 My talk is a bit wide-ranging, and if I have to take a call, don't worry, I'm just kidding. I am tasked with talking you about how the regime seeks to control our schools, our families, and even our speech by denouncing everything it dislikes as hate. But first, I want to talk about just what is the regime? What do we mean by that? And although I'm the last speaker today, I'd like to define what I mean by regime. Just is what is this regime and what does it consist of? The regime, of course, includes the government. The government, as I show, is exerting its power to control expression and information, pedal official narratives, as we've just heard, dictate to schools and control and alter the substance of families themselves. Not only are they dissatisfied with controlling what goes on inside of the family, they want to change the constitution of it in terms of gender. It seeks to define and delimit our rights by suggesting that they have been accorded to us by the government in the first place. For example, when asked by a reporter whether she was upholding her oath to the constitution upon issuing a health order suspending the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and the surrounding county, Michelle Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, stated that no constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is absolute. And she went on when a federal judge struck down part of her executive order, she issued another one banning the use of guns in parks and playgrounds. This is merely a trifling example of the most glaring cases of the kind of despotism that the state has attempted to irrigate to itself. I'll talk more about others later. By the way, I wanted to note that I'll be dropping a white peel at the end of this talk, so this will be an end to the bad news. But the regime, let's be serious, includes more than the government itself. And it also consists of state apparatuses that are not strictly part of the government per se, including corporate entities that have been drawn into the state's ambit as state enablers and that effectively carry out state functions. I've called these corporate state apparatuses by the term governmentalities. Governmentalities are especially conspicuous today in the cases of big tech and big pharma. The former served to censor, disseminate propaganda, and control information, Google, for example, while the latter is granted an exemption from liability and legal monopoly over medicines and vaccines in exchange for the extension and intensification of state coercion. So examples of big tech censorship and propaganda in collusion with the government are legion. And I've also written about how Google actually controls information to the point of disappearing people and news and so forth. So I have to beg a little bit the different with Karen. It's very hard to get information thanks to these Goliaths who were funded by Incutel in the first place, the CIA's funding agency. But we have seen big tech propaganda in collusion with the government of late. Of course, the Twitter files and Missouri versus Biden provide the most recent illustrations. As I wrote in Google archipelago, big tech is an array of digital technologies that are adopted and used by the state to enhance state power. My argument has since been validated by these two issues, the Twitter files and the Missouri versus Biden. And we saw with the Twitter files, in that case, there's a direct pipeline between several government agencies, the DHS, the FBI, the NSA, CDC, et cetera, and the White House, and social media companies to control information, suppress COVID conspiracy theories, and curate the political sphere by suppressing news and information about the political criminality of the Biden family. This collusion was corroborated, of course, by Missouri versus Biden and interestingly, Representative Stacey Plaskett went so far as to threaten Matt Tehibi, the journalist, with jail time for his testimony before a congressional committee regarding the Twitter files at the same time as the IRS ransacked Tehibi's home in New Jersey while he was giving testimony. Such is the ruthless and devious character of this regime. Of course, the mainstream media is also a governmentality. Along with social media, the mainstream media disseminates official narratives and propaganda and berries or discredits conflicting information. The media is the priesthood of the administrative regime because it defines and enforces the public orthodoxy with which the state identifies itself. I thought we've heard recently where Tucker Carlson said, listen, I know a lot of reporters are basically being told what to say by the CIA. Social media is also central to this priesthood which explains why Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter rebranded as X apparently poses a threat and why Musk, no matter what else we might say about him, has been dogged by the regime ever since buying Twitter. And naturally, organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center are also governmentalities, as Musk has learned. Of course, as we've heard, the military industrial complex, including the military contractors, is a governmentality and the so-called proxy war in Ukraine is the latest example of the state and its governmentalities in action. The military industrial complex extracts wealth from the productive class to expand the state's reach, but also to intimidate, suppress, and surveil the domestic population. Now this regime also includes state actors who, although not necessarily employees of the government or corporations per se, serve as its foot soldiers. These include the standard issue academics who disseminate statist ideology. Academia is one of the main ideological state apparatuses to quote the Marxist Louis Althusser. Academics function to rationalize state power, to making it appear natural and inevitable, writes Marie Rothbard, promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the intellectuals. The minions of this class furnish the state with its intellectual bodyguards to quote Hans Hermann Hoppe. These are state agents, whom, like Noam Chomsky, posture as radicals. Unsurprisingly, many of these radical academics are socialist. Why? The state encourages the proliferation of socialism because the state, because socialism is statist. So academics undertake ideological enforcement on the ground. For example, a Wayne State University English professor won Steven Chiviro, otherwise a nobody, made a rather strange Facebook post stating that it would be better to kill bigots rather than to shout them down. The professor who has taught courses in film wrote, so here's what I think about free speech on campus. Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist homophobic or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down. He did not lose his job. In other words, according to Chiviro, some speech merits their speaker's a death sentence. That is, killing a human being is deemed morally preferable to allowing speech that one does not condone. We should not imagine that Chiviro's view represents an exception, however. It is now common among the establishment. For example, Arizona governor Katie Hobbs, press secretary, recently resigned after advocating shooting transphobes in a tweet on the heels of the transgender shooting killing six people here in Nashville. Chiviro implied that a speaker's audience is qualified and authorized to determine whether a speaker is racist, homophobic, or transphobic, and thus deserve the death penalty. It must be noted that such viewpoints as Chiviro's follow directly from a long lineage of status-leftist theory, so-called. Namely, Herbert Marcusa's 1965 essay, Repressive Tolerance. It has become the blueprint for the leftists who now rule the state. In Repressive Tolerance, Marcusa argued for the intolerance that status and leftists currently demonstrate against expression of which they disapprove. That is all expression other than their own. Marcusa argued that tolerance for expression was originally born in opposition to existing powers, but this was well before leftists gained full power. Real tolerance should not be impartial, says Marcusa. It should favor only the then oppositional, i.e. leftist, expression. Tolerance, as it was practiced according to Marcusa, was of two kinds, one the passive toleration of established attitudes and two the act of official tolerance granted to the right as well as to the left, two movements of aggression as well as two movements of peace to the party of hate as opposed to that of humanity. I call this non-partisan tolerance abstract or pure in as much as it refrains from taking sides, but in doing so it actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination, he said. Now, let's just take apart this passage. That is, expression from the right supports aggression, hate, and the machinery of discrimination, while that of the left supports peace and humanity. This claim should surely strike us as ironic in 2023, just as it should have struck readers as ironic in 1965, but Marcusa saw pure or abstract tolerance as ridiculous. It would follow then that Marcusa would think that only leftist speech should be tolerated, and that is exactly what he argued. How did he justify this? Citing John Stuart Mill, the beginning of the slide into the sloth, Marcus argued that tolerance was only ever supposed to be a means for promoting freedom and truth, thus improving the lot of mankind. And what kind of politics did Marcus see as improving the lot of mankind? Well, leftist politics, of course. And how could Marcusa make this claim after the horrific repression and slaughter in the Soviet Union had already come to light? Is reasoning necessitated exempting the left from the political crimes of leftism and power, of course. Instead, Marcusa focused his criticism on the West, and in particular the U.S. After all, it was the social order of the United States that Marcusa and his fellow travelers were intent on subverting. Why else, when they escaped Nazi Germany, would the Frankfurt School theorists have emigrated to the United States rather than to the obvious place, the Soviet Union. That is, unless they sought to enjoy the relative freedom and wealth of the U.S., well, mercilessly working to tear it to shreds. So, Marcusa argues that real tolerance must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness, this consciousness that supports the repressive status quo. In other words, to have a liberating tolerance, as he called it, rather than a repressive tolerance, repression of the right is essential. And then Marcusa openly admitted to be sure this is censorship, even pre-censorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. And who should be the arbiters of this expression? Well, people like Marcusa or Shaviro, of course. There you have it. Suppression and censorship of the right are not only allowable, but absolutely necessary because the expression and deeds of the right cannot be tolerated if we are to have real tolerance. If that accounts for the regime's belief that it has the right, nay, the very obligation to shut down expression and action deemed regressive or of the right, the following accounts for its justification for using violence to do so. But I believe there is a natural right of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extra-legal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate. So there's your justification for violating the non-aggression principle in response to speech. Enter Stephen Shaviro and his ilk. They now hold near total power in the United States. But did it ever occur to such leftist as Marcusa that repression comes from the state and its governmentalities and thus vesting power in the left was a formula for totalitarianism? I suggest that it did and that's exactly what Marcusa wanted. Leftism is endemically totalitarian. And now I'm going to shift to talk about the political orientation of the regime and I'm going to speak about globalism. And I want to just clarify what globalism is as I see it. Globalism is the simultaneous expansion of power and the state and the state's power at the same time as the erosion of the home front of the nation itself of its sovereignty and so forth. This is a particular and very perplexing phenomenon and why many people are just baffled by what the hell is going on, right? So the top-down orientation of the current regime is globalism and it makes no practical difference whether the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, or any other globalist organization are behind this program, although they are. It has been fully embraced by the state and its corporate governmentalities. Globalism does have as its aim the de facto, if not legal, dissolution of the sovereignty of the nation. It aims at eradicating borders, nullifying the Constitution and abrogating the rights of its citizens. It means to control the consumption, reduce the living standards of its subjects while also reducing their population, I'm afraid. Globalism involves technocracy with an expert class wielding technological tools for surveillance, behavioral modification, and repression. Now the globalist state seizes on various crises to accomplish these objectives, including pandemics, climate change, and war. At home and abroad, it thrives on anarcho-tyranny, cultural and political disorientation, the devaluing of the currency, and of economic sanctions as well. It uses also something called stakeholder capitalism and its environmental, social, and governance index as weapons. Now ESG is an extra or paragovernmental instrument of coercion that is increasingly backed by the government. What is wrong with it? It infringes on property rights, it distorts markets, it coerces producers into accepting its precepts, it thereby establishes a woke cartel of approved producers while eliminating the non-compliant from the market and even civil life, all the while eroding the industrial, energy, and agricultural bases of the Western world. Now you've heard of this term and I'm trying to try to explain what the hell is going on with this, and this is wokeness. The quasi-official dogma of the status globalist regime is a leftist totalitarian ideology called wokeness. Wokeness functions to censor speech, suppress dissidents, and pit supposedly beleaguered identity groups against the majority. It denies property rights by forcing organizations to hire and promote people on the basis of identity and by treating ownership as a privilege that can be revoked. It aims at banning the freedom of association and eviscerating the remnants of the natural social order. Wokeness and anti-white racism are central to the administrative globalist state and its weaponized justice department and surveillance agencies who use them to attack the middle class majority whom they see as their primary adversaries as those most inimical to their rule. They therefore by the allegiance of special identity groups and weaponize them against the regime's alleged foes. This explains the Biden administration's insistence that white nationalism represents the number one domestic threat to the nation when white nationalists comprise a miniscule fraction of the population. And meanwhile corporate capitalists, why do they embrace wokeness? Well, they carry the favor with the government and embrace the state religion because they understand who is wielding power and who can strip them of their wealth. They also recognize the power of the woke cartel as I call it which combines companies and some activists who threaten to cancel them if they fail to co-cowtow to woke demands by sufficiently censoring speech by adhering to official narratives or meeting ESG criteria including the promotion of transgender ideology. Thus cloaked under a thin scrim of anti-racist progressive and environmentalist rhetoric, wokeness is a status and centralized, but it also emanates from these extra governmental organizations and corporations, these governmentalities. It is which they impose extra governmental sanctions both on businesses and individuals over and above those decreed by the state. Globalism represents a further growth phase of this woke corporate state hegemon. Woken periodism which you're seeing in full play in connection with Russia solves to work to dissolve any national or local community and to intensify the globalist states control and extension over more and more of the world. Now I want to start throwing down some hope. Now this is a very nation but nevertheless very striking sign of possibilities. There's an emergent political force albeit still nascent taking shape. This movement is opposed to globalism actually. It may be called localism. This movement seeks to resist the desiderata of the federal state globalists and to nullify their encroachments on self-determination. It envisions and builds parallel structures under local control. It localizes the control of the police, the sheriff, the school system, property protection, self-defense, the economy, and even privatized competitive banking with private currencies. Bitcoin is of course a key financial tool in its arsenal. Localizing and decentralizing these functions and functionaries means to resist the impositions of the federal government including the federal reserve and its statist globalist aspirations. Localist and decentralized movements are already underway in various states and localities including in Idaho, Washington state, New Hampshire and elsewhere. In the U.S. we have a legal basis for localism in the 10th amendment of the Constitution which states that quote the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it and quote to the people of the several states retain the authority to exercise any power that is not delegated to the federal government as long as the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit it end quote. I think this principle can be taken to the local and individual level. So localism's watchword is decentralization. Unlike globalism this movement is straightforward and honest about its objectives. Globalism on the other hand acts through deception. After all it doesn't go around announcing itself that here we come we're globalism. It has to be detected through its effects. For reasons that I'll discuss shortly localism is the only means I believe of circumventing this centralized government in the hands of the federal global state. It is the only antidote to global tyranny. Now admittedly of these two orientations centralized globalism is obviously more powerful emanating as it does from the government and extra governmental ruling class. Speaking of the ruling class contrary to conscious and unconscious Marxists the ruling class is the state and its beneficiaries not the capitalist class. The state is the only entity that extorts wealth from the productive class through coercion and without an agreement. The state is the real conductor and beneficiary of any exploitation and the ambition of the ruling status is to globalize leaving no escape from their clutches. Somebody once told me wouldn't one government be better because then we would be able to take it over one government would one government of all the world be better than like a thousand Lichtenstein's or something like that. No obviously it gives you nowhere to go and no escape that's the definition of global totalitarianism. So of course under globalism the regime does not operate strictly to serve natural national interests as I've said or to put it another way the national interests as defined by the regime no longer involve the wheel of the nation if they ever did. Instead the ruling class is interested in dissolving this nation into a global hegemon. This global power may be run from the United States but the ruling class is not interested in maintaining the integrity of the nation per se. Instead it aims at making the nation part of a global order with the citizens of the United States having no particular claim to exclusive citizenship or the rights and privileges that it entails. This accounts for the unfettered immigration that the state encourages with open borders and social welfare much like its corporate partners the regime has become globalist it is a great reset state and the nation is now an impediment to its monopolization of power. Now while the regime has so much power of coercion at its disposal localism's power lies in the capacity of the productive class to resist by refusing to participate by withdrawing its consent and precluding its own exploitation although status globalists have vastly more resources at their disposal their power that is the localists nevertheless depends on the I'm sorry their power that is the globalist depends on the consent and participation of the exploited. The main resource of localists is an inexhaustible reserve of independence but to succeed more and more of the exploited and this is our job need to develop a new class consciousness that is one that understands the state which includes its governmentalities as their real exploiter and oppressor. Likewise of course academia has been commandeered as a bulwark against this possibility likewise as Rothbard argued a cadre of libertarian intellectuals must counter the academic intellectual class and quote libertarian education of the public must include an expose of this exploitation and of the economic interests and intellectual apologists who benefit from state rule. This I believe is one of the primary functions of the Mises Institute as I see it. Now let's talk a little bit about a bottom-up revolution if we will and here I'm largely going to be citing Hans Hermann Hoppe. As Hans Hermann Hoppe argues under a democratic system top-down reform of the state is virtually impossible. The holders of power over public goods have no compulsion to abdicate their positions as exploiters especially given the democratic participation of the exploited and unlike kings leaders in democratic states wield an expanding property base that is not their own. Likewise they have a shorter time preference than kings which means that they use state resources more and more profusely. Before democracy writes Hoppe it would have been necessary only to force a king to declare that from now on every citizen would be free to choose his own protector and pledge allegiance to any government that he wanted upon the arrival of democracy the terms have changed. He says that under democratic rule the abolition of a government monopoly of justice and protection requires that either a majority of the public and of their elected representatives would have to declare the government's protection monopoly and accordingly all compulsory taxes abolished or even more restrictive that literally no one would vote and the voter turnout would be zero. Only in this case could the democratic protection monopoly be said to be effectively abolished but this would essentially mean that it was impossible to ever rid ourselves of an economic and moral perversion because nowadays it is given it is a given that everyone including the mob participates in politics and it is inconceivable that the mob should ever in its a majority or even in its entirety renounce or abstain from exercising its right to vote which is nothing else than exercising the opportunity to loot the property of others very he has a very good view of democracy right this leaves um decentralized revolution as the only option the premise is that while people cannot control what the status globalist regime puppeteers attempt to impose on them then likely they are unable they will be unable to convince the majority to abstain from paying taxes or voting they can nevertheless cut the puppet strings from themselves this is also the premise of the grand refusal the nine-point plan to stop the great reset as detailed in my book on sale the great reset in the struggle for liberty this means establishing and extending freedom zones where the dictates of the global regime can be resisted now i just want to make a note that unlike globalism now uh localism is anti-totalitarian because it's not going to dictate to all the various localities what they do and instead it will allow the various regions to act as they will with response to these global state dictates whether they accept them or reject them is entirely their prerogative within of course moral certain moral constraints we don't uh believe that they they would uh or should be advocating things that are expressly uh opposed to non-aggression principle but instead of some sort of overarching totalitarian imposition it is down to the localities as opposed to the central government to put its own uh its own policies and practices in play as far down the scale as possible and now of course you're already thinking these the obstacles of the this is or are manifold there but i would argue they're not insurmountable in fact it has a better chance of success than any attempt to permanently rest the reins of the federal government from the grips of the totalitarians who control it it does not rely on a majoritarian system that is likely rigged against them or in the totalitarians favor and it does not depend on convincing the majority of their own servitude instead it depends on the self-determination of properly class-conscious individuals and communities and their capacity to withdraw and flourish independently the only possibility for resisting and refusing the regime is from the ground up it must begin with dissociation from the federal global state under a spirit of volunteerism only after filtering interests into autonomous or semi-autonomous freedom zones that protect property and individual rights can the project of the nation be reinvigorated then and only then might we build a republic on a firm foundation only from a position of local freedom can the national project be reconfigured now i would argue also that localism is a distinctly american project it is a movement for independence from tyranny and it draws from the same spirit that inspired their first american revolution thank you i'll take some questions well i mean localism can be populist if it wishes so it's not necessarily a contrast thing if particular localities or different regions could be very populist in their orientation not that it would matter that much because they're not going to be worried about national elections and things like that for example if you go to court of lane idaho you don't hear a lot of talk about national politics and they don't care what they're trying to do is build a autonomous place that resists these impositions and that rest power from the federal government and invest it in themselves yes can you hear me one problem with localism that i've run into because i'm trying to be a local activist is that there are a lot of federal handouts a lot of federal grants and can you address some of the ways we can convince local officials not to be tied to these bloody strings of power because i mean you just have to know that every handout is actually a rope to hang yourself with that they just have to be made it has to be made clear look everything you accept from the state like this the federal government comes with a price and that price is your freedom it's that simple i mean you just have to make that clear now some you know this is not easy this is a pioneering thing right this is going to be difficult it's i'm not giving you and this is a white pill but it's not a silver bullet okay there's a difference so it takes work it takes it takes struggle and it will not be easy but it has to be done i was i was wondering if as far as political strategy and localism goes what you think the path forward for the sympathetic parties the libertarian party and the republican party at a local level how should they go about achieving i was thinking about that this morning i was thinking something like this amish people only with guns frankly uh i won't say anything else like about the widening of the gene pool but you know amish people with guns basically directly to that point the amish people with guns do you feel at all like you're abandoning uh society abandoning urban life sort of you're seeding that ground right like you know you believe in libertarianism we all believe in libertarianism um do we win by shrinking and shrinking and sort of just running away from everyone and letting them just just control everything except we're in our little corner that's a great question i mean it's a fair question it's an obvious thing that we should think about is doing this running away i would say i would quibble with the characterization i don't think it's running away to struggle to build an independence structure that's parallel to and that will have an impact on the state if it's successful that will that will weaken the foundation of the federal global global glob uh that it is you know so i if this became something that would catch on that more and more people would do then all of a sudden you start to see the implosion of the federal government and that's what we need to see we're not gonna blow it up it's not gonna happen it's not gonna work we have it has to implode pardon yes market forces by withdrawing consent and preempting our own exploitation by taxes okay on the one hand you're like appealing to the hacker and me on the other hand i have to be measured here and i don't want to i i would say though no i don't believe in sort of like what we might call cyber terrorism or something like that uh only because it'll backfire and the repression will increase even lenin said that by the way uh he didn't believe in the anarchist approach to taking down capitalism because it would uh you couldn't win by gunpowder if it were a matter of gunpower then you know it would already be over by virtue of who owns the most but it's not that it's about it's about people power so i don't think that we want to do like that kind of thing now of course the non-aggression principle says when i am attacked and when i am uh when i'm violated then i have a right of retaliation hey dr rackenwald um have you heard of free cities foundation yes they're the cities called prospera and honduras um do you think that's a pretty good strategy do you think they're flaws in doing that sort of thing or what do you think of that we have to be very careful with some of these projects because actually some of them are being found funded by the world economic forum so i would have to look into just what's behind it there's all these projects and they're saying you know we'll be in sustainable and they don't say 15 minute cities but the 15 minute cities is a project from the globalist world economic forum that we don't want to any part of because that's in the imposition of these so-called uh sustainability criteria on the population so uh i don't know i'd have to look into that specific ones uh to make sure i don't want to make and speak out of school uh thanks for your talk dr rackenwald i i was wondering about another vector of attack other than localism or uh cyber terrorism um which is the tort system um you know you were talking about corporate wokeness and something that you didn't touch on is the extent to which corporate wokeness is an artifact of the civil rights law and particularly things like punitive damages for equal employment uh opportunity suits so that seems to be changing like there's maybe another little white pill in recent developments at the supreme court and at lower levels yeah um so what do you think about the idea of you know shareholder suits uh for esg stuff and then yeah you know anti-white racism suits maybe the kind of stuff steven miller's doing that kind of absolutely yeah this is not like this is not like an either or thing where this is to the exclusion of everything else i i even outlined in my book uh to you know that for example esg is a monopoly scheme right so it needs to be fought uh directly in that sense and so using the courts to fight uh sort of to sue now not to not to have the the doj suing right but for individuals and companies to sue uh various companies and organizations and the state itself for its practice policies and practices indeed so this is not to the exclusion of everything and i don't say abandon the the the you know abandon the project of fighting against centralization and all of its various manifestations but doing it from this foundation uh of this local movement localism movement here's the last question okay i i also think localism is probably the best way forward as well uh my fear is that if there isn't enough momentum uh they will isolate and you know come up with some sort of they'll kill us yeah reason they'll pull away go they'll pull away go right yeah how do we fight against that yeah i mean i think you know we have to be strategic and how strategic and tactical on how we form the communities they have to be large enough and conspicuous enough to not be like a house like in Idaho where they can go and kill the mother while she's holding a baby and nobody i mean people know about it and it's horrible uh we're like we go and we got we can't do it such that we're isolated to that point so it has to be tactically and strategically thought out and done from a very uh we need to make sure we're building enough of a community before declaring ourselves you know what we are does that make sense is it adequate i yeah so thank you very much