Death of an Empire?

By Andy Duncan

Ok, Hollywood, Schmollywood. Harvey Weinstein, Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, the land of the sexually depraved. Whatever you say about Hollywood, whether it’s the font of the social justice warriors, the crucible of the champagne-drinking socialists, or the very territory of Lucifer himself (as portrayed in the wonderful Hollywood series, ‘Lucifer’), it knows how to make money.

And in our Hoppeian city-state wonderland of the future, the ability to make money will still figure.

And Hollywood knows how to make money.

That’s what I like about it.

And when it makes its most money, it always does it in the greatest amount by promoting freedom.

Yes, there are endless pay-the-rent movies about how the CIA has saved the world, the FBI has saved the world, and how the Secret Service has saved this current Pharaoh on Earth, the U.S. President.

But when it really makes money, it always does it by promoting freedom. Even if it fails to realise it.

The greatest franchise to do this has been the ‘Star Wars’ franchise. We have ‘The Empire’ (the state), and we have ‘The Rebels’ (Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, or at the very least, monarchist minarchists). Han Solo is perhaps the greatest Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist of all time, certainly the most widely travelled, even though his claims on travelling a certain number of Parsecs within a certain number of Parsecs leave a little to be desired.

However, his heart remains definitely in the right place. And he shot first.

Which is why we love him so much. Well, that, and his Wookie compatriot, Chewbacca. And R2-D2 of course. I’ve never really liked C-3PO. He’s far too much of a state-fearing bureaucrat, though he generally comes out on the side of the good guys.


That’s why I’m looking forward so much to the next Star Wars movie. Even though the socialists of Hollywood will be unable to help themselves, they’ll be unable to help themselves promoting freedom.

Because this is what the human heart desires. And so human people will pay to watch movies which promote it.

At an unconscious level, all of us hate being slaves. Which is why such movies gather such huge support, and which is why such movies generate such huge amounts of revenue.

Yes, some of us soft-hearted fools may play with being socialists in the modern world, because of all the propaganda we’ve endured and had to pay nominal lip service too.

But once we are freed of the need to impress our closest networks by how much we love socialist failure, once we are released by the imaginings of a distant galaxy a long time ago, we feel able to let our true feelings emanate.

That’s why we love the Star Wars rebels.

And Neo in the original Matrix movie.

And Frodo up against Sauron.

What are they all rebelling against? The state. Why? Because the state is a gang of criminal slave masters. It always has been and it always will be, so long as we let it continue to exist.

That’s why we hate the Empire. And that’s why we always want the Death Star, or its latest tax-paid-for incarnation, to get blown up.

At an unconscious level, all of us hate paying taxes, we hate being told what to do by bureaucrats, and we hate admitting to ourselves that we have become as a general western society, pathetic meek slaves enthralled to a gang of criminal sociopaths, otherwise known as politicians, and their clever neurolinguistic concoctions, such as ‘we the people’, ‘freedom and democracy’, and other such claptrap.

The mark of a free man in ancient Germanic societies was always the ability to bear weapons. And this still holds true in Star Wars movies. The light saber, to use the atrocious colonial American spelling, is the very sign of a significant person, a Jedi warrior, a free man.

And all of us aspire to be free people.

In our Hoppeian future, we will once again achieve this freedom. Once the E.U. breaks up, and the global socialist elite lose their horrific grip over our lives, we will once again become a world of free people.

And it is in these Hollywood movies that we see this unrealised expression.

Obviously, actors in their generally socialistic anti-capitalistic attitudes will hate this. But the good thing is that they will still keep taking their fantastic salaries to keep promoting the good fight.

While they drink their champagne.

It may be a long road, but the force of freedom will always win.

In the end.

In the meantime, keep the faith. Or send me money.

Whichever works for you.

Andy Duncan is an Honorary Vice-President of Mises UK and also the Chief Technology Officer of FinLingo.Com


  1. As I see it, the simple dichotomy in Star Wars is not between freedom and authoritarianism, but between authentic freedom and a plastic freedom that is really a sort of existential entropy. Throughout the series, the freest individuals are not the rebels or occupants of far-flung lands outside the Empire, but the Knights of the Jedi Order and their adept counterparts on the Dark Side, who attain a truer freedom through discipline, sacrifice and obedience to a rigid honour code.

    Doing whatever you like in life is not in itself freedom, it is just an expenditure of energy. The ingredients of real freedom are discipline, focus, sacrifice and integrity, in that these things lead you to a useful goal. A prisoner who is locked up but manages to write books in his cell, learn how to construct an irrigation system in the prison garden, study the Bible, and carve sculptures, is freer than an ostensibly ‘free’ person on the outside who does nothing but satisfy his base instincts and needs. and thus wastes his life.

    Freedom also requires boundaries: between individuals and between cultures (ways of living). If I cannot say, ‘This is my land’ and exclude others from it, then I am not really free (though this depends on the context). If we cannot say, ‘This is our ethnic homeland and our culture, stay away’, then we are not really free, we can be overrun at any time.

    All empires and other socio-civic agglomerations are about expanding existential boundaries with the aim of improved security. [‘Existential’ because I allude to the concept of a Forbidden Zone beyond civilisation, which is psychological as much as temporal-spatial]. If I can tame my enemy (i.e. civilise him) and bring him under my big tent, then I am safer than the alternative situation in which an untamed enemy is somewhere out there in the wild, untamed and perhaps watching me. On the other hand, if an identifiable enemy is beyond a boundary, then that can have the effect of unifying everybody in my camp against that uncivilised enemy.

    The Imperial New Order in Star Wars is assumed to be repressive, but it’s unclear what life was like for ordinary people living under it. I don’t know much about the films – they are not to my taste – but it appears that the New Order is a human-chauvinist empire, so life for humans probably improved under the Empire. Likewise, life probably improved for those non-humans who chose to co-operate and acculturate with the Empire and seek its opportunities.

    Let’s try a real-historical comparison: Did life deteriorate for everybody under Roman rule? What about in Britain? My classical knowledge is thin, but I recollect from school-level history that during Roman rule, the Celtic chieftains mostly acculturated to Rome and that part of Britain that fall under the Pax Romana benefited immeasurably from the civilised influences of the conquerors. I also recall being told that Roman administration in southern Britain was mostly a light touch affair, and while the Romans were firm with rebels, they did not seek to ethnically-cleanse Britons from their own lands – far from it. it was more a case of civilising and then administering Britain in the interests of Rome and in the interests of Britons.

    No doubt a comparison between Rome and the fictitious New Order will be incomplete and a little clumsy – for one thing, we are asked to believe that the New Order was simply evil – but the point is that imperialism, even in its activist form, can be benign, and what we think of as ‘evil’ from the outside looking-in might not be the experience of everyday people.

    The dichotomy that I think is really at work in the above essay is civilisation versus barbarianism (though I doubt the author is conscious of this). Personally, I would favour barbarianism, but I am conflicted on the point as I can also see the benefits of civilisation which I outline above in reference to the New Order and Ancient Rome. Anyway, we have civilisation whether we like it or not – an updated Pax Romana – and we’re stuck with it, but maybe there is a way of revamping the West, making our societies more masculine (and therefore incidentally freer)?

Leave a Reply