Skip to main content

That Bread is Mine, Too

Okay, so the State was smashed yesterday morning. Now what?

Obviously, everybody will go his/her own way and make oodles of gold. Some of it will be spent on protection agents and arbitration. And we shall be ever-vigilant against the return of the State!

But what are we going to do if someone wants his money back?

Such a question is far from academic, for one’s view of justice seems to determine one’s revolutionary tactics. Robert LeFevre, the anarcho-pacifist, pursues a purely educational route because he has foresworn the use of defensive restitutive force. What else can he do? Murray Rothbard, enamored with “temporary” political expedients, pursues popular fronts with rightists, then leftists, then partyarchs. With his “double restitution” or “restitution plus punishment” theory, he finds himself allied with the Penal Institution crowd regardless of other alliances.

Ayn Rand seeks unlimited restitution, and since infinity can only be achieved mystically she must resurrect a gover…

The Art of Memetic Warfare

“The supreme art of war, is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”  
-Sun Tzu

If you’ve read any of the platonic dialogues you’re probably familiar with the following mental image: Socrates and a handful of other inquisitive Greeks sitting around as they debate, exchange and refine ideas. One participant made an argument, and Socrates then masterfully exposed their logical flaws in the hopes of reaching a better conclusion. The stronger the argument was, the more likely it was to receive support from both Socrates and the group as a whole.

Not much has changed. Indeed, this process of debating, exchanging and refining ideas has persisted as long as humans have. The methods by which this process takes place, however, are constantly evolving.

Following the face to face exchange of ideas came the written word. Books and letters were written to support and defend ideas, and then more books and letters were written to oppose them. In the 20th Century, radio and television increased both the diversity of thought and the rapidity of the exchange and quickly became the primary mediums by which this process took place. Finally, these variables were maximized during the internet age.

Ideas now compete with one another in the form of Youtube videos, IG photos, witty FB comments, and most importantly, memes. Writing for Stratfor, Jeff Giesea defines memetic warfare as a “competition over narrative, ideas, and social-control in the social media battlefield.” The Meme War is a competition among ideologies & victory is rewarded based on logical precision.

What is a meme?

P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking write in their book LikeWar, “...the concept of memes has nothing to do with the internet. In the late 1960s, scientists began to unravel the basic nature of the genetic code, discovering how cellular instructions are passed from one generation to the next.” It was the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins who coined the term “meme” to refer to organic, self-multiplying bits of information.

Today a meme is an argument in an image. The various meme formats we’re all familiar with are logical schemata (frames or patterns by which arguments are structured). By inserting premises into the schema one builds an argument. The stronger the argument, the more likely it is to be rewarded with virality. If it is weak, the logical flaws in the shitlord’s argument will be immediately apparent - and, if it’s particularly weak, it may even be punished with virality.

This latter point is essential for understanding why the left can’t meme. Statist arguments fundamentally lack any substantial logical basis, which precludes them from forming a concise argument. (Pete Raymond and I go into more detail on this point in episodes 33 and 37 of The Agora.)

Make no mistake; Our enemy, the state, is well aware of the connection between logic and memetics. USMC Major Michael Prosser wrote in this thesis, “Some argue memes operate by the strength of their meaning and their fitness is analogous to Darwinian theory, hence only the strongest and fittest memes survive.” It’s in this way that technology ensures only the best arguments win the day.

Since there is no logical basis for their existence, the state must resort to underhanded tactics in order to try and gain the upper hand in the Meme War. Usually this means the use of bots or bot armies to boost or amplify favorable opinions as well as the use of sock puppet accounts. And as we all know, when the state’s underhanded tactics inevitably fail, coercion begins.

Singer & Brooking note that between 2012-2017 fifty countries passed laws restricting free speech online. The Great Firewall of China infamously ensures that no information the CCP disapproves of can get in or out of the country. Closer to home, Twitter & Blogger, who both began as free speech hubs, started accepting censorship requests from the state in 2012. Three years later, the parasites in  Congress passed laws requiring social media companies to disclose any information related to “terrorist activity.” The authors note that the defintion of “terrorist activity” was left intentionally vague so that the federal government may expand their power at a future date.

None of these developments should be taken to suggest the state is gaining the upper hand in the Meme War. Their efforts are frankly pathetic. Recall that US intelligence analysts were decisively defeated by ISIS in their brief online spat circa 2016. As these two idiots virtually “fought” over ideological territory, Ancapistani shitlords were sharpening their metaphoric knives. We will continue to produce & share hard-hitting logically concise content that draws it's power from virality for the express purpose of undermining the state.

The internet is our battlefied. In the Meme War we are Rome.


Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects. 

First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP, where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics. 

Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas. 

Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity.A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity. Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem. BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics and thus, isn't elabor…

Global Warming & Economics

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools.

Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary.

Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds th…

Don't Vote for Alex

It is 2019 and in Norway, that means county and city-election year. You can vote for me, but this article is all about why you really shouldn't. [1] There are several ways to say 'No'. This is a story about the time I said 'Yes', what I will stay positive to and what I will be negative toward. 

"But it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve us one oppression" - Samuel Edward Konkin III

First of all, there is some explaining to do: In my last article on the New Libertarian I argued that party politics is a waste of time and that you could use that time more productive so this entire piece seems like its contradicting that one. It might, that is up to you to judge for yourself (and if you want a chat I'm very approachable on Twitter), but in my defense, I will highlight two things:

One: I'm not against solution-finding, culture-building or exchange of ideas. I can give no brighter example of this happening than the…