Ludwig von Mises begins his book Bureaucracy by declaring that the main issue facing the West in his time was whether man should surrender his liberty to the “gigantic apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the socialist state.” He rephrases: “Should [man] be deprived of his most precious privilege to choose means and ends and to shape his own life?”This question is imminently pressing in the modern day as well, save that we in the West, eight decades later, are teetering on the precipice of complete tyranny—the fate that Mises wrote to avoid. Perhaps most tragically, he thought that “America alone” was free to decide its path on the crossroads to either liberty or tyranny. In retrospect, America has chosen the latter. Any man who values liberty and his homeland must therefore work to

Mainstream economists turned climate warriors use cost-of-production methods to determine the “true” social cost of carbon. They appeal to a discredited methodology falsely attributed to medieval Scholastics.
Original Article: The Worse-than-Medieval Economics of Climate Technocrats

Throughout my life, a specter developed by the state has been used to haunt and cajole the world’s politics to favor centralized technocracy. I remember it first being called “global warming,” complete with apocalyptic prognostications meant to occur by specific years. Sometime after those predictions failed to materialize, it was rebranded as “climate change,” and the technocratic class’s predictions became more ethereal and vague.
The craze made its way into the discipline of economics, where mainstream theories of externalities are used to justify state intervention into the lives of their subjects under the guise of solving climate change. Despite their aspirations to be forward-thinking and progressive, medieval thinking would be preferable to the reasoning used by technocrats and

Americans have been fed the myth that US foreign policy from 1919 to 1941 was isolationist. In reality, US policies destabilized already volatile international relations.
Original Article: Pushing the False Narrative of U.S. Isolationism

Leave it to government judges and politicians to turn constitutional protections of free speech into new ways to centralize and grow state power. 
Original Article: Destroying Liberty Through State Protection: The First Amendment

Every mainstream school curriculum and state narrative regarding American history includes a common story between the years 1919 and 1941, and it is the myth of American isolation. Americans, as they say, foolishly forgot that they too were part of the world and so left themselves and their allies vulnerable as totalitarianism swept across Europe and Asia. The conclusion that is being pushed with this fictitious tale is shockingly unsubtle. America—reasons the state and mainstream curriculum—has a moral duty to police the world’s nations, intervening at the sight of any potential geopolitical threat to itself and its allies. While there are some who genuinely believe this conclusion, there must be deeper reasons for why this lie gets pushed. After all, factual reality shows that the United

For a state to continue existing in any meaningful way, it must constantly seek to centralize power. Regardless of the original intentions of a state’s founders or the heritage that a state claims, if those running the state simply maintain their existing powers rather than growing them, they will find themselves circumvented. Subdivisions and organic local communities nominally under the state will develop independently from the state’s center of power, and the state’s power will, over a period lacking in centralization, be rendered negligible at best. This necessitates that the state centralize in response to any diverging localities to continue existing.
To sustain its centralization, the state relies on narratives and justifications propagated by its apologists. One of the most popular

Governments are using intimidation to regulate independent journalists on the decentralized internet.

Original Article: The State against Anonymity

Public goods, in mainstream economic theory, are goods that are nonrivalrous, where one person using a good does not preclude anyone else’s capacity to do the same, and nonexcludable, where owners of the public goods are generally unable to restrict anyone’s access to the good. Commonly touted examples include public lighting, like streetlights, radio, firework shows, military defenses, and flood defenses.
To the mainstream, public goods present an economic and social problem. According to their understanding, the lack of rivalry and excludability allows free riders to exist, which eliminates the profit motive for providing the good and thus the incentive to provide it in the first place. This means that the market on its own would not produce enough public lighting, radio, and defense.

In the last century, states have had great control over channels of media. In most of the West, lobbying groups and cartels working with “liberal” and “democratic” governments regulated who could broadcast while governments, with their endless pools of money and political force, competed alongside private, or foreign, establishments. South Africa banned television entirely, and then after legalizing it in the ’70s, the industry was still controlled by the state.
All media in the Soviet Union was centralized and controlled by the state immediately after the October Revolution—the Bolshevik leaders understood the importance of media control. Every state in the last century has had some grip over the country’s media, propagating favorable narratives and restricting the unfavorable to maintain

On August 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Craig Robertson, a seventy-four-year-old Utah man, during a raid on his home. The man had posted numerous online threats, saying he wanted several state officials dead and had the means to make that happen. The authorities took his declarations at face value, although he was a near octogenarian dependent upon a cane to walk and was described as being “frail of health” by his neighbors.
Something is off, and for a variety of reasons. First, if this man really was a great threat to the life of multiple officials as the state believed, why was he not addressed earlier? After all, there were a variety of threats against multiple people that are now being deemed “credible” to justify the state’s actions, so why was he only addressed now?

In history classes (in public or private schools, colleges, and others), state propaganda, and mainstream history, a historical fiction has been spun that allegedly debunks any notion of noninterventionism. This is the myth of American isolationism.
The assertion usually goes that America was extremely isolationist prior to World War I and had no interest in involving itself in unnecessary warfare. After the Zimmermann telegram was sent, America was then forced to enter the war, quickly ended the war, and promptly withdrew from meddling with the outside world, even refusing to enter the League of Nations. America then spent the next two decades in isolation, foolishly ignoring the world stage until being unexpectedly attacked by Japan.
Variations exist, but this is the general reasoning

Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength.

Original Article: "Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act"

The RESTRICT Act (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act) has recently been making the rounds in the media, and rightfully so. The act is truly terrifying, but more than the open tyranny that it would further, the act illustrates a very clear problem from the perspective of the state.
In previous eras, either formally or informally, the state exercised a great deal of control over the information available to the wider population. This is no longer the case in the present day. With the advent of the internet and the resulting decentralization of media and other channels of information, the state has had increasingly fewer options at its disposal to control information. It is very obviously afraid of losing its position as the