Albert Einstein & The Folly Of Marxist Sympathies Authored by Kgatlhiso Darius Leshaba via The Mises Institute, In the year 1949, the first issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review was released. Within the collection of essays, one stood out in particular. Notably, its author was none other than Albert Einstein. Somewhat misleadingly titled “Why Socialism?” the essay reads more like a critique of capitalism than a justification of socialism. In it, the brilliant physicist lays out his reasons for rejecting private property and briefly sketches out his vision for a moral and just society. Now, 75 years after the first appearance of the essay, I believe a critical analysis is in order. Einstein begins his essay by justifying his (and other non-economists) right to chime in on the debate about socialism. While I agree with the broad sentiment, the specific points strike me as worryingly naive. The first is that, due to the fact that since the history of most states is one of violence and coercion, conventional economic theory, as a product of the past “predatory phase” of human development, is ill-equipped to “throw…light on the socialist society of the future.” This seems to imply that not only should non-economists’ opinions be considered just as valid as professional economists, but that the opinions of economists are tainted by the context of their formation, and thus not adequate to comment on the nature of the future socialist paradise. At some point or another, socialists must come to realize that the nature of their envisioned society must be investigated if they are going to avoid repeating the catastrophes of the 20th-century experiments. An analysis of the incentives of such a system is crucial for evaluating if such a system would indeed serve as an improvement to the current state of affairs. The only field of study with the tools for this is economics, in all its depth and breadth. The second point made is one I wholly agree with, that economics as a science cannot choose ends, but can only inform the means for the attainment of desired ends. Thus, the question of what ends should be chosen lies outside the field of economic analysis, but the analysis of the means chosen for the attainment of desired ends is fair game. Einstein then goes on to lay out a brief theory of the relationship between the individual and her society. The main point in what he terms the “crisis of our time” is that the willful dissociation of individuals from their group identities leads to a nihilistic isolation for which capitalist societies are to be blamed. Einstein seems to fail in recognizing society as an abstract concept representing numerous individuals and their various interactions, direct and indirect, across time. Einstein then goes on to state that the modern individual depends wholly on “society,” however, this isn’t the entire picture. Since society is an abstract sum of individuals, it’s better to (at least partially) disaggregate the concept of society and understand that an individual’s interaction with society is ultimately just an interaction between individuals. One is not in a parasitic relationship with the society they belong to, the relationship is mutualistic. Man does not simply receive “food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language,” man must also provide something of value to society. It may, therefore, be true that the dependence of the individual on other people’s efforts is a fact of nature, but the opposite—that the relative success of other people’s efforts relies on the efforts of the individual—is true as well. Einstein fails to realize that the pushback against the desires of the group often arises from coercive attempts to enforce those desires, rather than from a rejection of interdependence altogether. Einstein even makes the claim that the way people find meaning is by serving the desires of the group. There is an important qualification that is missing here—that if they do decide to serve the desires of the group, it must be voluntary and not coerced. Here is where we begin to run into Einstein’s “Marxist” critiques of capitalism. We start off with the Marxist exploitation theory, built on the back of the labor theory of value. Einstein says, “…what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces…” The first problem we run into is the concept of value. It has been firmly established that economic value isn’t intrinsic, that, “The measure of value is entirely subjective in nature.” Value is not transferred somehow from labor to product. In fact, the direction of the imputation of value is exactly the other way around. The economic value of labor is determined by the value of the final product it aids in producing. Therefore, I agree with Einstein, worker pay isn’t determined by the “real value” of what they produce but only because it cannot be determined by something that doesn’t exist. Einstein also seems to believe in the outdated subsistence theory of wages which had long since been disproven by the time Einstein’s essay was published.  Einstein then goes on to cite wealth inequality and the resulting distortion of the political landscape by private special interests. He is correct in that the market economy does not make people equal as there is no reason to expect it to do so. People are different, masters of different skills and trades (trades that are valued differently by consumers), leaving little reason to expect remuneration for their various services to be remotely equal. Rent-seeking doesn’t stop, however, just because resources are centrally controlled. Inequality isn’t unique to capitalism.Einstein voices displeasure with the fact that most sources of information (media, education, etc.) are privately owned and sees this a limiting factor in individuals’ ability to make objective decisions and their ability to make effective use of their political rights. One would think that, having had to flee from a state which had taken total control of the media, Einstein would know that the criticisms he levies against private ownership of media and education are more effective against these institutions being centrally controlled. Absent a monopoly, private ownership of the media and schools allows for a pluralistic society, where people are more likely to encounter competing viewpoints, and thus does better in the quest for mitigating misinformation. This makes coming to objective conclusions more likely than if there was a single, centrally-owned and -controlled source of information. Einstein then goes on to criticize the profit motive. “Production is carried on for profit, not for use” he says, not understanding the emptiness of his statement. Entrepreneurs produce goods that they believe consumers will find useful in satisfying their desires. If consumers judge the goods produced as useful, they patronize the business and the entrepreneur enjoys a profit. Thus, profit represents the entrepreneur’s success in providing goods and services that consumers find useful and valuable. Saying “production is carried on for profit” is just another way of saying production is carried on for the use of the consumers. I prefer not to comment on the faults of the Marxist theory of business cycles and simply let the record of history prove that there isn’t much of a relationship between the passage of time and the severity of depressions. Einstein ends by saying that the only way he sees for eliminating these “evils” is through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an education system that is oriented towards “social goals.” With little discussion of the mechanisms of such a system, one gets the idea that Einstein hasn’t thought this matter through much. The ownership of the factors of production by “society” and their utilization in a “planned fashion” isn’t even demonstrated to be plausible. We are to take him by his word that such a system would improve our standard of living without any critical analysis. Einstein relegates the possibility of repression at the hands of the state to the final few sentences of his essay, ending with sentiments which echo the claim that state ownership of the means of production is not “real socialism.” Although he raises some pertinent questions, he provides no answers. It is telling that many of these same arguments raised by Einstein are raised by disgruntled Zoomers with socialist sympathies. It would almost seem as though, as brilliant a thinker as Albert Einstein was, he was unfamiliar with economic theory and evidence that ran counter to the Marxist narrative, much like modern-day naive college socialists. Even where we agree, such as the hand inequality plays in distorting politics, he fails to show that it’s uniquely under capitalism that power dynamics can be skewed. This is because none of the criticisms levied can be laid down at the feet of capitalism, merely removing the market economy will not solve the great “evils” but only change the way these evils manifest themselves in society. Tyler Durden Thu, 10/17/2024 – 17:45

We’re Told This Is Progress, But It’s Actually Anti-Progress Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, We need a new definition of Progress, and a reset of the mythology guiding our descent into “Anti-Progress”. There’s a curious disconnect between our glorification of Technological Progress and our real-world experience. If we step outside the tent of relentless propaganda touting science-fiction fantasies come to life–permanent bases on the Moon, limitless energy from fusion, etc.–we find that rather than everyday life getting better–the core meaning of Progress–we find that everyday life is getting harder. I call this Anti-Progress–the opposite of Progress. Buried beneath the thrills of science-fiction fantasies come to life, real life is characterized by the accelerating descent into Anti-Progress. Consider a raw carrot. In the current system of Progress, the most important feature of a raw carrot is its low profitability. There is little that promotion, branding or “innovation” can do to persuade consumers to pay more for a raw carrot. The most important feature of a raw carrot to the human body is that it is a natural food packed with nutrients and fiber. It is easy to store and transport and can be eaten raw or cooked. It can be eaten alone or mixed into stews, soups, salads and casseroles. A raw carrot is a healthy snack. None of this overcomes its terrible, unfixable flaw: it doesn’t lend itself to Progress, i.e. boosting profits. The Progress solution to this inherent flaw is to process the carrot into a product that can be marketed as an advance (i.e. Progress) in convenience, novelty, status and engagement (i.e. dopamine rush / addiction), attributes the consumer will pay more for. A few shreds of the carrot are cooked into mush and added to a concoction of potato starch, sugar and low-quality fat that is dyed with artificial colors to match a carrot’s color and marketed as a “veggie snack” (“contains real carrots!”). The nutritional value of the product is nil and the health consequences of consuming what is basically a greasy sugary confection are negative. The list of chronic diseases incurred by a diet of such highly processed food is long. This engineered snack, deceptively marketed as “veggie” to deceive parents into assuming it is a “healthy snack,” is immensely profitable, and so the system cheers the soaring sales and profits. The engagement/addiction aspect of this product is especially pernicious, as it is specifically designed to hijack the human brain’s reward centers much like a powerful drug. Its mouthfeel and heavy doses of sugar, salt and fat activate our hard-wired predilection for what is scarce in the hunter-gatherer diet: salt, fats and sweets. Eating this snack generates an immediate reward: a pleasurable dopamine rush. Bet you can’t just have one. Not only is this confection devoid of nutrition, it’s designed to be addictive. As every drug dealer knows, there’s nothing more profitable than an addiction that generates reliable demand. This describes not just addictive drugs and processed foods; it describes the whole of consumerism, which carefully cultivates addiction as the defining dynamic not just of Progress but of every-day life. Should any consumers lodge a complaint about the deceptively advertised “veggie snack” with the agencies tasked with protecting public health, they will find the corporate lobbyists have neutered public influence by spending whatever sums of money are needed to buy the compliance of regulators, what’s known as regulatory capture. The product is declared safe and anyone complaining about the deceptive packaging is told that it’s up to consumers to choose what to buy or not buy: caveat emptor, buyer beware. This process of boosting profits by masking the negative consequences is not just rational in the system of Progress, it’s the only path: any CEO who chooses not to maximize profits and buy political influence is fired for incompetence. This reveals the pathological nature of organizing an economy and society around promoting a mythology that equates expanding consumption with Progress. Anyone who describes the system as it truly is must be marginalized with an accusation of violating the American taboo against negativity. Not finding a silver lining is an unforgiveable sin: just as you must cheer technological Progress, you must be relentlessly positive. An entire library of cheery slogans is at the ready to ensure the proper dose of positive spirit has been administered, no matter how insincerely. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. So when we move to the response to the diseases generated by a diet of addictive processed foods–the immensely profitable market for pharmaceuticals that alleviate the symptoms of the diseases caused by consuming processed foods–we find a happy marriage of profits reaped by generating lifestyle diseases and an equally profitable alleviation of symptoms. There are numerous subsidiary winners in this Anti-Progress profit bonanza: university research funded by corporate interests, lobbying firms handsomely paid to dig regulatory moats, politicians harvesting campaign contributions, think-tanks paid to distribute the apologists’ favorite cover-story, “the free market,” speculators scheming to cash in on a heavily hyped initial public offering (IPO), and so on. Once we tune in to the siren songs of Progress, we hear them everywhere. The smart phone is a wonder, for what could be better than having shopping, hyper-addictive games and social media at our fingertips, an addictive device that enables access to a wealth of other addictions? Just as the consequences of consuming the “veggie snack” are hidden, so are the consequences of glorifying addictive technologies as Progress. Healthy human life is constructed of relationships between individuals, families, communities, the natural world and the moral universe. Our economic system of Progress severs all these links as impediments to expanding consumption and profits via addiction, obsolescence, insecurity and narcissism. From the perspective of a healthy human life, these are the perfection of Anti-Progress. How can soaring rates of diabetes and prediabetes be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. How can soaring rates of disability be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. How can soaring rates of metabolic disorders be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. How can soaring costs of basic healthcare insurance be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. How can soaring rates of teen depression be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. How can increasing loneliness be Progress? Clearly, this is Anti-Progress. While returning to the Moon and AI apps are touted as “proof” of Progress, real-world life is most accurately described as snowballing Anti-Progress. We need a new definition of Progress, and a reset of the mythology guiding our descent into Anti-Progress. That’s the topic of my new book, The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century. *  *  * Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free Tyler Durden Thu, 10/17/2024 – 17:05

“The Case Is More Serious”: NYT Hid Extent Of Kamala Harris Plagiarism From Their Own Expert Earlier this week journalist Chris Rufo revealed that Kamala Harris plagiarized giant sections of her book on crime, after famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Dr. Stefan Weber found that “Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book.” In response, the New York Times bent over backwards (and forwards) to downplay their preferred candidate’s cut-n-pastery – first casting it as ‘conservative activist seizes on passages’ from Harris’ book, then totally lying about Rufo’s reporting – which Rufo quickly debunked. As part of their propaganda, the Times wheeled out plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey, who said “his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo’s claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document.” Except, the Times concealed the extent of the claims from Bailey – who writes in his Plagiarism Today blog: “At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my “initial reaction” to those allegations, not a complete analysis. ABC does fake fact-checks to help Kamala. CBS stealth-edits an interview to help Kamala. New York Times withholds evidence to help Kamala. This is endemic—and only visible now because we have X. — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 17, 2024 From Bailey’s blog: Today, I reviewed the complete dossier prepared by Dr. Stefan Weber, whom I have covered before. I also performed a peer review of one of his papers in 2018. With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times, the overarching points remain. While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud. Bailey still refers to the plagiarism as nothing more than “sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud.” Much like it’s not “malicious intent to defraud” when a college student copies Wikipedia word-for-word, then gets expelled? What’s more, Rufo implored the Times to look at the entire claim – which they refused to do. When the Times published its piece, I called the reporter and the editor to protest that they withheld evidence from their supposed “expert.” The editor, Mary Suh, gave me the excuse that it wasn’t their job to review the whole report. I hung up on her. pic.twitter.com/D7sQDpJS6P — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 17, 2024 Here is the full 47-page dossier, prepared by famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Stefan Weber. Anyone can read it and come to the conclusion that Kamala Harris plagiarized her book, Smart on Crime. https://t.co/7KvwbzqTOS — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 15, 2024 Meanwhile, the plagiarism is even worse than reported! SHE KEEPS GOING: This is a ninth instance of significant plagiarism by Kamala Harris. Although she cited the source, she copied long passages of language verbatim, without paraphrasing or putting it in quotations. It’s textbook “verbatim plagiarism”—and not an isolated incident. pic.twitter.com/5uwWwRDxkt — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 15, 2024 Tyler Durden Thu, 10/17/2024 – 16:45

Netflix Stock Jumps After Beating Across The Board, Adding 5 Million New Subs Lots of eyes into NFLX earnings tonight, not only because it is the first “tech” company reporting, but because its stock has underperformed as of late post a big run YTD. According to Goldman, investors are looking for ~6mn subs in quarter, upside to FY FCF guide of ~6bn and then a revenue guide for 4Q that is inline-ish with the street (as a reminder, they don’t guide subs anymore). Goldman has NFLX at 8.5 on 1-10 positioning scale, which needless to say is quite long and the risk of disappointment is substantial. Overall, expectations are for a solid beat in quarter… … And that’s precisely what Netflix delivered: here is what the company reported moments ago. Revenue $9.82 billion, up 15% y/y, and beating estimates of $9.78 billion EPS $5.40 vs. $3.73 y/y, beating estimates of $5.12, and included a $91M loss from F/X , related to the company’s Euro denominated debt remeasurement. Operating margin 29.6% vs. 22.4% y/y, beating estimates of 27.8%; the operating margin of 30% improved seven percentage points vs. the year ago quarter. This was above the previous guidance forecast “due to slightly higher revenue and the timing of spending.” Operating income $2.91 billion, +52% y/y, beating estimates $2.72 billion Free cash flow $2.19 billion, +16% y/y, beating estimates $1.73 billion In short, Netflix eclipsed Wall Street’s expectations on every major financial metric despite a new programming slate constrained by last year’s strikes in Hollywood. While the company clearly outperformed at the top and bottom line, there were some glitches at the subscriber level. Yes, NFLX added a greater than expected 5.07 million subs, and above the 4.5 million estimate… … but this was thanks to EMEA and Asia-Pac; subs in US/Canada missed modestly while Latam subs actually declined, against expectations of a nearly 1 million increase. Streaming paid net change +5.07 million, down 42% y/y, but beating estimates of +4.52 million UCAN streaming paid net change +690,000, -61% y/y, missing estimates +696,658 EMEA streaming paid net change +2.17 million, -45% y/y, beating estimates +1.44 million LATAM streaming paid net change -70,000 vs. +1.18 million y/y, missing estimate +975,270 APAC streaming paid net change +2.28 million, +21% y/y, beating estimate +1.56 million Streaming paid memberships 282.72 million, +14% y/y, beating estimate 281.92 million Here are some more details: UCAN, where subscriber growth missed, saw a 16% year over year increase in revenue, driven by 10% and 5% growth in average paid memberships and ARM, respectively. Revenue in EMEA grew 16% year over year, consistent with the increase in average paid memberships. Looking at APAX, Netflix said that it had a strong local content slate in Japan, Korea, Thailand and India in Q3. As a result, revenue growth rate in APAC (+19% year over year) led all regions. LATAM revenue rose 9% year over year, with a surprise decline of 0.1M in net subscribers which was due to recent price changes and a softer content slate. However, the company noted that “membership growth has rebounded nicely early in Q4’24.” Q3’24 operating income increased 52% year over year to $2.9B, while operating margin of 30% improved seven percentage points vs. the year ago quarter. This was above our guidance forecast due to slightly higher revenue and the timing of spending. Looking ahead to Q4, the company expects to generate $10.13 billion in revenue (above the median consensus of $10.05 billion), which would translate into $2.190 billion operating income, or a 21.6% profit margin, vs the 21.2% expected, and expects $4.23 in EPS, which is also above the 3.90 exp. While NFLX no longer provides subscriber guidance, it sees 4Q paid net additions higher than 3Q due to normal seasonality and a strong content slate. It notes that 2024 programming has been “patchier than normal due to last year’s strikes.” The Company’s Q4 guidance implies that revenue will grow 15% year over year for the full year 2024, at the high end of the prior 14%-15% revenue growth expectation. Given the slightly higher revenue forecast, NFLX is now forecasting 2024 operating margin of 27% based on F/X rates as of 1/1/24 and on a reported basis, up from 26% previously. This would represent a six percentage point increase compared with the full year 2023. Looking even further out, for 2025, NFLX forecasts revenue of $43B-$44B, which would represent growth of 11%-13% off of the company’s 2024 revenue guidance of $38.9B, and is in line with consensus estimates of $43.4 billion: NFLX expects “revenue growth to be driven by a healthy increase in paid memberships and ARM. We’re targeting a 2025 operating margin of 28% (also based on F/X rates as of 9/30) vs. our forecast for 27% in 2024; after delivering outsized margin improvement in 2024, we want to balance near term margin growth with investing appropriately in our business. We still see plenty of room to increase our margins over the long term.” Consensus saw a 27.9% operating margin. While it is no longer a closely watched metric, NFLX net cash generated by operating activities in Q3 was $2.3B vs. $2.0B in the prior year period. Free cash flow (FCF) totaled $2.2B compared with $1.9B in last year’s Q3. For the full year, NFLX expects FCF of $6.0B-$6.5B, up from approximately $6B due to the higher operating income forecast. Finally, during Q3, NFLX repurchased 2.6M shares for $1.7B, and has $3.1B remaining under its existing authorization. The company also raised $1.8B in its first investment grade bond deal during Q3. As a result, total debt increased to $16B from $14B in Q2, but net debt decreased from $7.4B in Q2 to $6.8B at the end of Q3. Proceeds from the bond offering will be used to pay down $1.8B in bonds that mature over the next 12 months. While Netflix acknowledges its recently launched advertising business is progressing slowly, management said in the letter to shareholders that it has grand ambitions for the next couple of years. The company is building its own advertising technology and has struck several deals to sell its advertising-supported service alongside other streaming services. “We have much more work to do improving our offering for advertisers, which will be a priority over the next few years,” the company wrote. Netflix has also started to invested in live programming as one way to increase the amount of inventory it has to sell advertisers. As Bloomberg notes, it will offer a live boxing match next month, followed by two National Football League games on Christmas Day. Starting next year, Netflix will offer customers three hours of live wrestling every week. Though two Hollywood labor stoppages last year delayed Netflix’s slate of programming for much of this year, the company still scored big hits with The Perfect Couple, a new season of Emily in Paris and a series on the infamous murderers, the Menendez brothers, from producer Ryan Murphy, as well as the movies Rebel Ridge and The Union. The company said it has a particularly strong slate in the fourth quarter, including the return of Squid Game, its most-watched series ever. Shares of Netflix have more than quadrupled since May 2022, when a slowdown in the company’s growth led to a major sell-off and spooked investors about the entertainment business. Since then, the company has added more than 60 million customers thanks to a crackdown on password sharing and the introduction of a lower-priced subscription with advertising. That said, most analysts believe the boost from the password crackdown is temporary, and that Netflix will soon need to find another way to grow. The company has yet to see material financial returns from its investment in advertising or video games, and some on Wall Street now worry the stock is overvalued. Commenting on the results, Goldman analyst Eric Sheridan said that he expects the market :to have a muted to positive reaction to Netflix’s Q3 ‘24 earnings report.” His key takeaways are: Overall revenue slightly exceeded GS/Street estimates, operating margin handily outperformed, and net adds came in below Goldman’s forecasts (but with ad tier subscriber performance building in momentum). In terms of forward guidance, NFLX provided a Q4 operating forecast slightly to modestly ahead of current GS/Street estimates. In framing 2025 guidance, NFLX made a few key points in its shareholder letter: 1) an expectation of solid revenue and profit growth by improving its core series/film offering and investing in ads and gaming; 2) 2025 revs of $43-44bn (11-13% YoY growth based on f/x rates as of 9/30/24) driven by healthy increase in paid members and ARM;  3) targeting Operating Margin of 28% (vs. 27% for 2024) based on striking a balance between YoY operating margin expansion while maintaining key investments. With regard to price increases, Netflix highlighted recent price increases in a few countries in EMEA & Japan earlier this month and plans to increase prices in Spain & Italy starting tomorrow; however, there was no mention of a price increase in the US or any other markets nor was there any commentary around the forward methodology as it relates to timing and magnitude. NFLX mgmt did express confidence in the letter about the scaling of the ad tech platform and ad subscriber base into 2025 while also stating that ad growth was not expected to be a material contributor to revenue growth in 2025. Looking ahead to the earnings call, Sheridan expects the key topics to be any forward subscriber and monetization commentary, additional color on their advertising efforts, any commentary on the Q4 content slate (NFL games, Squid Game, etc.) & forward content budget trajectory. The market reaction was initially disappointed pushing the stock briefly lower, before eventually rebounding strongly and rising as much as 4% after hours, not too far from its all time high hit one week ago at $736, only to modestly fade back to little  changed on the day. Tyler Durden Thu, 10/17/2024 – 16:30

Globalism And Freedom Do Not Mix Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times, Speaking with a friend about the migrant crisis in the United States, she made an interesting observation. Many of the most prosperous Western nations in the world today are facing the same problem. They are flooded with migrants who are overwhelming the system, infuriating the citizenry, adding fiscal burdens, disrupting public order, and leading to possible political instability. Interesting question: Why after many multiple decades of only localized migrant issues, most having to do with border wars or other disruptions, have so many nations at once dealt with floods of people exploiting broken migration systems? In other words, how did a local problem become a global problem so quickly? How did all border systems break at once? And consider the problem before this one. We had a globalized response to the COVID crisis. In most nations of the world, the policy response was eerily similar. There was masking, distancing, closures, travel restrictions, and capacity limits, while big business was allowed to stay open. The same methods, which have no modern precedent, were attempted in all countries in the world except a few. The states that did not go along—Sweden, Tanzania, Nicaragua among others—face unrelenting attacks from world media. The problem of migration plus pandemic planning are only two data points but they both suggest an ominous reality. The nation states that have dominated the political landscape since the Renaissance, and even back in some cases to the ancient world, are giving way to a new form of government, which we can call globalism. It doesn’t refer to trade across borders, which has been the norm for all human history. It is about political control, away from citizens in countries toward something else that citizens cannot control or influence. From the time of the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, the idea of state sovereignty prevailed in politics. Not every nation needed the same policies. They would respect differences toward the goal of peace. This involved permitting religious diversity among nation states, a concession that led to an unfolding of freedom in other ways. The system worked but not everyone has been happy with it. Some of the most brilliant intellectuals for centuries have dreamed of global government as a solution to the diversity of policies of nation states. It’s the go-to idea for scientists and ethicists who are so convinced of the correctness of their ideas that they dream up some worldwide imposition of their favored solution. Humanity has by-and-large been wise enough not to attempt such a thing beyond military alliances and mechanisms to improve trade flows. But in the 21st century, we’ve seen the intensification of the power of globalist institutions. The World Health Organization (WHO) effectively scripted the pandemic response for the world. Globalist foundations and NGOs seem to be heavily involved in the migrant crisis. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, created as nascent institutions for a global system of money and finance, are exercising outsized influence on monetary and financial policy. The World Trade Organization is working to diminish the power of the nation state over trade policies. I happened to be in New York City a few weeks ago when the United Nations met. No question that it was the biggest show on planet Earth. Vast swaths of the city were shut down to cars and buses, with diplomats and heavy-hitting financiers arriving via helicopter on the roofs of luxury hotels, all of which were full for the week of meetings. The prices of everything were jacked up in response since no one was spending his own money in any case. The attendees were not only statesmen from all over the world but also the biggest financial firms and media outfits, along with representatives of the largest universities and nonprofits. All of these forces seem to be coalescing at once, as if they all want to be part of the future. And that future is one of global governance wherein the nation state is eventually reduced to pure cosmetics with no operational power. The impression I had while there was that the experience of everyone in town that day, all swarming around the big United Nations meeting, was one of deep separation of their world from the world of the rest of us. They are “bubble people.” Their friends, source of financing, social groupings, career aspirations, and major influence are detached not only from normal people but from the nation state itself. The fashionable attitude among them all is to regard the nation state and its history of meaning as passe, fictional, and rather embarrassing. Entrenched globalism of the sort that operates in the 21st century represents a shift against and repudiation of half a millennium of the way governance has worked in practice. All governance came to be organized around geographically restricted zones of control. The juridical boundaries restrained power. The king of France could govern France but required a war to influence England, and so too for Russia, Spain, Sweden, and so on. The expansion of the juridical boundaries required conquering or some form of colonialism but such arrangements are temporary because they are ultimately subject to the consent of the governed. The idea of consent gradually came to dominate political affairs from the 18th through the 19th century until after the Great War which dismantled the last of the multinational empires. That left us with one model: the nation state in which citizens exercised ultimate sovereignty over the regimes under which they live. The United States was initially established as a country of localized democracies that only came together under a loose confederation. The Articles of Confederation created no central government but rather deferred to the former colonies to set up (or continue) their own structures of governance. When the Constitution came along, it created a careful equilibrium of checks and balances to restrain the national state while preserving the rights of the states. The idea here was not to overthrow citizen control over the nation state but institutionalize it. All these years later, most people in most nations, the United States especially, believe that they should have final say over the structure of the regime. This is the essence of the democratic ideal, and not as an end in itself but as a guarantor of freedom, which is the principle that drives the rest. Freedom is inseparable from citizen control of government. When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself is gravely damaged. The world today is packed with wealthy institutions and individuals that stand in revolt against the ideas of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They believe they have a global mission and want to empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in nation states. They say that there are existential problems that require the overthrow of the nation-state model of governance. They have a list: infectious disease, pandemic threats, climate change, peacekeeping, cybercrime, and I’m sure there are others on the list that we’ve yet to see. The idea is that these are necessarily worldwide and evade the capacity of the nation state to deal with them. We are all being acculturated to believe that the nation state is nothing but an anachronism that needs to be supplanted. Keep in mind, this necessarily means treating democracy and freedom as anachronisms too. In practice, the only means by which average people can restrain tyranny and despotism is through voting at the national level. None of us have any influence over the policies of the WHO, World Bank, IMF, much less over the Gates or Soros Foundations. The way politics is structured in the world today, we are all necessarily disenfranchised in a world governed by global institutions. And that is precisely the point: to achieve universal disenfranchisement of average people so that the elites can have a free hand in regulating the planet as they see fit. This is why it becomes supremely urgent for every person who aspires to live in peace and freedom to regain national sovereignty and say no to the transfer of authority to institutions over which citizens have no control. Let me conclude with this: I had not always understood this. When the United States pulled out of the WHO in 2020, I was genuinely puzzled. It seemed rather unsporting. These days, I get it. Devolving power from the center is the only path by which we can restore the ideals of the great visionaries of the past like Thomas Jefferson. In the end, governing institutions must be in citizen control, and pertain to the borders of particular states, or it necessarily becomes tyrannical over time. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Thu, 10/17/2024 – 16:20