption spreads into every domain the language is used to debate. So deep has this language rot penetrated, that it is difficult to write an essay like this without succumbing to it—that is the intent of those who spread the contagion. The present-day culprits identify themselves as “progressives” or “liberals”. Take a step back and ponder how manipulative this is: if you're a “progressive”, then you must obviously be on the side of progress, even though the outcome of the policies you advocate will ultimately roll back all of the advances in individual liberty and prosperity made since the Enlightenment; if you're a “liberal”, surely you must advocate liberty, notwithstanding that the consequences of your prescriptions will be descent of society into serfdom for the masses, deemed property of the state, ruled by an unelected, unaccountable élite.
These so-called “progressives” or “liberals” are not advocates of progress or liberty: they are enemies of them, and the sooner champions of liberty acknowledge what they are, the better our slim chances for defeating them will be. Libertarians and conservatives are inclined toward civil discourse and respect for the rule of law. They must come to terms with the fact that their enemies—not opponents—are implacable, bent on winning whatever the cost may be, willing to use any means whatsoever to prevail and, once triumphant, to deprive their opposition of the means to reverse or even impede the implementation of their agenda.
They are enemies.
In the middle of World War II, would it have made sense for Roosevelt and Churchill to have arranged a secret meeting with Hirohito and Tojo to try to “work out their differences” and “find a middle ground” where, say, Imperial Japan would be allowed to keep half of its conquests in the Pacific? Of course not: Japan was the enemy, and only its definitive defeat could undo the damage its conquests had wrought.
Enemies of individual liberty control the high ground today in most of the institutions through which they have made their long march in the last half century, and they perceive themselves as winning: with every generation they educate, inform, entertain, and rule, they create more dependent subjects who acquiesce to their rule and groom a new self-perpetuating class of élite. They are not people who have a different vision of how to create a society in which the aspirations of the majority of the people for themselves and their families will be achieved, but rather aspiring rulers of infantilised subjects dependent upon the largesse of their betters.
How does one deal with enemies? To survive and prosper, one does not negotiate with them—one defeats them. There is no “reasonable, achievable compromise” between liberty and tyranny, freedom and slavery. One must vanquish the tyrants and slaveholders and ensure that their spawn cannot reinfect society.
We will never defeat them as long as we view them as “opponents” who play by the same rules and share the same goals as we. They are enemies, and must be completely defeated and removed from the political stage. That is how they view us—they have no desire to compromise but rather intend to destroy us. Until we take the battle to the enemy with an equal fierceness, we shall have no hope of success. Here are a few things we can do, starting immediately, once we come to terms with the fact we're confronted with an enemy, not a well-meaning opponent.
Reclaim the language from the enemy. We should have a “swear jar” for every time we utter the words “liberal” or “progressive” except in scornful irony. May I suggest “statist”, “collectivist”, “socialist”, or “communist” as alternatives?
Do not trade with the enemy. Do not patronise businesses which support enemy causes; by doing so you support them yourself. While an individual choosing not to be a customer of a mega-corporation has negligible impact, millions of like-minded people deciding to go elsewhere can. On the local scale, telling the owner of the pharmacy who's posted a petition supporting socialised medicine that he's just lost your business and why does have an impact—I did this two weeks ago myself.
Don't be taken in by enemy propaganda. The mainstream media are almost entirely in the hands of the enemy. Help to make them the legacy media by ignoring everything they say, not subscribing to their enemy propaganda. Rely instead on first-hand reporting on the Internet whose veracity you can judge based on a network of trusted sources who comment upon it.
Do not entrust your children to the enemy. So-called “public schools” (the correct term is “government schools”, since in recent decades the public—parents—have lost all control over them) have been entirely captured by the enemy and become institutions of indoctrination and moral corruption which fail at teaching even basic skills. It is parental malfeasance verging on child abuse to send one's offspring to these corrupt, corrupting, and nonperforming schools. If you cannot afford a well-run private or religious school (most have per-pupil costs well below that of government schools, but of course you have to pay that tuition on top of your taxes supporting the failed government schools), consider home-schooling your children, perhaps in conjunction with other like-minded parents. Even if you can afford it, don't assume a private or religious school supports your values; talk to parents of students enrolled there and teachers: if they show signs of being enemies, don't send your kids there.
Do not become indebted to the enemy. Higher education is overwhelmingly in the hands of the enemy. One of the greatest scams in recent decades has been the explosion in tuition and fees, which results in graduates of four-year and postgraduate programs burdened with six-figure debt they're forced to pay off in the key years they should be saving to accumulate capital for starting a family, buying a house, educating their children, and retirement. This is not accidental: by blocking capital formation in people's key earning years, they are rendered dependent upon the state for their retirement and health care in old age, which is precisely the intent.
What élite universities and professional schools provide for the exorbitant fee is a credential which offers entry into the ranks of the enemy, and the “education” they provide is indoctrination in the enemy's belief system. If you need a credential, shop around and get what you require at a price that doesn't sink you into debt throughout your peak earning years. Unless you've bought into the enemy's credential game, where you went to college will be irrelevant after you've had a few years of job experience.
Do not hire the enemy. Are you an employer? Why should you pay those who support the destruction of your livelihood? In our information-intense age, nothing could be easier than determining the political affiliations and contributions of applicants for employment, as well as their sentiments posted on public fora. If they are enemies, don't hire them. You wouldn't hire somebody without a police background check to make sure they weren't a crook, would you? So why should you employ an enemy who will use your paycheck to destroy the values you cherish and spread the enemy's perverted belief system among co-workers?
Roll back the enemy's gains. One of the enemy's key intellectual force multipliers is the concept of the “ratchet”: that any movement in their direction is irreversible and that consequently the debate is only about how rapidly one will arrive at their destination. Those who view the enemy as an “opposition” fall for this completely—in effect, their slogan becomes, “We'll deliver you unto serfdom, but later than the other guys”. This is not how one deals with an enemy: they must be definitively defeated, removed from all positions of influence, and their pathological beliefs cleansed from the society. Any politician who speaks about “reaching across the aisle” or intellectual who grants any legitimacy to the anti-human, liberty-destroying nostrums of the collectivists is a fool at best and a collaborator at worst. Failing to acknowledge that an enemy is an enemy is to preemptively surrender.
We do not compromise with enemy politicians; we defeat them, regardless of the political party from which they hail. If they're enemies of freedom and the other party's candidate is worse, challenge them in the primary.
We do not consent to enemy occupation of the media. These are businesses, and we will withdraw our support from them by letting subscriptions lapse and withdrawing advertising from them. This will provoke a “circulation collapse” death spiral for them. All public funding and subsidies for media must be defeated.
We choose not to fund enemy occupation of our educational institutions. All taxpayer-supported institutions must have their funding made contingent upon abolition of tenure (from kindergarten through university professorships) and retention based upon objective measures of merit by third parties outside the academic system.
In the U.S., many state judges are elected; Federal judges are not, and have lifetime tenure. But their courts are funded by the legislature, which can abolish them with the consent of the executive. Abolish abusive and misbehaving courts, and create new ones, and let that serve as a lesson to those who would legislate from the bench.
Over the last century, much of the enemy's success has been due to the partisans of individual liberty being unwilling to acknowledge that their opponents are implacable and ready to resort to any tactic that advances their cause. “I won't stoop to their level” is simultaneously staking out the high ground and then preemptively surrendering it to the enemy. Now, I am not suggesting that we do “stoop to their level”, but rather acknowledge that the enemy's tactics have been working, and that they must be countered head-on, not around the margins. We must do this in a manner consistent with our morality and respect for the truth, but keeping in mind that the enemy operates under no such constraints.
With elected politicians, there must be no compromise whatsoever with the enemy, and enemies in elected offices must be forced, through strategic votes, to disclose their true beliefs and agendas, then defeated by candidates who call them out on the pernicious consequences of the enemy policies they advocate. As enemies are removed from elected office, policies can be adopted to identify and replace enemies in the judiciary, state-funded educational institutions, and taxpayer-supported cultural institutions. Complete deregulation of all media will allow the market to sort out the messages people choose to hear.
I am certain this paper will be denounced as “strident” and “divisive”. Bring it on—it is both, and that is precisely my intent! If I had changed the introduction and globally replaced a few words in the body of the document, this screed could seamlessly slot into what passes for polite discourse in the fever swamps of the collectivist slavers. You may find it distasteful to look upon them as “enemies”, but that's how they see you, and they have no difficulty whatsoever talking about silencing you, removing you from positions of influence, and shutting down the means by which you organise.
We believe in a multitude of voices speaking in a free arena, with the best argument winning. The enemy believes in an echo chamber where only their message is heard. This conveys upon them an asymmetric advantage, where we're inclined to let them speak in favour of shutting us up. Fine: we should not sacrifice our principles, but at the same time we must come to terms with the fact that they are the enemy, and must be defeated and dispersed in disarray, not accommodated, lest we forfeit everything in which we believe.
In identifying the enemy, it is crucial to distinguish the enemy: the collectivist/statist ruling class and its partisans in the media, academia, and rent-seeking crony capitalist industries and financial institutions, from the electorate who support enemy politicians. We should view those voters not as enemies, but allies we haven't yet recruited. Most voters pay little attention to politics and have little appreciation for the consequences, social and economic, of policy choices. This is not so much due to laziness, but rather rational ignorance: since a single vote has a negligible chance of influencing the outcome of an election, a rational voter will spend a negligible amount of time investigating the candidates and researching the consequences of the policies they advocate.
Consequently, elections often turn on the amount of money candidates can raise, the extent they can attack their opponents with negative advertising, their hair styles, and what party the parents of the voter preferred, as opposed to substantive issues. You may find this dismaying, but there is abundant evidence that this is the fact. In addition, enemy occupation of education and media ensures that the bias of voters who do not choose to independently inform themselves will be toward enemy candidates. This was the premise of an underappreciated 2008 book which breathlessly and approvingly forecast the calamity the recent enemy resurgence has brought upon us.
These uninformed and unengaged voters are not the enemy, but is it their votes which bring the enemy to power. So we must approach them as potential allies, to whom we must explain the ultimate consequences of the policies of the enemy to themselves and their families, and why it is in their own self-interest to defeat the enemy. The present situation is sufficiently dire that one need no longer appeal to long-term arguments such as Hayek's in The Road to Serfdom: the apocalypse so ardently desired by the enemy, as it will present the ultimate crisis to be exploited to secure their power, is now just a few years away, and this is evident to anybody acquainted with the numbers.
Our goal must be to defeat the enemy. In a democratic society, this means apprising those who vote the enemy into power of their true nature, breaking the hold of the enemy media on the populace, and reversing enemy infiltration of education. The enemy strategy depends upon an uninformed, unengaged, and passive electorate. We must turn this around by communicating, by all means possible, the true nature of the enemy and the cataclysmic near-term consequences of their triumph.
by John Walker
April 15th, 2011