11/11/09 – Lew Rockwell – The Scott Horton Show

All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Antiwar Radio on Chaos 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas.
It's Fundraising Week, and it's Armistice Day.
So a good combination for those two things, I think, is to bring Lou Rockwell back on the show.
You all know this guy.
He's the founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute at Mises.org, M-I-S-E-S.org, home of Austrian economics and all the best libertarian thinkers in our entire society.
And he's the author of Speaking of Liberty, a great collection of speeches, and The Left, The Right, and The State.
Of course, he's the proprietor of LouRockwell.com.
Welcome back to the show, Lou.
How are you doing?
Hey, Scott.
Great to be with you.
Well, it's great to have you here.
Happy Armistice Day to you.
Thank you very much.
And I think it's good to remember that originally Armistice Day was established, I won't say as a celebration of peace, but as a remembrance that despite what has to be the worst disaster in the history of human civilization, that thing we call World War I, it did finally come to an end.
And that was what Armistice Day celebrated, that all those years ago, finally the murdering stopped.
But then the evil American Legion got, some decades later, lobbied the Congress to change it to Veterans Day in order to recognize them.
And now we're at a point, I noticed in watching Morning Joe this morning, a terrible thing that I watch, MSNBC, the GE network, the Merchant of Death network.
But I noticed they don't talk about veterans anymore.
And this is really all across at least cable television.
It's all about the serving troops.
So Veterans Day has come to be the support the troops in all their various wars and occupations, wherever they're killing for the government, support them.
And nobody, needless to say, don't pay attention to all the poor guys who are in that single-payer hell called the Veterans Administration, hospitals and the inmates and all there in their various facilities.
Nobody talks about the kids who came back with no arms and no legs and part of their brain gone.
And as we know, there's been a horrific toll.
And of course, needless to say, nobody ever talks about the people they kill in foreign countries.
They're just gooks.
They don't count.
But it's interesting to see the change from Armistice Day to Veterans Day to Pro-War Day.
I mean, day to support the troops in their various wars all over the world.
Of course, the government and its pals would like us to concentrate on the troops because they don't want us looking at why these various wars are fought.
They don't want us remembering that Harmut Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, was a Chevron lobbyist.
And the Chevron is the leading oil company in building this vast pipeline across Afghanistan that General McChrystal uses most of his troops to protect, protect the building of the pipeline.
And we're not supposed, of course, to know those kinds of things.
We're not supposed to know why the government actually fights the rotten wars it does.
Well, why did this government fight World War I, Lou?
Well, I think that, you know, sometimes I wonder, do they inflate to fight wars or do they fight wars to inflate?
Or maybe it's just, you know, a combination of the two.
But I think that they fought World War I to expand the government.
I mean, so that it's, you know, if we can think of the oligarchy of government that runs us, that combination of big corporations and the big government that cooperate together against the rest of us, they did very well out of World War I.
There were a lot of companies, General Electric, I mentioned General Electric.
General Electric did very well out of World War I.
Similar companies did very well.
The banks did very well.
The government itself massively grew.
So you had all the various interest groups interested in it.
And then you had a crazy man and an evil man elected as president on, by the way, a pro-peace platform.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the, just like FDR would later do, that he was going to keep us, he was going to stay out of the war.
And if you elect him, there would be peace and that American boys would not be sent to Europe to die.
So, of course, the minute that Woodrow Wilson is elected, he begins to scheme for preparations for a war.
And the, you know, these wars don't just happen.
There are all kinds of interest groups always operating in Europe, too, as to why wars happen, why people profit from wars.
And in the case of the American government, going to war to make sure that J.P. Morgan and company and various investment banks didn't all begin with Goldman Sachs.
You had their various predecessors in earlier regimes.
Financial war sales to the British, right?
Well, they wanted also to make sure that the British government didn't default on its debts to J.P. Morgan and company.
And, of course, there were vast armament sales.
So, yeah, I mean, it's all the regular reasons.
And Woodrow Wilson, in those days, they actually needed a little more proof of things, or at least phony proof.
It wasn't just enough.
The president wasn't quite the dictator he is today.
So he schemed various things and pretended that the Germans had sunk an American passenger ship.
And that was why we had to go to war against Germany.
What the U.S. did in doing that, it took a horrific war that was going on in Europe.
But it was pretty much stalemated between the so-called allies and the other side.
How come the U.S. side is always the allies?
I don't know.
It always is.
Whereas the other side can consist of the crumbs, the crumb bombs, or whatever the name is they give to them.
But anyway, this war was at a stalemate.
And when the U.S. went in on the side of the allies, on the side of Britain and France and so forth, what they did was they enabled that side to totally crush the other side, and to abolish the German monarchy, get rid of the Kaiser, establish a democracy, and many, many other terrible things that went on.
And it led to events that later brought the Nazis to power.
The Communists came to power during that war as a result of war aims.
And World War II was, in a sense, the second part of World War I.
These were really the same war with a pause in the middle, just like the Hundred Years' War and the War of the Spanish Succession.
Other wars historically had pauses in them.
So did this World War, Part I, Part II.
There was a pause.
How many people were killed in those two wars?
70 million?
80 million?
I don't think we really know.
And more than 100 million killed by the Communists.
How many did the Nazis kill?
Tens of millions.
The Mount Himalaya of skulls, men, women, and babies, came about as a result of World War I and World War II.
And vast increases in the size of the state all over the world.
Central banking every place.
Today we have governments that would have made our ancestors just a gog.
We have, of course, a dictatorship.
Obama is a dictator.
Bush was a dictator.
The American presidency is a dictatorship.
Granted, an elected dictatorship, but still a dictatorship.
Where the government today, in this country and in other countries, claims the right to do anything to you.
Buy on you, kidnap you, torture you, kill you, send you to jail if you don't want to buy their so-called health insurance.
We've gone down the list.
I feel there's nothing that's beyond them.
And this current world regime, now pushing for a world government, was born in World War I, and especially in Woodrow Wilson taking America into that war.
I just want to explore a lot of these consequences.
That's kind of my favorite thing, is to blame the entire 20th century on Woodrow Wilson.
It's very important, I think, what you say about the World Wars being one great big civil war of the West, basically, and how American intervention in World War I caused all that.
I'd like to explore that a little bit more.
But first I'd kind of like to focus on what you brought up there about the people who just wanted to expand the government for government's sake.
And I'll point people to a very interesting article by Murray Rothbard on your website.
World War I as fulfillment for the liberal intellectuals is very interesting.
And I'd also like to ask you, have you ever heard that G. Edward Griffin interview of Norman Dodd about the foundation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Lou?
I have never heard that.
Dodd was a famous guy, a famous congressional investigator against foundations.
And I have.
Right, he worked for the Reese Committee, which was, I think, the first incarnation of the Un-American Activities Committee.
And they weren't going after Hollywood actors and stuff.
They were going after the Carnegie Endowment and the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and things like this.
And I just have a very short clip here.
But this is Dodd talking about the foundation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about the question that they were founded on, I believe, is the frame here.
Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?
So is there any means more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?
This was the founding question of the Carnegie Endowment in 1908, he said.
And then in 1909, they studied it for a year.
And then in 1909, they came back and they said, no, there is no means more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people.
So then their next question to go and study for a year and spend millions of dollars and hire all these professors is, how do we get America into a war?
And this was how the foundation, the Carnegie Endowment was founded.
And, of course, if you go back and trace through, it's the Morgan Board of Directors, the men who created the Central Bank, the men who created the Woodrow Wilson Administration, Colonel Edward Mandel House, and all of those guys.
And, of course, wars don't start with their official opening date.
I mean, World War I was planned by a lot of people long before 1914, people who stood to make a lot of money out of it and who wanted power.
And I also think we always have to keep in mind something about people who rise to the top in government.
F.A.
Hayek famously talked about why the worst rise to the top in government, unlike in the private sector where, I mean, where the best tend to rise to the top.
Not always, of course, but there's a tendency, especially in a free market, for the people who can best serve the consumer to rise to the top.
But in government, the worst rise to the top.
But something about people in government, yes, they want power.
Yes, they want money, but, you know, they like killing people.
This is the ultimate thrill for these guys.
They like mass death.
They like bringing about, they love moving around armies, and not only are they not bothered by the death, I believe they like the death.
I mean, they're really, they're like lizard people or something.
I mean, they're not, there's something about them that's not entirely human.
They're so power-mad.
They're so desiccated.
They're so different from the rest of us.
There's something so evil about power, so diabolical about the power that they exercise that it makes them, in a sense, somewhat inhuman, and they get a kick out of this.
Right, and then their whole theory is that the rest of us aren't really human.
They can do whatever they want with us.
We're just kooks.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
We're just ends to their means.
Yeah, as Russell Means said on this show, oh, don't you get it?
You're all Indians now.
See?
It's true.
Russell, a great guy, established a 100% reserve bank, I guess, in the Lakota Sioux Territory.
So, very neat.
Oh, no.
Well, we'll have another Indian war soon enough then.
And, you know, one more thing about this story was, according to Norman Dodd, again, this congressional investigator went through the original papers of the Carnegie Endowment.
They sent a letter off to Woodrow Wilson, I believe in 1917, cautioning him that the war not end too quickly, because the changes that they were trying to make to American society, they didn't want it to be too easy for people to go back to the way things were before.
Well, Murray Rothbard talks a lot, not only in the article you mentioned, but in his other work, about the Progressive Era.
So much evil came out of the Progressive Era, and this was at a time when intellectuals and corporations and foundations and a whole collection of bad people wanted to do things to the American people.
And we got the Federal Reserve System, we got World War I, we got the draft.
Murray would have argued that the whole prohibitionist movement, and, of course, also the beginnings of the drug war were part of this.
The Federal Trade Commission, many, many regulatory agencies designed to bring about really a fascist state in America, and they did succeed.
We have, of course, at least a soft fascist state in America today.
And the war was very important to these people, and they did indeed plan it.
It did not break out in 1914, or rather, if it did break out in 1914, it was very timely and useful for them.
But these people wanted war, just like people wanted World War II, long before it actually broke out, just like people wanted the Vietnam War.
They wanted the Iraq War long before it broke out.
So they're very smart people, very evil people, who stand to increase their power and their money, reward their friends, punish their enemies, and also, for a lot of them, get the chance to kill people.
They like killing people.
I always remember, and this is, of course, not in a warfare state, but on a smaller level that hearing during the Ron Paul debates, when the Christian minister was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee.
So Huckabee is talking about the death penalty.
And when you saw him talking about why he believed in the death penalty and his execution of various people as governor, you could tell this guy was talking about the greatest thing that had ever happened to him, that he could decide and take people's lives.
So those people tend to prosper in government.
Well, you know, there was an old interview of George W. Bush, when he was still the governor, where Henry Lee Lucas, the vicious serial killer, Bush had to commute his sentence down to life in prison.
And then they were going to hold a new trial, I forget exactly, but basically what happened was he was convicted and sentenced to death for a murder that was proven he did not commit.
He was in another state, in another jail at the time.
And the guy asked George Bush, well, how can you commute the sentence of Henry Lee Lucas?
And Bush says, now listen, I've killed a lot of people, all right?
But, you know, in this case, my lawyers told me it was a legally binding thing.
We couldn't execute him for this crime that it was proven he didn't commit.
And so, you know, whatever, whatever.
But that was his defensive response was, hey, look, I kill people every day.
Remember when he went on Larry King and he mocked Carla Faye Tucker, quoting something, she never said, oh, please don't kill me, wah, wah.
He's talking about killing a woman, a lady who had totally turned her life around in prison and helped other people, et cetera, et cetera.
Well, they all love the death penalty, because it, of course, elevates them above the common strain of humanity and gives them the power that they just love exercising.
So, yeah, Bush killed a lot of people in Texas.
And then, of course, he was responsible for killing, what, a million people when he was president?
I mean, I don't know how many innocent people he killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and even soldiers fighting for those countries.
They're innocent, too.
They're defending their country against an invasion.
So that's George Bush.
You want to think of the state, just think of George Bush, and it's no different under Obama.
In fact, in some sense, I mean, the president, of course, is not actually the all-powerful ruler.
There's an oligarchy.
And when one political button on the lapel of the oligarchy becomes a problem for them, people no longer like the face of Bush, they put a different face on the button.
But the continuing regime, the continuing vast apparatus of corporate and state power that's running us and taxing us, spying on us, sending people to be killed and killing other people, that permanent government continues to exist no matter who the president is.
All right, so now let's do some of this blame Wilson here.
Because, you know, it's funny.
If you look at any problem where the American government is involved anywhere in the world and you try to trace it back to where it began, I mean, I guess really you can blame George Washington or blame James K. Polk or Abraham Lincoln or wherever you want to stop.
But at least it seems to me always very instructive to go, you know, at least start at Woodrow Wilson and explain how, because of, as you said earlier, the way he tipped the scale against the stalemate that was already, you know, the war was basically over.
And he came and screwed everything up.
And because of the consequences of that intervention, the excuse for all the rest of the interventions up to this very day are in place.
I mean, this is how the Ottoman Empire was destroyed.
This is how the Middle East fell into the hands of the British, how the state of Israel was created, how the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia was drawn, etc., etc., on down the line.
No, of course, that's exactly right.
And you had powerful business leaders around Wilson who had already planned exactly how they were going to get rich off the war and how they were going to set up fascist systems.
I mean, look at Gerard Swope, who was head of General Electric, or Bernard Baruch from Wall Street.
They were very powerful business people, immediately set up agencies that took away American civil liberties.
We had people actually put in jail for criticizing Woodrow Wilson.
I mean, it's like, because you set up a totalitarian regime.
Anybody who didn't want to be drafted, to be anybody who tried to oppose the draft, they could be jailed, sometimes tortured.
Certainly, their lives are ruined, their health ruined by being thrown into jail.
And all these central planning agencies that took money from the American people and directed it to the special interests in the most vicious way.
And then, of course, again, this mountain of skulls in Europe.
So Wilson was a brilliant guy.
He'd been president of Princeton.
He was, unfortunately, all too smart, a very useful tool for the oligarchy.
And we still live under some of the so-called laws that Woodrow Wilson put into effect.
For example, the Trading with the Enemy Act, which is a grant of total power to the president if he feels that you're harming a war effort.
And, in fact, gives him power to tell businessmen what to do, tell all sorts of entities within the American system what to do if he feels it's going to help his war effort.
This law still exists.
Bush used it.
I'm sure Obama is using it.
Some people say it's being used against the telecoms to make sure that they spy for the government.
Right now, the Obama administration, for example, is trying to pass a law to put horrendous penalties on anybody who doesn't comply with the copyright regime of the Motion Picture Association and the record companies.
But it gives the federal government power to look in every single email, spy on every single phone call, and the idea that you might be doing something in violation of the copyright laws.
But all these sorts of things began on a systematic basis with Woodrow Wilson.
And even though some of his economic regimes, some of his central planning agencies were dismantled after the war, when Roosevelt came back into power, he put them all immediately back into operation.
All the New Deal agencies copied what Woodrow Wilson had done.
So we can think of the New Deal as being part two of Wilson's economic socialism and fascism as a combination of the two of them.
This is something that's so important to me.
It seems like a way to straighten out all the fallacies that are built into the left-right thing.
It's to really focus on the convergence of the Woodrow Wilson progressives and what we now would just simply call fascism.
And of course, as you may know, my old radio name back in the day used to be Philip Drew Administrator.
Have you ever read that book, Luke?
I have read that book that was written by Colonel House.
You mentioned Edward Mandel House, who was sort of the eminence grease of the Wilson administration.
It's a dream of a fascist America, where the government has total power and where the bureaucracy runs everything.
And this was written by Colonel House, who was the key powerful guy in the Wilson administration.
I mean, far more powerful than Rahm Emanuel, or people you can think of, or Dick Cheney.
Well, he was Wilson's Cheney, for sure.
Yeah, well, he was probably more powerful than Cheney, probably far smarter than Cheney.
I don't know if he was any more evil than Cheney, but he helped bring about the war.
He helped prompt the propaganda to get the American people into the war in conjunction with the British government.
And here's what's inescapable in the book.
Here's Social Security, old age pensions, and here's the empowering of labor unions and the empowering of massive regulatory agencies to protect the people from the evil top hat wearing robber barons.
And here's a League of Nations and a World Navy, and here's the Anglo-American alliance officially carved in stone, like back before the Declaration of Independence.
And he brags, because it was still trendy at the time, it was still politically correct at the time, I anticipated Mussolini by several years.
And this is the Democratic Party platform of the 20th century, this fascist America.
Well, no, of course it is.
What is fascism?
It's a regime that combines the corporate state, it's big business in league with big government, sometimes with big labor unions, although that's been less important in this country than it has in European fascist regimes.
And yeah, Colonel House laid out the whole thing, but of course it didn't spring full-blown from his head.
He represented a broader regime of businesses, of foundations, of universities, intellectuals and media people, all of whom stood to benefit tremendously economically in terms of their egos from power usage, if they could bring about this sort of a regime.
And they did bring it about.
During the war, it was pushed back after World War I.
And very interestingly, before, in the run-up to World War II, there was a commission established within the State Department to work with historians and other intellectuals to make sure that after World War II did not happen to them the horrific events that happened after World War I when the government shrunk.
They had to make sure that the government would not shrink and that the war aims would never be criticized.
Because there was a magnificent period during the 1920s when there was a lot of criticism of the war aims of what were called the merchants of death, still a great phrase, the military-industrial complex of those days, who had promoted the war, who had made money off of it, there were congressional investigations, there were newspaper stories, and the Council on Foreign Relations and related groups and the State Department and the government wanted to make sure this would not happen again.
And indeed, it did not happen again.
And we've had perpetual war ever since 1941.
We're still in a state of war.
They keep changing the enemy, of course, just like in George Orwell's 1984.
They switch pieces on the chessboard, but the government and the military-industrial complex only grow, only become more powerful, more bloodthirsty, and more greedy for what little money they've left us.
So we've kind of been beating around this bush in all this discussion of the convergence of the war party aims and what we think of as liberalism, certainly not the peace-loving hippies that people would tend to assume for some reason, all evidence notwithstanding.
So let's get right to the heart of this, the left, the right, and the state.
That's, of course, the name of your book.
How do you get people to figure out, I'm sure you're going to say something along the lines of it's a matter of degrees of individual freedom versus the idea of collectivism, whether it's in the name of some kind of lovey-dovey, supposedly international socialism, or whether it's brutal national socialism of the right or something.
What we need is liberty, right?
There's got to be a way that people who believe in the civil libertarian parts of liberalism and the general constitutional kind of mindset of conservatism can sort of see a realignment of values around what you're talking about, which is freedom for people against this leviathan.
Well, what we have to do is actually try to put into effect the rhetoric, because, of course, neither the left nor the right believe in liberty.
They may use libertarian rhetoric.
Certainly, frequently, they do use libertarian rhetoric on both sides, but neither one of them actually believes in it.
Both believe in the state and more power for themselves as against the rest of us.
So the right may use some of our rhetoric.
The left may use some of our rhetoric.
But, again, the liberals don't actually believe in civil liberties.
The conservatives don't actually believe in free markets.
It's just words they use to fool the people.
So, first of all, we have to point out that they're lying, talk about how they're lying, why they're lying, and try to uphold the truth and try to explain why free markets and civil liberties and privacy and all the ideals that are associated with classical liberalism and with libertarianism are of permanent value and, indeed, are entirely bound up with human flourishing.
If we actually want humans to flourish, if we want human civilization to flourish, if we want our communities, our families, our businesses, ourselves to flourish and not be stamped out by the boot of the state, then we have to take these ideas seriously.
But it sure seems like we can't count on either side.
Right.
It's a matter of, especially, I think, don't you agree that when the party in power changes and those who were the worshippers of the state now become the opposition and vice versa, that you have a certain number of people who have got to wash out of this and say, oh, come on, you know, there are liberals right now saying this Obama guy is just as bad as Bush and there, of course, were conservatives, I guess, probably a smaller proportion of conservatives who never did like Bush.
That's what we've got to hope for, right, is that they're finally now paying attention.
We can teach them about individualism.
I guess, I mean, of course, it's a, these people are very smart on both sides.
So all of a sudden you have, for example, to take the Republicans, people who had striven for the total state, who had been, for example, for massive expansion of government intervention into medical care.
Look at Bush's so-called prescription drug benefit or many other things the Bush administration did to expand the government's control over medical care.
All of a sudden these people are saying, oh my gosh, Obama wants to expand government control over medical care.
We have to stop him, that socialism and so forth.
Well, it is socialism.
The Obama plan, of course, is a disaster.
It's horrible.
But so was the Bush plan.
Every single American president since Harry Truman has expanded government intervention in medical care.
Every single one of them, Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush, Clinton, LBJ, of course, JFK, all of them, they've, under their regimes, been a constant march of more and more federal power over medical care.
And it's also, it has this connection to the warfare question.
They love being able to, you know, Sarah Palin is exactly right when she talks about they'd like to have death panels.
There are death panels in other socialized medical systems.
And people in government love the idea that they can tell you that they can put you to death, either directly through euthanasia or indirectly through the denial of care.
So this appeals to people in government.
And let me chime in here that, you know, I'm fixing to play this interview I recorded this morning with the, it's fair to say, progressive journalist Greg Palast from the BBC.
And in my previous interview with him, we talked all about this.
And he said, hey, everybody, just because Obama says there's not going to be death panels, you should not believe that.
They're lying to you about this whole thing.
And he said that the opposition of the insurance companies is simply crocodile tears.
They have a deal with the White House.
This is nothing but a massive, not socialist, or maybe half socialist, but fascist transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to these most powerful insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
And that, you know, here was liberal Greg Palast basically sounding like Lou Rockwell and saying, hey, man, you know, don't write off the idea of death panels just because some crazy right-winger you don't respect said so.
There may actually be something to that.
Well, anything the big pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association are for, as they are for this health care plan, you know it's evil.
You know it's rotten.
You know it has nothing to do with the American people.
And I must say, Palast has been, by the way, great about who finances what in terms of American politics.
I mean he's been great at looking who, you know, really finances the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
And it's these, yeah, it's these interest groups.
Of course they want to be, you know, it's what Nietzsche called that cold, cruel monster of the state.
They want the people in the state to look forward to the idea of killing you.
They look forward.
They like denying care.
And, of course, if somebody has been a problem for them, they, you know, might really like to get rid of you.
But they definitely get a kick out of denying care or performing euthanasia in the socialist system in the Netherlands, the socialized medical or fascist medical system.
They have a category of death called, in their hospitals, called involuntary euthanasia.
Well, that's a very nice name for it.
In other words, they kill you.
Yeah.
They decide, you know, that you've lived long enough.
They kill you.
So this is what we're headed to.
We've already got a little bit of this in this country.
We're going to be getting more of it.
And, of course, you know, I'm glad to hear that Palast said that because it's certainly true.
But, again, this is not just Obama.
It's not just the Democrats.
It's Bush.
It's Clinton.
It's Eisenhower.
It's Reagan.
It's Johnson.
It's the whole line of criminals.
And if Woodrow Wilson had been able to bring it about, he probably would have done that, too.
Indeed.
Well, you know, you mentioned early on in this interview about the current push for global federalism.
And I think I'd like to have you back on the show.
We're out of time for this one for that.
But I will say that I went a long time without the Internet, Lou.
I didn't get it until 2003.
And I had The New York Times and I had TV news and I had books.
And all of my best revisionist history of the 20th century that I learned up until 2003 mostly came from people like G. Edward Griffin on sort of the John Birch right.
And a lot of that, of course, has to do with the Morgan and Rockefeller establishments and so forth.
But one of the first things that happened to me when I got the Internet was I read what I guess was published as a monograph, finally.
But it's an article.
It's one long article.
Anyone can find that Lou Rockwell dot com.
Again, that's L.E.
W.
Rockwell dot com.
It's called Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy by Murray and Rothbard.
And that was basically the entire sort of John Birch conspiracy theory version of the 20th century, only without any of the kooky stuff, without any of the right wing stuff.
It was, you know, Rothbard basically telling me that the best I've been able to figure out all that time was right.
And plus, did you know that this guy was married to that other guy's daughter?
And man, it is just absolutely great.
And it's at the top of my recommendations for people who want to learn the real kind of behind the scenes revisionist history of the 20th century there.
And then I hope we can maybe continue the subject of world federalism and so forth, as dreamed of by Philip Drew back in the day, you know, sometime soon on the show.
Thank you very much, Scott.
Everybody, that's Lou Rockwell.
The website is Lou Rockwell dot com.
And Lou, by the way, I keep your blog open all day long and hit refresh on it.
The books are Speaking of Liberty, The Left, The Right and The State.
And again, check out Mises dot org, M-I-S-E-S for Ludwig von Mises dot org.