A Blessing of Extremism

The word extremism, in the sense that the term is now used, is of fairly recent vintage. It has be­come popular only toward the end of our generation in which we have witnessed the U.S.A.’s rapid and widely approved plunge into all-out statism. It is strictly a smear word aimed at all the different types of opposition which statism has evoked. All opponents are, in terms of this usage, “extremists.”

While the returns of America’s political revolution (devolution is a better word) toward Old World omnipotence are incomplete, the full extent of the blight far from evident, the devolution itself is a fait accompli, water over the dam. It is no longer an event of the future to be feared; it is a catas­trophe of the past, to be remedied—and remembered. Garet Garrett writing in 1944, entitled his book The Revolution Was. As he suggested, the statists’ objective is in the past tense. Few people seem to appreciate the terrible fact that we, already, are subject to a cen­tralized government of unlimited authority. There now hangs over us a power apparatus with the au­thority to exercise control over the life and livelihood of every citizen; it can confiscate all our property and socialize every dollar of our income. The principle of statism is accepted national policy; short of a successful counter evo­lution, all that remains is to fill in the authoritarian details and suffer the consequences.

We will be helped in our analy­sis of “extremism” if we will keep in mind that the statist devolu­tion, though popular, has always had opposition and, as the signifi­cance of the devolution has dawned on more and more people, the number of opponents and their points of attack have increased. In other words, the devolution is not entirely a one-sided affair.

Furthermore, we must recog­nize that citizens cannot be classi­fied as belonging strictly to one camp or the other, that is, as statists or antistatists. No such fine and distinct division is per­missible. The fact is that each in­dividual is in flux, undergoing constant emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and ideological changes which, taken together, shape his philosophy. Perhaps the closest we can come to any generalized classi­fication is to assert that many per­sons, at any given time, are mov­ing toward statism or away from it. I am unaware of any person who is a 100 per cent statist, or of anyone who thinks and lives in perfect harmony with individual liberty.

This much we know: The Amer­ican people, with all their pro and con attitudes toward statism, have brought our nation to a condition of statism; on balance, we are presently a statist or collectivized America. True, many Americans are now opposed to the very thing they helped bring about. Indeed, there are those who still endorse statism in some areas while at the same time they react violently against it in other areas. Why this inconsistency? Doubtless, it is because they cannot see the fu­ture consequences of present ac­tions; they still trust in some form of political sleight of hand by which “you can have your cake and eat it, too”; they naively be­lieve that so-called benefits can be bestowed by government without ever having to be paid for. It is as if government had access to some magic fourth dimension of wealth!

The Aggressive Guard

Instead of trying to analyze “extremism” in magnitudes we cannot comprehend such as bil­lions of dollars, millions of people, and the social complexities of a nation like ours, permit me to con­struct a homology, an accurate matching in structure of the in­dividual-governmental relation­ship as we have experienced it.

Suppose you have a property—some acres, orchards, herds, build­ings. Fearing that your property might be despoiled by marauders, you employ a guard for protective purposes. You loan him your gun and contract with him to defend your right to life, livelihood, and liberty.

Should no trespassers or ma­rauders appear, the guard, in any proper employer-employee rela­tionship, would remain alert but inactive. It is plain that defensive action is only a secondary action; it is a reaction to someone else’s aggressive action.

Let us now assume that the guard becomes impatient with his inaction; that he tires of his strictly negative role; that he hon­estly imagines he can run your affairs better than you can. Hav­ing acquisitive instincts for power over others, as do many human beings, and realizing that the self­same force he has been given to defend you and your property can be used to order your life and live­lihood, he turns on you, his em­ployer. Contrary to your wishes and using the very weapon you provided him, he sells some of your produce, pocketing a good part of the cash. Some of the cash he uses to increase his own wage; he gives other parts of it to neigh­bors he thinks are “needy”; more of your dollars are allocated by him to a savings account for your old age, but actually he uses these savings to finance a trip to the moon, replacing the funds with his IOU; he goes into debt, but clev­erly monetizes the debt so that the dollars he “generously” allows for your use are diminished in value as they are increased in number; he dictates how much produce you may raise and the prices you may charge. In short, your hired hand, the guard you employed to defend you, comes to dominate your life and livelihood—the protector turned predator!

Being a normal, self-responsible, self-controlling individual, you rebel at this immoral and unwar­ranted authoritarianism, stoutly maintaining that you do not be­lieve in any part of the guard’s program.

The guard, in the meantime, will have rationalized his actions to the point of self-righteousness with two lines of defense. The first will glorify his attempted al­mightiness, “But I am doing this for your own good.” The second will belittle your critical reaction by a resort to name-calling. “You are an extremist,” he will charge.

The Anti-Extremists

Extremism, as currently publi­cized, is aimed almost exclusively at what is called “the extreme right.” Khrushchev, for instance, has not been labeled “an extrem­ist,” nor have any of our home folks who sponsor federal urban renewal, or TVA and its exten­sion, or compulsory social secur­ity, or foreign aid to socialistic governments, or any of those proj­ects which make up the portfolio of statism. By their own defense­less definitions, none of these sponsors of statism is “extremist.” But the leading proponents of statism are, almost without excep­tion, the ones who hurl the epithet “extremist” at those who do not like and react against their at­tempts at almightiness.

Action and Reaction

Now we approach the nub of our analysis: What we are wit­nessing is an instance of action and reaction. The genesis of the reaction is the action; what is called “extremism” has its origin in the statist action itself.

To elaborate my point: Let your memory or imagination take you back three decades to pre-social-security days. A person who then said he did not believe in compul­sory social security evoked no name-calling at all. No one then thought to classify him as belong­ing to “the extreme right.” At that time there was no social se­curity to react against.

Later, compulsory social secur­ity became a political fact, as stat­ist as anything that falls under the definition, as socialistic as any measure that ever originated within the walls of the Kremlin. Please note that it was the au­thors and sponsors of this legisla­tion who took the statist action. Reaction, in the form of dissent, followed. And, it is the statist ac­tionists who now call the antistat­ist reactionists “extremists.” Had there been no statist action in the first place, there would be no antistatist reaction now. Nor would the term “extremist,” in its pres­ent context, have come into use.

Parenthetically, there is, now and then, a person who remarks, “I deplore both the extreme right and the extreme left.” To unmask this bit of nonsense requires only that it be translated: “I deplore both action and reaction.” This is as illogical as to deplore the explo­sion and the kick of the shotgun or the swing of a golf club and the flight of the ball. Such re­marks originate in utter thought­lessness and thus do not admit of thoughtful analysis.

Return, for a moment, to the homology concerning you and your property. Recall that the guard you hired for protection turned against you and took con­trol of both you and your liveli­hood. Under these circumstances, how would you react? What would you do? Interestingly enough, dif­ferent people react differently. I posed the question to several friends. The first said he would bring in his neighbors and form a lynching party. The second, al­lowing that the guard had the gun, said he would acquiesce, take it lying down, so to speak. The third said he would turn philoso­pher. And the fourth said he would organize a foundation for economic education. The authori­tarian action of the guard would evoke many different types of re­action; and the guard, if we may continue the homology, would, in­discriminately, call all of the re­actionists “extremists.”

Types of Reaction

I propose now to comment on the varied types of antistatist re­actions that are evoked by statist action. Please keep in mind that the actionists tend to disparage all of the reactionists in one lump—”the extreme right.” Actually, each type of reaction is entitled to a description of its own, and any­one who indulges in such oversim­plified name-calling as “the ex­treme right” can hardly qualify as a thoughtful person.

There are as many types of re­action as there are persons who react. There are those who react to statism by mere acquiescence; outwardly they are as unmoved by statist action as animals in the zoo. To change the metaphor, they draw into their shells and become the willing victims of their self-appointed masters.

Then there are those who only grumble, mutter in their beards, as the saying goes. These, to­gether with those who acquiesce, become more or less allies of the statists, for their inclination is to “go along” with the what is, re­gardless of how much authoritari­anism is imposed upon them.

But among us are numerous dy­namic reactionists, the different types of which can, at best, only be generalized. Some are calm and rational while others are volatile and emotional. Some proceed peaceably, others belligerently. Some expose the fallacies of stat­ism while others, like those with statist leanings, indulge in name-calling. Some confine themselves to educational methods, others to political devices. Some try to gain a better understanding and expo­sition of freedom principles while others set out to reform “the ig­norant masses.” Some see the fault in themselves and their own short­comings, that is, they see their failure to become leaders of thought; others think the statist debacle has its origin only in the Kremlin and, thus, become “com­mie chasers.” Some do their work for freedom joyously while others work only in anger. Some give no thought to the time element except their own economical and effective use of it; others insist that “time is running out” and promptly rush off in every direction.

Liberty Is Provoked

There is a potential blessing in the reaction to statist action, but we must go deep to ferret it out. Offhand, most of us who lean toward liberty are inclined to re­gard all reactions against statist actions as blessings, as desirable. But, in my opinion, many of the reactions are more harmful than helpful; they accomplish no more than to harden the statists in their sins. What, then, is the nature of that particular reaction by “the extremists” which can be de­scribed as “a blessing”?

Perhaps this blessing cannot be discovered unless we recognize that there is always something useful in most happenstances we regard as bad: that is, the useful is present if we can but discern it. Now, finding something useful in the statist action is almost too much of a challenge for any of us who are oriented in the direction of individual liberty. We generally conclude that statism is bad, all bad; it can’t possibly have any­thing of value in it.

Liberty, as the late Paul Valery pointed out, is not primary within us; it is never evoked without be­ing provoked. The idea of liberty, he claimed, is always a response. In the context of this paper, if Valery’s thoughts be correct, the desire for liberty is always a reac­tion to authoritarian actions which provoke us. We rarely think we ought to be free, or think about it at all, until something shows us we are not free.

From this line of reasoning we are led to deduce that statist or socialistic or authoritarian actions — the terms are interchangeable—are, from time to time in history, a necessary preface to the exist­ence of liberty. Without these up­surges of statism—attempts at human almightiness—most consciousness of and attention to lib­erty would assuredly fade out of existence.

I recall, some eighteen years ago, discovering that there was little acceptance of articles on lib­erty by magazines and journals, that publishers showed only a dim interest in books on the subject. Indeed, during the first half of this century, there did not exist a consistent literature of the free market, private property, limited government philosophy with its moral and spiritual antecedents written in modern American idiom. I, for one, concluded from these depressing observations that the idea of liberty was all but ex­tinguished in the minds of our people. Something was urgently needed to provoke a new, dynamic libertarian sensitiveness. The need in the form of statist action was supplied, and on the grand scale! Reaction began to develop. It is this reaction, if of the right kind, that is the great and rewarding dividend, a blessing of what the statists call “extremism.”

So, what is this right kind of reaction? Let us first clarify what it is we hope to accomplish.

Overcoming Imperfections

Most freedom-loving people, I suspect, have in mind what they call a good society, one in which individual freedom of choice is a distinguishing feature: that is, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom to produce, ex­change, and travel, freedom to work where and at what and for whom and for how much one de­sires, and freedom to do as one pleases with the fruits of one’s own labor. It is likely that all of us share in these highly desirable objectives.

But how are such laudable aims to be achieved? This question brings me to an extremely radical answer: The good society, as it is called, cannot be realized by keep­ing the eye on the construction of a good society. Man is just as in­capable of designing or creating a good society as he is of designing or creating life itself.^¹ He can write constitutions, impose checks and balances, put “the right peo­ple in public office,” pass and/or repeal legislation, join interna­tional organizations or whatever; he can scheme to his heart’s con­tent and the good society will never emerge from his drafting board any more than would a sturdy oak, were that his project. We all agree that “only God can make a tree,” and I am ready to concede that only God can make a good society.

As a living tree is the result of molecular configurations and life forces which man is utterly in­capable of designing or creating or arranging, so is the quality of a society the result or consequence of tiny, individualistic forces. Im­perfect man cannot manipulate imperfect men into a perfect so­ciety. The perfection of any so­ciety can be approached only as imperfections are overcome by its members, a project of infinite pro­portions, for man is imperfect by nature; man can never do more than approximate perfection. The quality of a society cannot be su­perior to the quality of its leaders. Rock or bramble or barren soil cannot be organized to show forth as a garden of roses.

Creation vs. Destruction

Why do we fail so grossly to recognize our limitations in crea­tive action? I suggest the failure stems from the unlimited ways we can indulge ourselves in destruc­tive action. These two opposites are not to be attained with equal ease. Creation rests on all the mysteries associated with growth; destruction, on the other hand, re­quires no more than climbing atop an elevator shaft and stepping off! Man can destroy a tree or keep it from ever getting a start, but he cannot create a tree. Likewise, man can by personal misdeeds and by coercive and other ill-conceived legislation destroy a good society or keep one from ever coming about, but he cannot purposefully create one. A good constitution, for example, is no small accom­plishment, but let me point out that it is no more than the best thoughts of good men committed to writing, a mere document un­less it is generally subscribed to by people with the intellectual and moral qualities necessary to make it operative.

If this line of reasoning be valid, then it follows that the eye must be focused on self-improve­ment for, as I have tried to sug­gest, the good society rests on the improvement of its individual components. I see no way to ap­proach this other than to investi­gate what constitutes individual improvement. If we are to think of improvement in its highest sense, we will have to find an answer to the question, what are we here for? What is man’s earthly purpose?

I can find no answer to this question without running head-on into several of my basic assump­tions:

·                      Man did not create himself for it is self-evident that he knows practically nothing about himself; thus, I must assume the primacy and supremacy of an Infinite Con­sciousness.

·                      Second, I assume the expansi­bility of the individual conscious­ness.

·                      And, third, I assume the im­mortality of the individual con­sciousness or spirit, there being more to the Cosmic Scheme than this earthly moment.

In Tune with the Infinite

With these assumptions, the an­swer to earthly purpose comes clear: it is to see how nearly I can come to expanding my own con­sciousness into a harmony with Infinite Consciousness or, in other terms, to develop or bring to real­ization, as nearly as possible, those creative potentialities which are peculiarly mine, all of us being varied in this respect.

One need not be an accomplished logician to see that the above is an extreme reaction to all statist action. Anyone who has reacted in this manner must, perforce, be­lieve, along with the writers of the Declaration of Independence, that man is endowed by his Crea­tor with certain inalienable rights, that among them are the rights to life and liberty. Believing thusly, he is totally or extremely at odds with the statists who hold the state to be the endower of man’s rights.

In any event, I have presented what I believe to be the right type of reaction. To the extent that statist action causes others to re­act similarly, to that extent is the resulting extremism a blessing—in my view.

One May Be a Leader

But let us return to the kind of individual improvement hereto­fore outlined. It is my contention that each of us individually should keep an eye on personal emergence in consciousness or, if you pre­fer, on an expansion of awareness or perception; keep the eye fast­ened on the upgrading of self rather than on society and, if practiced widely and successfully enough, the good society will fol­low more or less miraculously as a consequence. With our energies focused in this fashion, we will be working within our potential capa­bilities. When we go beyond this, when we try to manipulate others or coerce them into our ways or into some collective arrangement we may imagine as efficacious, we labor fruitlessly, wastefully, fool­ishly. We can no more force or compel the creative actions of others successfully than we can control the thoughts they enter­tain.

Of course, if this type of ex­treme reaction to statist action had to be general in order for the good society to bloom as a fruit—that is, if the millions had to re­act in this manner for any good to come of it—then the cause of liberty would be hopeless. Luckily, this is not a requirement, as the history of movements attests.

All movements, good or bad, have been led by infinitesimal mi­norities; the masses have never been more than followers. Each movement has had a leader; some­one is always at the head of the class. Using hindsight, we dis­cover that these leaders could not have been predicted ahead of time and, further, they came from strange and odd places. Recall that the leader of one movement, near­ly two thousand years ago, was born in a manger. He had and still has followers. The leader of a re­cent bad movement was an Aus­trian paper hanger. He, also, had followers. Who will be the leader or leaders of the one here under question? I do not know; you do not know; the person himself or herself does not know—for all of us are possessed of aptitudes and potentialities about which we are unaware.

To digress for the sake of illus­tration. one of the reactions to the present statist action takes the form of “Let’s elect the right people to public office,” as if this would rectify the statist action. This particular type of reaction originates in a confusion of cause and effect. For whatever shows forth politically is nothing more than a mirroring or echoing or re­flection of whatever the prepon­derant leadership thinking hap­pens to be at any given time. If the preponderant leadership think­ing happens to be statist, we’ll witness statists in public office; but, if the preponderant leader­ship thinking happens to be ori­ented in the direction of individ­ual liberty, libertarian thinkers will occupy the seats in govern­ment. To disregard the cause while trying to change the effect is as useless as trying to adjust the temperature by monkeying with the thermometer.

Levels of Leadership

If we will settle on the point that this is a personal leadership rather than a mass or societal problem, then each of us who would improve our society and help the cause of liberty is con­fronted with the change-over from being a follower to becoming a leader—no small undertaking. Now one does not become a leader in one fell swoop; the accomplish­ment appears to fall into stages or progressive levels of attainment. In broad terms, I see three levels:

THE FIRST LEVEL—Achieve that degree of understanding which makes it impossible to join in or support, in any manner whatso­ever, any socialistic proposal; in short, refrain from ideological wrongdoing.

To attain this initial level re­quires no “original” thinking, writing, or talking, but it is much more than an incidental step. It takes a lot of doing! For instance, to avoid supporting any socialism requires an intimate understand­ing of what socialism is, the mis­leading labels under which it ap­pears, and the subtle ways it in­sinuates itself into social action and behavior. Few persons are able to recognize the nature of a socialistic practice once it has been Americanized. They think of a policy as socialistic only as and if it is practiced by such avowed so­cialists as the Russians. To up­hold freedom effectively, one must be able to identify and understand homemade socialism. Every Amer­ican practice has to be brought under rigorous inspection and scrutiny and examined in the light of socialism’s definition: Government ownership and control of the means of production.

I am not suggesting that it is possible or practical to divorce oneself completely from socialistic or statist influences. Complete separation would demand no use of the mails, no eating of bread, no riding of planes or ships, doing without an economical supply of power and light in more than 1,800 of our cities where this commodity is socialized, no selling of goods and services to or buying from socialistic institutions, and so on, ad infinitum. To live, one must ac­cept the facts of this world, at least, to a large extent.’ But it is possible so to live as never to spon­sor or lend encouragement to a single socialistic invasion into the social and economic structure.³

One further thought: Do not underestimate the enormous influ­ences set in motion by a person who refuses to sanction or pro­mote any wrong action. Pro­nounced exemplary qualities have unbelievable radiating powers. The individual who gives no offense to libertarian ideals—even if he be utterly silent—attracts emula­tors, sets high standards for others to follow.

THE SECOND LEVEL—Achieve that degree of understanding and exposition required to point out statist fallacies and certain prin­ciples of freedom to those who come within one’s own personal orbit.

Obviously, it requires more do­ing to reach this second level than to reach the first. This goes be­yond the realm of abstinence and moves into the area of positive ac­tion. It demands that a person learn to articulate the understand­ing he acquires. Included are skills in talking and writing, the proper stance, and so on.

There appears to be no limit as to how far one can go in improv­ing oral and written presentations. These disciplines are always sub­ject to betterment, regardless of how far one has advanced. To really know a subject is to be able to speak or write it as easily as replying “49” to the query, “What’s 7 x 7?”4

It is at this second level of leadership that stance—one’s at­titude toward others—becomes of great importance. There is the in­evitable temptation, once a person comes into possession of ideas new to him, to inflict the new “wisdom” on others, to reform them, to make them over in his own image. So far as the advance­ment of libertarian ideals is con­cerned, the effects of this tactic are the opposite of those in­tended; it will send scurrying not only foes but friends as well. Little more will be accomplished than to earn a reputation as “a pest.”

If one will wait patiently for others to recognize his newly ac­quired competence—relax until others are ready to listen and share his views—closed minds will open and become receptive. Indeed, no person can gain access to the mind of another until the other lets him in. It is the other who carries the keys and who un­locks the doors to his own percep­tion. Prior to his decision to let us in, we are helpless. The “eager beaver” shows bad stance, and is rarely if ever admitted.

Advancement of libertarian ideals requires that each of us understand that the higher grade the objective, the higher grade must the method be. For instance, if one’s objective were to destroy another, low-grade methods would suffice. But if the objective be the expansion of another’s conscious­ness or the increasing of his wis­dom, then only high-grade meth­ods can be effective. Advancing an understanding of libertarian ideals belongs to the same hier­archy of values as does the expan­sion of consciousness and the in­creasing of wisdom.⁵ In this re­spect, we can do nothing to others; we can only do something for them, and then only if we have something in store to give. We must recognize our limitations be­fore we can begin to realize our potentialities.

THE THIRD LEVEL—Achieve that degree of excellence in under­standing and exposition which will inspire others to seek one out as a tutor of libertarian philosophy.

This is the level attained by the creative thinker, writer, talker—the level at which the power of attraction comes into play.

All of us are aware of creative persons in various fields: religion, music, poetry, art, mathematics, the physical sciences, engineering, indeed, in all of the disciplines. These persons, as a rule, have reached their high status through practice and concentration on self-perfection. A person becomes so rich in understanding and so in­ventive in explaining what he has learned or perceived that others, having ambitions for higher un­derstanding, are drawn to him, that is, they seek him out as a tutor.

An individual may be sought as a tutor by only one or by millions, for a short period or for cen­turies. St. Augustine’s Confes­sions, today, is among the most widely purchased of all autobiog­raphies. That man, fifteen cen­turies after his passing, is still sought as a tutor by untold num­bers—a measure of immortality, so to speak.

Reflect on the eminent natural­ist, Luther Burbank. His work in his chosen field may have been as creative as man ever achieves. By turning his sights inward, that is, toward his own perfection, he ex­perienced ideas, insights, inspira­tion, inventiveness. The garden spots of the world are richer and more beautiful by reason of this man’s creative conduct. Suppose he had decided to concentrate, in­stead, on the shortcomings of others by calling attention to their unkempt gardens! He would have been remembered, if at all, only as a muckraker and the earth would have been left less, not more, beautiful by reason of his existence. No one would have sought him as a tutor.

The creative thinker, writer, talker of libertarian ideals concen­trates on the perfecting of his own understanding and on discovering effective ways to share with others such light as he possesses. Effort of the deeply conscious variety may result in a new parable, an enlightening analogy or homology, minor literary inventions that cause another to remark: “Now I see what you mean.”

Examples of creative thinkers who are sought as tutors? Adam Smith performed in this respect so well that he, perhaps more than any other person, was responsible for the Industrial Revolution. Carl Menger discovered the marginal utility theory of value on which the free market rests; Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk invented ways to explain the theory. His student, Ludwig von Mises, among his many findings, discovered that there is no valid basis for making market judgments in a state of socialism. And think of the Hayeks, Hazlitts, Fertigs, and countless others who have sought the tutorship of Mises. Many of these students, in turn, have been sought as tutors. Among our con­temporaries, I can now name sev­eral hundred who qualify as crea­tive thinkers, writers, talkers of the libertarian philosophy whom others seek out as tutors. But to name them would do offense to the hundreds about whom I have never heard.

Yes, there are at least these three possible levels of libertarian leadership. Plainly, no one can start at the third level, or at the second. The first level must be attained first, and the second level next. There is, however, one splen­did fact which all aspirants should recognize: Mastery of the first level will lead, inevitably, to a competency in the second; and from the second, many, in humil­ity and unawareness, will emerge into the third with some degree of creative proficiency and, thus, will be sought as tutors.

How Man Evolves

Somewhat at variance with opinions I have held in the past, I now believe that the human situ­ation has no utopian possibilities; that there isn’t any prospect or even hope of experiencing any heaven on earth. Shangri-La is a pipe dream, not only at odds with history but contrary to the Cosmic Scheme.

Creation seems to call for evolu­tion which, in the instance of man, requires an emergence in con­sciousness, a perpetual intellectual and spiritual hatching process. Man in his present earthly state is incapable of emerging solely by his own will and reason; it is nec­essary that he be confronted with obstacles which, in overcoming or reacting against, moves him one notch upward on the stairway of infinity. Can we but conclude that the art of becoming is composed of acts of overcoming?

Thus, it seems that the human situation calls for a never-ending series of almost overpowering con­frontations; regardless of how far man progresses, there is in store for him one difficulty or crisis or chaos after another as a part of the machinery of emergence. This is not to be deplored but, rather, to be accepted joyously as chal­lenge; for without this law of polarity, this action and reaction at work, consciousness would fade into oblivion—man would return to animal.

Is it not self-evident that hu­manity in our millennium is on a somewhat higher level of con­sciousness than Neanderthal man? Were we able to trace man’s general upgrading, we doubtless would discover that the path has not slanted upward in a straight line but, like so much we observe in nature, has taken a wavy course, now down, now up, each broad sweep ending on a slightly higher level than the previous one.

It is difficult, perhaps impossi­ble, for any of us accurately to assess what stage of what wave we are now on, though it looks to me as if we were riding one of the down-sweeps. But what do we observe? The plunge among hu­mans all over the earth into au­thoritarianism is, as seemingly in­tended, creating an “anti-agency,” that is, many individuals reacting extremely against the downward current. And it is from these that the new leadership will emerge. Take note of those persons—they are from every walk of life—and reflect on what’s happening to them. They are studying, think­ing, growing in consciousness, and becoming increasingly sensitive to the meaning and significance of liberty; in short, they are the har­vest, the cream of the crop, the spirited and spiritual reactionists to perhaps a necessary but none­theless a deplorable action—these, I say, are the blessings of what the statists are calling “extrem­ism.”

 

—FOOTNOTES—

¹ No man on earth knows how to make as simple a thing as an ordinary wooden lead pencil, let alone something as com­plex as “a good society.” For an expla­nation of the miracle of a pencil, see my “I, Pencil,” a pamphlet. Single copy on request to the Foundation for Economic Education.

² This is a delicate point and needs much reflection. For instance: How much government pap, in a “welfare” economy, should a person accept? This question is somewhat like: How much sedation should a patient take? The answer to both questions is: as little as possible. Both pap and sedation are killers of per­sons as well as of immediate pain.

³ The manager of a prominent business voiced the sentiments of many “leaders”: “Yes, possible for you in your FEE Ivory Tower. But were I to take this straight and narrow path, I would be so at odds with the socialistic demands of my com­munity that I couldn’t keep my job.” This is mere speculation on the manager’s part. He has taken his orders from his own guesstimates of the popular taste for so long that he fears to risk an in­struction from his own conscience. Further, a job which can be kept only through wrongdoing is no more respect­able than is harlotry.

4 For some thoughts about the skills in exposition which are acquired by the reg­ular practice of writing, see “Aids to Leadership,” a chapter in my Elements of Libertarian Leadership (Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-­Hudson, N. Y. 183 pp. $2.00 paper; $3.00 cloth).

⁵ See “The Methods of Leadership,” another chapter in Elements of Liber­tarian Leadership.