Simply an amazing professor. This is perhaps the COOLEST class in all of NYU. Take him at all cost!! Read the material and class discussion will be very interesting and you will not be bored. Really you can't go wrong with Dr Rec, he's the bomb diggity.

But as Harrison Koehli points out in a Political Ponerology Substack post: “As long as you are first to make the accusation and/or can reach the widest audience, it will be extremely difficult to remove the stain that accusation has caused.” (I highly recommend the Political Ponerology Substack, by the way. I wrote the Preface to the recent edition of the book by Andrew Lobaczewski, edited by Koehli.)

Establishing a narrative that would be nearly impossible to overcome is what the trolls hoped to achieve.

I aimed to disabuse good-faith detractors of the notion that I was boring, but of course the troll army was not acting in good faith. But unlike Smith, I proved early in the campaign that I was a firebrand willing to go after Chase Oliver for his leftism in libertarian garb and in particular his LGBTQIA++ activism.

In my first debate, at an event held in a New Jersey restaurant before the convention season began, I argued that an objective of social welfarism is the dissolution of the family and that transgenderism was part of this agenda. The State aims to dissolve the family because the family is the final buffer between individuals and its complete control. Any funding aimed at destroying the requisite social units of the family (man, woman/husband, wife, child) has as an object the family’s dissolution.

Oliver appeared to take offense at what I’d said and stated that “as a member of the LGBTQ community,” he knew many transgender people who do not want to dissolve the family. In fact, he said, he knew many transgender people raising children in two-parent homes and called my position “collectivist”—although he himself had just identified himself as part of the LGBTQ collective. And I hadn’t said that LGBTQ people want to dissolve the family.

My argument was that the State’s funding of transgenderism was apiece with its aim of dissolving the family. I suggested then, and many times later, that the State has a hand in the culture wars that Oliver insisted should be off-limits to Libertarians. The State tipped the scales toward degeneracy, the dissolution of the family, and the erosion of the social fabric—on purpose.

Share

Admittedly, some of my other early performances were less than stellar. I really didn’t smash the mold cast for me by the troll army until the convention debate in Alabama. (Interestingly, Josh Smith did not attend this convention, part of a pattern that was obvious to all but his most disingenuous followers.)

In Alabama, I felt more comfortable than I had at any of the previous debates, largely due to the strong support I felt there. And, at last, the central question was finally asked: “What is the role of government?”

The other candidates issued the typical minarchist responses. The government’s only role is to protect individual rights and provide defense, etc. That’s interesting, I thought, since the government violates individual rights by definition.

I felt emboldened at last and answered, rather daringly:

You know, if you ask me, there’s no role for government at all. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. I don’t believe in the State at all. I think that the State is a parasite…”

There, I’d finally said it. I was free. And I won the debate straw poll.

After this breakout moment, I felt everything shift. In fact, I had begun to move the Overton Window for all the LP presidential candidates—toward anti-statism. Other candidates, including Chase Oliver and Lars Mapstead, began to use the term “the State” for the first time. Chase Oliver even started saying that he wanted to “smash the State, brick by brick.” And he began appropriating my language in general.

Boring my ass.

As soon as I agreed to run, the news reached various libertarian contingents, some of whom immediately began trolling me on X. When I filed with the FEC, the trolling only intensified. At first the incoming fire came from the so-called “lolbertarians,” who suggested that I was some right winger because I had, prior to being asked to run, posted Murray Rothbard’s 1992 “rightwing populism” platform on X and merely asked what people thought about it.

But soon the attacks came from a swarm of trolls under the direction of Joshua Smith, the candidate most threatened by my candidacy. He felt entitled to the support of the Mises Caucus, despite having quit as the LNC vice chair and, as Heise told me several times, after doing little to nothing while in office.

Josh Smith had assembled an entire army of trolls, who were fed “opposition research” by a team devoted strictly to attacking and defaming me. Smith’s entire campaign seemed to be oriented toward trying to destroy me. Some of the criticisms were downright absurd.

For example, Smith’s opposition research team found a paper or two that I had coauthored for the Intelligent Software Agents Lab, an AI lab in the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, where I worked as a writer and editor while I was also working on my dissertation in the English department, a dissertation on nineteenth-century British science and culture. The paper listed DARPA as one of the funding sources. From this scant information, some clowns suggested that I had written software to spy on U.S. citizens. I had never even written software. I was a writer documenting the lab’s work for the broader public.

Meanwhile, I was an antiwar activist, writing, speaking, and marching against the Iraqi war in New York, Washington D.C., and Pittsburgh. I also appeared dozens of times on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, where I called George W. Bush a war criminal and was perhaps the only person on mainstream media to ask what George H.W. Bush had been doing having breakfast with Osama bin Laden’s half-brother on 911:

On one occasion, a five-star general came to the lab to watch a demo of the software, while just six to eight feet from him I sat writing an antiwar action item for legitgov.org, an activist and news website I founded after the 2001 election and which has since been run by my closest associate, Lori Price.

I found it ironic that I was being attacked for co-authoring a couple papers funded by DARPA, when Josh Smith had admittedly participated in the Shock and Awe bombing campaign while in the military. But I couldn’t mention this, Heise told me, because libertarians honor military service. I know Smith was a young man during this time and had been duped by propaganda to serve, which is excusable. But I must say that I have never been duped by war propaganda, not even when I was a nine-year-old watching the Vietnam War on TV. During my life, I’ve opposed every military venture of the U.S. government.

Some of the other criticisms had to do with the fact that I voted for Trump in 2016 and gave money to his campaign when he was indicted. Both actions had to do with my opposition to the regime, which I have explained on numerous occasions. The vote was an FU to the regime, and the donation was the same. I have never supported Trump per se. Sometimes political actions are merely symbolic and given that I’ve seen numerous Libertarians say since Chase Oliver was nominated that they’re going to vote for Trump, I was hardly the political criminal Smith’s mob tried to make me out to be.

In subsequent chapters, I will have much more to say about Josh Smith and the way he conducted himself and led his followers to behave during the campaign. Suffice it to say that during the first few months, the Josh-Smith-directed trolling was relentless. He only changed course after such tactics backfired. He returned to such tactics at the end of the campaign, out of desperation.

For weeks I had no backup at all, nobody coming to my defense. As I look at it now, it’s a miracle that by the last several months of my campaign, I had amassed a huge number of supporters, who saw @RecTheRegime as the only viable LP presidential candidate and who defended me against such criticisms. #RecTheRegime became a rallying cry and thousands were attracted to my message, as attested to by my X follower count, which grew by over 20,000 followers.

It had long ago occurred to me that a conception of libertarianism, marked by such phrases as “less government, more liberty,” etc., and as I would learn painfully throughout the campaign, held tenaciously especially within the Libertarian Party, was too narrow and missed a major impediment to liberty, overlooking or denying a set of components that pose significant obstacles.

The sense conveyed by what I’ll call “narrow libertarianism” is that our only enemy is “the government” and that every other element in the social, political, and economic order is either innocuous or incidental to governmental power.

This conception misses what is obvious to many people who do not identify as lower-case libertarians and who have no affiliation with or even knowledge of the Libertarian Party as such. Such people rightly ask: What about enormous corporations and their power to extort and control us? Or to be more provincial, what about the towing company that just towed my car after the city booted it for having over five parking tickets? Don’t these entities also oppress us?

Or what about social media companies that censor and disappear us from the public square? Or what about international intergovernmental governance bodies like the United Nations and the phalanx of international non-governmental organizations like the World Economic Forum? Or what about the military industrial complex? Don’t these entities also have inordinate power?

It’s clear to many libertarians that such entities would not in fact have power over us, if not for the fact that they collude with government, and vice versa. But by the same token, these entities are extensions of government and greatly enhance governmental power, penetration, and scope. They have been grafted into the government and become limbs and organs of it. They are like nanoparticles that auto-assemble to extend the government into a monstrous robot that grows and accrues ever greater capabilities.

Consider, for example, how AI, developed partly in the private sphere, will operate as an essential tool of governmental surveillance, propaganda, power, and control. In my book Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom, I appropriated the term “governmentalities” (from postmodern theorist Michel Foucault) and emended it to refer to these extra-governmental apparatuses.

Note that I have referred to “government” thus far and not “the State.” The State as I see it, while necessarily inclusive of the government, is more than the government. I use the term the State to refer to this entire configuration of governmental and extra-governmental elements—the government and its many State apparatuses. I also call it the regime.

So, when it came time to create a primary campaign slogan, I wanted to make sure that we represented the entirety of the State, and not merely the government per se, as what we need to overcome to achieve liberty. RecTheRegime seemed to do the trick.

Nevertheless, the abolition of the central government will collapse the entirety of the State. To RecTheRegime is to bring down the government and all its governmentalities.

It was August 22, 2023. I’m at Hillsdale College’s Dow Hotel and Conference Center, where I was about to deliver another lecture series on the Great Reset. The best gig I’ve ever had. I’ll make $24,000 in two days for delivering five lectures. I’ve presented these lectures, in slightly different form, many times already, twice at this very college. My book on the Great Reset came out in January. And I have everything outlined. I’ll just read the outlined points and ad lib a bit. I’ve just suited up for the first lecture, to begin in 25 minutes, when the phone rings.

It’s Michael Heise.

What could he want? I wonder. The juxtaposition is somewhat inapt. Hillsdale is a conservative Christian “pro-liberty” college. But my role here is not political per se. Heise calls me on occasion to ask me to speak at Mises Caucus (MC) events. I’ve spoken three or four times for the Heise-run MC. So, I figure he’s calling about another speaking gig. I’m in a good mood, so I answer the call. This is how I remember the conversation:

Hello?

Hey, it’s Heise.

Hey Mike, how are you?

Good man.

What’s up?

I have question for you.

OK?

What do you think about running for president?

What?

How would you like to run for president as the Mises Caucus-endorsed candidate?

President of what?

The United States.

What are you talking about?

He explains. The caucus wants to know if I’m interested in running for POTUS as a Libertarian and the MC candidate. Heise immediately tells me what I’d get, as if I’m already thinking of such matters.

This isn’t registering for me. It’s so far from my mind that it almost makes no sense at all. I’m a writer who also delivers talks from written text. I’m not a politician. In fact, on the drive from Pittsburgh to Hillsdale, I began ruminating about my next book and wrote a preliminary sketch that I posted to Facebook:

This was my long-term plan: I make good money from Hillsdale as a distinguished fellow for life. My books continue to sell well. My next book will sell even better. I give other talks upon invitation. Altogether, I make at least $150,000 a year. There you go.

Heise talks about what running for the LP nomination for president would do for me. My profile would get a major boost. I’d get a big email list. I’d get a ton of media. I’d have Dave Smith’s endorsement. And so forth.

I already get a ton of media.

Yeah, I know. But you’d get a lot more.

Heise is essentially suggesting that I grow my brand.

He then asks me if I have any skeletons in my closet.

Like what?

Like arrests or scandals.

I have never been arrested. So, no.

I don’t think having been assailed by the SJWs at NYU was a scandal, but I remind Mike about that. He sees it as a recommendation. I don’t think having been a Marxist in the past was a scandal, so I don’t mention it. Mike knows all about that anyway. Nothing else comes to mind.

Nothing else.

By the time the call ends, I’m already showing interest. I don’t give him an answer, but something about this intrigues me. I’m flattered. It sounds exciting. Heise gives me the impression that I will win the nomination. I’d be on the ballot for President of the United States in at least 48 states. Nothing is said yet about what it would take.

I deliver the first two lectures, which go very well. Then I meet Matt Bell, my Hillsdale host, in the lobby of the Dow Hotel. We’re scheduled to go to dinner with Doug Jeffrey, the Vice President for External Affairs and Matt’s boss. I work under the aegis of External Affairs. Larry Arnn, the President of Hillsdale, hired me personally. Doug’s wife and a professor or two are also joining us. As usual, Hillsdale treats me like I’m royalty.

Matt drives me in his big SUV to the restaurant. The countryside is lush with grass fields, woods, and nearly harvestable crops. Matt and I talk about Alex Epstein’s new book, politics, the dire state of the country, and more. It’s all conservative, all the time. We agree on everything—except what should be done about our national crisis. I’m an anarcho-capitalist, not a “limited government” proponent. But I know not to let that out of the bag at Hillsdale.

Waiting for the hostess to seat us, I tell Matt what I’ve just been offered.

The Libertarian Party? he scoffs.

Matt’s reaction is telling. Apparently, he assumes that I find the offer ludicrous as well. But I don’t pay Matt’s reaction much mind. I later realize that maybe I should have.

The lecture series ends, and all has gone very well. After I return home, I tell Heise I need to talk with my family but that I’m leaning in. I’m almost convinced. I like a challenge. I like the idea of enlarging my audience. There’s never any pretension about winning the presidency. Heise makes it clear that the campaign will be a kind of prop, a stage for promoting Project Decentralized Revolution. I won’t be running for president per se but rather to become the spokesman for the Libertarian Party and the MC’s Project Decentralized Revolution. It won’t be a LARPing operation like all the other campaigns. I’m not delusional, nor prone to pretending, so I understand and agree with the premise.

I hold a Zoom meeting with my kids and ex-wife. My daughter, Molly, a psychotherapist, is mostly worried about what it will mean for me. Would I be able to handle all the stress? she asks. Dylan, my youngest son, also says he’s worried about how I will handle it, all the criticism, and the haters. They know that I’m sensitive. I say that I’m used to dealing with haters. After all, I’ve already faced down the whirling dervishes of the authoritarian left. How could this be any worse? Everyone asks that I keep their names out of the campaign. I promise not to mention them at all.

Looking ahead at my Hillsdale schedule, I have nothing until June, that is, not until after the nomination, when I’ll make another $24,000 for two days of work, delivering another lecture series on the Great Reset. If I win, will I be able to do this lecture series? I wonder. I ask Heise and he says it won’t be a problem. I would simply take a hiatus in campaigning for a few days. No big deal.

So, within a couple more days, I’ve agreed to do it. Heise tells me more about what I’ll get. No, he doesn’t say I’ll be a shoo-in for the nomination, or that it will be easy. But he does suggest that I’ll win.  

I soon insist that Heise become my campaign manager. I can’t imagine doing this otherwise. After all, he’s the main architect and strategist of the Reno Reset. He conceived of the MC and engineered its “takeover” of the Libertarian Party. He’s a political mastermind, so I want him leading my team. I also insist that my long-term assistant and “partner in crime” Lori Price be a part of the campaign team.

Within a few days, Heise decides to relinquish his position as chair of the MC to become my campaign manager.

Only Chase Oliver and I are left standing for a head-to-head finale.

Everything is unfolding just as my campaign manager, Michael Heise, had predicted months before. I’ve handily won the first five rounds. Candidate after candidate has been eliminated. My vote tally has increased with each round until round five, although my lead percentage has just diminished. In round four, I garnered 335 votes and held my largest lead of the day, with an 11.67% edge over Oliver. But in round five, I lost one vote and my lead over Oliver has narrowed to 5.52%.

Before the vote, Heise and I talk to Mike ter Maat (MtM) for the third time. MtM was eliminated in round five. Just as Heise had predicted, he was last to come off the board before this one-on-one contest between Chase and me. Heise and I head to the center of the convention floor again, where MtM has been posted with the Virginia delegation.

Dave Smith, Jeff Douglas, Clint Russel and several other people are huddled with us. Chase Oliver stands outside the circle with that characteristically and terminally angry scowl on his face.

Heise and I had told MtM after rounds three and four that he was going to come off the board soon. MtM denied the prospect, saying a shakeup was in the offing. MtM had promised me no less than three times through the course of the campaign that he’d endorse me when or if he came off the board. That time has come, so we are trying to call in the promise. In fact, in Texas, at the Texas LP convention, MtM emphatically told me that he did NOT want Chase Oliver to be the nominee and would make sure of it.

But now he equivocates. We can’t get him to confirm his commitment.

After some wrangling, he lines up behind a microphone to make an announcement. Before he makes a statement, I walk up to MtM and ask him, point blank: You’re not going to endorse Chase now, are you? He says no while shaking his head as if the idea was preposterous.

He announces in a point of parliamentary procedure that he has accepted the role of vice president with Chase Oliver. If that is not an endorsement, then nothing is.

Meanwhile, MtM’s statement was not a point of parliamentary procedure, but it’s too late. He’s said it already. The election has shifted entirely. This is the endorsement that Heise said would clinch my nomination, but it’s just gone south. MtM also complains that he’s tried to work with Heise and the Mises Caucus (MC), to no avail. I guess he means that he tried to get the caucus’ endorsement, or else to shake them from their exclusive endorsement of me but failed. In other words, MtM suggests that he’s been scorned by the caucus and is now retaliating.

Panicked, Heise and I return to the Pennsylvania delegation on the left side of the hall. We need to vote. The only hope, several of us say, is that MtM’s announcement came only after many delegates had already cast their votes. Otherwise, his delegates would naturally follow him onto Chase’s slate, and I will lose the nomination, even after winning the first five rounds.

The nearly 950 delegates are astir. The chatter intensifies, coming to a crescendo. Arrayed like multiple judges to decide my fate, the delegates have returned their completed ballots. It all seems all too informal to me. And surreal, like so much of the weekend. We’ve voted on index cards, on which we’ve written the name of our preferred candidate. We’ve folded our ballots and remitted them to our respective state chairs. I’m seated with Pennsylvania and of course I’ve voted for myself.

The media is swarming, including a Washington Post reporter who interviewed me earlier about what happened the night before, and a cameraman for Politico, who’s been following me around for at least the past hour, taking hundreds of shots. I’d even posed for a thumbs-up photo after the round five results were displayed on three big screens. Everything that’s gone on before this point is now one giant blank.

During the counting and tabulation, although the votes have already been cast, I take a knee, praying for one last intervention. As far as I am concerned, I’ve been granted several miracles already. Thanks to the added scrutiny I’ve brought upon myself, my detractors would use this impromptu genuflection against me after the fact. Was he falling over?   

But it must have been two hours ago by now when much of this same delegation burst out laughing in approbation at the first few lines of my nomination speech:

Good morning fellow libertarians.

I have a confession.

I’m high…

On liberty!

This came after my final video “It’s Time to RecTheRegime” was received with thunderous applause. It came after Dave Smith’s nomination speech in which he said that I am the educator that the party needs. It came before several standing ovations from delegates during my speech. It came after the infamous gummy.

[Chapter 2 to follow shortly.]