 Welcome to the second of six lectures on the politics, economics, and philosophy of freedom. We call it liberty, Thon. It is followed at 3.30 by a discussion on the draft. And that features Mark Jaffee, Alex Reyes, and Carol Moore. This is the second time in the course of the year in which I have the pleasure of introducing our next speaker. He's been referred to for better or for worse as the guru of the libertarian movement. But I'd like to think of him as an extraordinary scholar, economist, historian, political philosopher, professor of economics at Polytechnic Institute of New York, the author of scores of books, articles, publications. What else could I say? He is talking today on the crisis of American foreign policy, which please welcome Dr. Murray Rothberg. Thank you very much. When you get into foreign policy, you get a peculiar area for libertarians, because it's an area where many libertarians, if not most libertarians, feel uncomfortable. Feel that they don't see where libertarian principles apply to foreign policy. That's true of the kind of peculiar hiatus, because foreign policy is extremely important, say the least. I think, personally, that foreign policy is the least single most important area for libertarian application, consideration, agitation, whatever. What's the reason for this? Well, it's one thing. I think it's fairly simple. Libertarian theory basically is opposed to any kind of aggression against personal property. We were against the theft, robbery, organized theft, robbery, whether it's one person doing it or half a dozen people or a group calling themselves the state. So we're opposed to this bitterly and heroically and whatever. But also, we believe that murder is even more important than theft, even worse a crime, even worse an aggression than theft is. So that mass murder is even worse of a crime than, say, OSHA or price control. And yet, libertarians over sound on the OSHA question and sound on price control and know the history of it and the philosophy of it and the economics of it and attack it. Somehow, when it comes to mass murder, it was blank out, as many of you used to know nothing. Nothing upstairs. A mass murder question, which seems more important to myself and maybe many other people than these other more narrow economic questions. So we're opposed to murder of one person or another. We're opposed to murder of a group against an individual and we're opposed to mass murder. And war is the organized expression and modern life of mass murder. It is mass murder, a giant scale. If we had a situation like in the good old days in the 15th century or something where one king had his retinue, most hired retinue, going to march out of the field and the other king hasn't hired retinue, they march on the field and the forces have this jousting contest and whoever is left on the field is the player of the victor and everybody else stands on ramparts and cheers like a football match. It really was something and much of early warfare, not a lot of it, it's Renaissance Italy, for example. You just take a football, like a Super Bowl, hey they're out there, but I've signed your pants and your buttons to cheer for the king of Parma or whatever it is. Nobody really cares, so nobody's hurting you the way, whoever wins, so what, so Parma takes over instead of the Milan or whatever. Well then days are unfortunately going forever, so we're trying to restore it as much as possible with the carries, but nowadays the weapons of force wielded by the state apparatus, so the various presidents, dictators, et cetera, kill innocent civilians along with everybody else, along with the retinue and the generals, they kill millions of people, innocent people trying to get out of the way and can't do it. Now we have by the way, presidential order, what is it, 58 or something, we're just very cheered and happy to know that even if the rest of the war, even if the time American population has wiped out a nuclear war, a goddamn government will continue eternally. I'm sure it's a great consolation, all of us know, the president of the top people called them non-interruptibles, so that the government will not be interrupted. The non-interruptibles, you whisked away, as soon as there's any holocaust coming up, they'll be whisked away to secret places all over the place, they'll live eternally and bomb shelters or whatever, and the rest of us die out. So that's not the case, we're opposed to this, opposed to mass warfare, and then so how do we, what do we do about it, in the sense that there have been accused of being pacifists, not really pacifists, we don't, I mean most, there's some of the Italians who are pacifists, but the mainstream of the movement are not pacifists, we believe our sisters being rapists, legitimate, eliminate the rapists, and vice versa, they're all in favor of using violence for self-defense, but this is not self-defense, this is not any great difference, this is the mass murder of innocent civilians, nuclearizing a huge part of the population, that's not self-defense. So we're opposed to war, opposed to interstate warfare, we're opposed then to the state A or the rulers of state A, aggressing citizens of some other state, or yes, their own state too, that's not warfare, that's just a regular taxation, everything else we're dealing with. So warfare can be defined as a situation where the rulers of state A are killing and aggressing against the citizens of state B, like unfortunate victims of state B, the fact they're also killing the rulers of state B doesn't really concern me at all, I mean that's not, I mean, sort of like go husband, go bear, I don't really care if Khomeini and Khomeini are out there slugging and out like president of Iraq, I don't care who and when or who it leaves, it's like W.C. Field of Magnificence, my own special hero of the 20th century was asked, W.C. Field was asked by the Saturday evening post during World War II, they had the series of notables, they answered the question, how would you end the war? What plan would you have to end the war? Field sat down very seriously, it's not supposed to be a joke in his part, he was really anarchistic type. He sat down and he wrote out his plan for ending the war and they didn't publish it, they felt it was subversive, I guess it was. The plan was, you take the leaders of both sides or all sides into Hollywood and bowl, you let them fight it out with cycles of guns. That was his plan, it was a magnificent plan, it was getting back at the old Renaissance jousting. Anyway, so we don't have that, we have, we're trying to get, we're trying to get back to that sort of world. If there is a state at all, a state where we can find a minimal situation, at least in a foreign affairs situation, a state should not, at least should not be aggressing against the citizens of the other country, and if bad enough it's aggressing against the citizens of its own country, we can't eliminate that for a while yet, so we get to eliminate, stay all together, at least as while the state is around, while individual states are around monopolizing the territories of the world, at least they shouldn't fight with each other, when they fight with each other, innocent civilians of all states will be killed in the process. So this is a basic basis, a philosophic basis, a moral basis of the libertarian policy of isolationism, quote unquote, or not of the invention. It stems from the idea of trying to minimize mass murder, trying to eliminate it or minimize it. So, so this means that those states should aggress against the people in other states, if somebody, if some state does, of Iraq, say, of the current Iraq-Iranian situation, at every other state should stay the hell out. So the minimal situation, so if you seek two countries at war, you stay out, so it's the minimize the process of world murder. Of course, this is almost impossible for the United States these days to stay out of anything. This is the, this would be the injunction, okay, these two countries are fighting it out, stay out of it. This, of course, goes against the Wilsonian theory of essentially operating our foreign policy since 1914, 1917, namely that if there's any war, any place, the United States got to get into it and decide, first of all, who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and then leap in to defend the good guys, right? This is what we've been doing essentially since 1914 to 1970. And so I was a beer, a great historian called us the policy perpetual war for perpetual peace. And was waging perpetual war so as to achieve permanent peace. We've been waging a perpetual war, all right, that part of it we've been doing, the perpetual peace has been more and more elusive and receding beyond the horizon. For that reason, what we're doing in this policy is you're maximizing conflict, the area of conflict. If you stay out of country, stay out of conflict, then you're at least minimizing the scale of conflict. If you leap into it, then you're maximizing it. So another point here is that the policy then of non-division abroad is that the libertarian analog and non-division at home, just as we try to keep the statement of being an economy and of being a religion and to being almost anything else, trying to cut state power in the domestic area. So you're trying to keep the statement of being a foreign affairs area too. By doing that, you're cutting out, cutting down or cutting out mass murdering, also cutting down, cutting taxes and the drafts, everything else. Because if we, if we never went to war, or any threat of going to war, you're very difficult to impose a draft, then the draft only has to be philosophic, you know, toughen up the moral fiber of America's youth. And that would be able to get away with that much anymore. And moral fiber has got a hell anyway. So I'd have to be able to restore the moral fiber at this point. So, and in addition to that, in addition to these basic philosophic reasons, there's a historical reason of great importance of libertarianism, namely this. One of the things when you get to be a libertarian, one of the first things you look at are four bears of the classical liberal movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. There they were, they were very strong in many kinds of strong United States and very strong in England. It was strong in Germany and pressure for a while in a strong in France. Since something happened to them, what happened on the way to salvation? How do they decline? How do they disappear? How do they lose out? So when you first start into interested in libertarians, and this is one of the first questions that meets you, well, how come we'll hear we almost one and then we collapse? And the answer stares everybody in the face, if you're looking at historically, the answer is always the war question. It's always patriotism, it's always the nation's state at war. This is always the same. What happens is libertarianism or classical liberalism is winning out the state is diminishing of power and strength. I mean, all of a sudden bingo, there's the chance for aggrandizement of nation state, go out and crush France or go out and crush so and so or whatever. Watch out for the Belgian threat. Whatever it is, whether it's the grand eyes of the your nation state abroad or the keeping worrying about some mythical threats from over the hill, the people are mobilized, half the liberals, half the possible to sell out and say, well, it's more important, order is more important than liberty, security is more important. They sell out the nation state of the month or as in bingo, you've had it. And this is what happened in the 19th century, country after country. And in Germany, it happened where in Prussia, we think now Germany's sort of the United country is always status. It wasn't true. In Prussia, for example, classical liberalism was very strong, it was winning out the majority in parliament. And Bismarck, but Bismarck's trying to always try to get money from home because that was the basic he was running things that I thought had to get money from taxes. And what he did was he said, we will unify the German people by blood and iron. He starts declaring war against Austria and Denmark, whatever, Denmark, etc. And half the liberal split. So yes, yes, we need a big army and big Navy for the glorification of the nation state. And a liberal, classical liberal talking about a split and a half at the end of the finish. And the same thing happens in Britain, where the liberals start selling half to British Empire, they cause the British Empire, you know, spreading the message throughout the globe. The other thing there in Britain was the pushing the Irish, which was always a, it's always a policy which is interesting, which people rather have a tallying or a silly, the Irish question will then rise up and the liberals will split and a half and the state will take over again. But in each case, you see, patriotism, the war question takes over. The United States is the same thing. It's the Spanish and American war. I'm pushing the Philippines in order to liberate them. And on and on. And then, of course, I think the World War One, which kills the whole business changes the whole course in front of fears. So so in every situation then you have, and also if you look at American history, American history, you look at a zigzag, you can't measure this, of course, we can have a some sort of, you know, rough degree of measure, a degree of liberty, how liberty is going in the world, a degree of the state versus liberty. And starting off, the state being very minimal, then on the War of 1812 was a big increase in federal government status, status power, that then it takes about 30 years to wash out the effects of the War of 1812, get back because of the dedicated Jacksonian movement. And we're back then, and by 1840, we're back to the pre-1812 degree of statism, the degree of statism on a one-axis. Then bingo comes a civil war, and that sort of buzzes it. And we're way up here. We never really washed that out at all, maybe a little bit. And World War One, and then we're off. In other words, we have a ratchet effect where every war has a huge increase in status. And that's that's it. That's the occasion of status and the increase in the war. As Randall was born, the Great Libertarian said, World War One, war is the health of the state. As soon as you have war, everybody said, well, we can't have liberty during wartime, bingo, a great increase in good government control and taxes and planning and everything else and draft, you know, the whole business, and very little bit washes out afterwards. In other words, as Madison says, and Kate of the letters say, if you start with an emergency situation, the state supposed to increase its power just as an emergency, emergency last forever becomes part of the American heritage. For example, with Gondam with holy tax, which is the key to the federal income federal power, without the holy tax, you imagine how the average person would kick in $5,000 one check, you know, holy tax system will collapse with holy tax only came in during World War Two, and only came in as a so cool wartime emergency measure for the war effort was supposed to disappear after 1944. Of course, here we are at the quality of our heritage, and even even our beloved presidential candidate, the military party, doesn't advocate repeal with holy tax. So, we have a little big. Well, so we'll learn. So we have a situation where we have a situation where the war is the health of the state where we have to avoid war and mass murder, et cetera, et cetera. This is the key question, a primary question for me. So when we estimate who's the more dangerous presidential candidate, for example, it is a fictional, libertarian presidential candidate deserves to maintain the fiction, which I suppose may be necessary, maybe not, but all other candidates are equally bad. Well, the parent candidate, and there's half a dozen state, actually about 13 state candidates, but you can't really maintain that fiction. Some people are worse than others. I mean, some people, the status might be equally bad, but some state is worse than more equal than others. So the Ronald Reagan, even though he, and many people think he's very close to libertarian position, because he claims to be a favor of tax cuts, although he really isn't, claims to be a favor of free market, although he really isn't. He also is a favor of nuclear war, I mean, direct nuclear confrontation. To me, therefore, becoming the most dangerous candidate, because only if we all go up a nuclear incineration, all the rest of the more academic and maybe more interesting questions like price control or free will and determinism, all these things become pointless, if we're all washed away. So the war and peace question becomes the premier question we worry about. Okay, so the, as far as the price is so far, so far we haven't been empirical, so far we've been more allowed to sort of infer. We're more or less historical and talking about philosophically. Now we talk, now we come to the individual states, individual governments. Now most people are caught up in the Wilsonian myth. What do I want in order to sell as war policy of global war and global crusading, which has been adopted by every president since then? In order to sell this, a pound of the myth which most people Americans still believe, most libertarians believe in different form, namely, in any conflict between governments and any foreign policy crisis. The more the more dictatorial ones must be at fault. In other words, if you have country A and country B, country A is more democratic, you have people voting and more free speech, let's say free or internally. And country B is dictatorship and very little internal freedom. People are so slaves of the state. If there's a conflict between a foreign policy conflict and a war between them, country A must be, country B must be the blend of dictatorship, must be more aggressive of foreign affairs. Now this, I say, is held by most libertarians. It's also an easy way of avoiding and turbulence analysis of what's going on in the world. You've got two countries, Ruritania and Woldavia, two hypercyclic countries. Ruritania is freer domestically and Woldavia is more tyrannical. Therefore, there's a fight between Woldavia must be at fault, right? Wrong. Just so happen that ain't true. Be nice and cozy if a word's true. When we want to read about foreign affairs, let's figure out which is more domestically tyrannical and that's it, that's it. But there are four. Unfortunately, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There are many countries which have been despotic and tyrannical internally, which is not that aggressive externally at all. Other countries which have been free or internally, which has been very aggressive and vice versa. There's all this historical example of war for permutations. For example, Cambodia, Vietnam, Vietnam fight year or two ago, whatever that word. There's no question about the fact Cambodia is more dictatorial internally. We have to look at the shoes. I've done what Presto are having to choose between living in Cambodia and Vietnam. I think all of us would have chosen Vietnam. Vietnam would be slightly freer. Cambodia is an absolute monstrosity of natural hell on earth. People, you know, being dragged out of hospitals in order to get them to get to the land and things like that. Okay, if you say one whisper of criticism or anything, you're shocked and things like that. Okay, so this is, so Cambodia is probably the worst internally, the worst country in the, maybe in history, or at least in modern history. And yet Cambodia was definitely not, Vietnam was definitely the aggressor on this fight. Vietnam launched the attack, conquered Cambodia and so on and so on. So here, so that's just one example, Albania, which is only slightly less chemical in Cambodia, right? Hasn't been aggressive at all in part of it. They've been very quiet externally. They haven't been very strong, because other states aren't strong either. So we have a situation where the degree of internal tyranny really has nothing to do with whether or not a company is full of foreign policy. So once we look at that situation, we have completely, that means we have to then learn something about foreign affairs before we shoot our mouths off about who's at fault in any given situation. Okay, so apparently historically, if you look at the situation since World War I, before it, we find out that the freer countries, quote unquote, the ones mostly at full and various conflicts. And in order to do that, of course, you have to sell, if you're more democratic, you have to sell a company or a republic with more lying propaganda in a sense of me, but all governments have propaganda. But the more democratic country has to be more, has to be more propagandistic, has to be more hypocritical, and have more to overcome and selling their situation. But they've been able to do it. The amount of lies the United States and the American public has imbibed through the media is enormous, not just about Vietnam and so forth, but the old previous wars that you would engage in. Vietnam and Vietnam, the lies were exposed. It was the one situation where we have a real opposition to the war in this country. So all of a sudden the press and the media which had been spent the last 40 years living on government handouts, and just repeating them, all of a sudden became fearless, independent, muck-wracking observers and analysts. Something became honest. So for a couple of years they had honesty in the media. They were exposed in such a situation. But it hasn't happened very often, either before or since. So that's a problem of finding out exactly what's going on. Another thing is among libertarians, many libertarians have this situation. Any government official says anything immediately disbelieve. I mean the head of H.E.W. says something. Yeah, liar. The head of OSHA says something. Yeah, lie. If a Pentagon says something, we implicitly just like that. Pentagon. Pentagon says it must be true. So we have a double standard of operation among libertarians about federal government. If anybody except the military says something, it's pack of lies, it's statism, it's tyrannical. The military says it must be correct. So we have a very peculiar double standard which of course is very similar to Bismarck's thing. It's part of the same syndrome already has sell out on a foreign policy of civil threat to the nation. Any rate, empirically, which I honestly can't prove here, not the time, but empirically, the problem has been that the first major war center for war, the four World War I was Britain and France and Zoroastra Russia. And secondly, the major war center after that, as in the United States, especially after World War II, where we dispossessed the British empire and take over, the world will be over the empire. Britain having been economically bankrupt because of, because it's actually because of their imperial, it couldn't, it couldn't maintain their imperial venture anymore. We have a situation where an empire is very costly, especially in the taxpayer form of inflation etc. And so the United States was strong enough to pick up a tab. I don't know whether it's still strong enough to pick up the tab, it's getting a little weaker, the dollar is getting weaker, etc. From 1945 or my 1970, the United States was warded, ruled over the roost, warding over the whole world, and had enough money to carry this off, or enough enough taxpayer money to carry this off. It's not getting the point where we have to sort of reconsider a little bit, which is part of the process of reconsidering of the government's effective at all, whether the government can do anything, whether the government's actions are really productive, or counterproductive, or whatever. So we have a situation where, since World War II, the United States is actually running the world except for the communist block and other other companies which break loose, they're trying to run the world. Anything happens anywhere in the world, right? Anywhere, it doesn't matter. Blue Latanya, which is when my mentor Lily Valmises is named for an abstract country. Something happens in the world of Latanya, my god, the American defense perimeter is a state. King so-and-so is toppling, we got to save him. Why? Who knows? Because he's destabilizing. The United States position almost is any change whatsoever is bad. Any change, destabilize. Even the Polish workers strike, which is a certainly heroic and inspiring action. Even the United States is really against it, because it might rock the boat. You don't want the boat rock. They're running most of the world. We don't want the boat rock. That's essentially the American foreign policy. And if we take, if most of the people in the world don't like their present regime, which is true and just defiable, it means that American foreign policy is putting itself slightly against the witches of most of the population. And we wonder why we keep losing. Basically, why we keep losing is we wind up propping up every coming government in the world, every dictator, every unpopular government, because anything else would be destabilizing, rocking the boat. Of course, we might be in the army position and we'd never rock the boat, any of you are opposite. Don't make waves. Don't make waves for the people in power. That's what we find outside of the ally of every 10-part dictator in power and they have to pop them up. And any 10-part dictator loses somehow a loss of faith in the United States, a loss of American foreign policy, a loss of jazz. So that's part of the crisis of American foreign policy. The libertarians aren't trying to do it, should be trying to do it, should be trying to do it. The United States, not the Indian countries abroad, and also to try to get a nuclear disarmament agreement because nuclear wars are proliferating pretty soon, you know, in 10, 15 years every country is going to have nuclear weapons, sort. And nuclear weapons hang over the population of the Earth, sort of them a place. You always get started. You just lost a damn missile somewhere. Where was it in Nebraska? Of course, it's somewhere out there. And so, and mutual disarmament, a nuclear disarmament agreement, and disarmament agreement of all weapons of mass destruction. This armament coming on, he's called disarmament down to police level, down to the machine gun. It's much easier than it ever was because of the satellites and everything. It's very easy to inspect, the inspection problem, virtually eliminated because it's much easier now for satellites and inspect to find out what's going on. And whether there aren't any weapons out there. So this, the United States has been the main obstruction of any kind of disarmament agreement, has been since 1955. In 1955, we kept pressing Russia to agree on nuclear disarmament agreement. They said, wow, we don't know about it so much so. Finally, a May 10th 1955, the day which would go down, the day of infamy. Historic day in American history, a May 10th 1955, Khrushchev, at least disarmament talks, says the United States representative, okay, we agree, we agree on general complete disarmament, let's go get it, let's go do it. You know, unlimited inspection and all the rest of it. The American reaction was, my God, things have changed. We've got to suspend the talks for a few months. I got to accept our proposal. That's not part of the, that's not part of the part. I wasn't considering computers and the running computers back then. Didn't program that one. So we suspended the talks. There's no, sorry, conditions have changed. Then Eisenhower comes out with a meretricious, hypocritical or evil, open skies proposal. In other words, we dropped the idea of disarmament along with inspection. We came up with the idea of open sky, which sounds great for the average person. Open sky, why not? You know, open skies. But what really meant it was it should be unlimited inspection and no disarmament, which has virtually been in the market position ever since. So anyway, this, I'll turn this over to questions now. But the thing is that that's the the basic, the basic things we need a complete change in our control policy back essentially in the position 19th century for 1890s. That that was perfect then was more or less on the right track. Certainly we're toward learning and practice even less so, but still more often than that one. And so, okay, I'll turn it over to comment, question one of my questions. Yeah. You see that there's a VA usually to our goal, you know, you don't think that outside of bodies, they think that we're spiritual and vital. You have been their body, their nature, their, their spirit, historically, was there a spiritual high level of spirituality during a period in which we speak of the making of the Federal? People have to actually be willing to get to the front and get or get rid of all of them. I mean, I've got to find my body, my life. Well, I don't feel as you should be spiritual and vital as much could easily work the other way. As a matter of fact, people can sign up on the give me a bomb crew to say what the heck you have to die anyway. I don't I'm not willing to turn us in the body. Our body is over the state anyway. I don't see why they own our bodies. Leaving us with pure spirit. I don't see the right shit there. As far as historically, it's a mixed bag. I mean, 17th century libertarians were were mostly Christian. On the other hand, everybody was Christian. So by the 18th and 19th century Christianity almost died out in that state. Mostly. There's a series of the founding fathers, for example, the right wingers now say the moral majority people say the family fathers were Christian. Paul and Baloney are almost none of them are Christian. Only Patrick Henry and Sam Adam. They were older. The younger generation, even George Washington wasn't Christian. But they were with theists. So they were talking about God all the time. They met by God. It was essentially the clock wind there. The eight creator who wound the clock up and wound the universe up and left everybody alone. That's essentially the and so most of the family fathers were deists. And so Christianity only gets really revived by the 1820s and 30s of the half up revival movement. So it brings it back in a big way. But anyway, so I don't the as far as again, historically, 19th century, 19th century, the two kinds of from 1820 on say 1900, you mean later for two kinds of Christianity in that space. The pietists, the evangelical pietists who were hopped up born again types, which are now quite familiar with. So I wasn't very familiar about growing up. And at any rate, the born again types were status in every area. They wanted a personal libertarian area. They wanted one of the crushed stamp out sin. But he's a secular arm because they felt that every individual was responsible for not only their own salvation, everybody else's salvation because if you don't work at your maximum strength to save everybody else, then you yourself will not be saved, which is a tremendous incentive to meddling in everybody's life. So their view was they've got to go out and try to save everybody else. Salvation meant removing the opportunities for temptation of the sin. And they saw sin everywhere. Sin was maximum. Almost anything anybody does is considered sin. So the function of government was to stamp out, stamp out liquor in particular, dancing and going out to what else. So then the the pie has been transposed that in the federal to more economic policy and national economic context. In the same way, we have that big government in Washington to keep out cheap foreign labor and you know, that sort of thing. And in case he's purchasing powerful inflation, judicious inflation and the rest of it. In the meantime, the that was the Reagan Republican Party. In the meantime, the Democratic Party was essentially the party of the liturgical religious groups, Catholics and high Lutherans. And and their idea was that essentially, they don't get saved through this process of born again, get safe with joining the church and being a sacrament and so forth. And so they didn't consider the state had any real role in salvation. And what they want to keep these jerks off our backs, you know, keep our liquor or keep our agricultural schools, keep Sunday beer gardens and all that. And so you have also in the 19th century was a constant struggle, political struggle on local and state level between the pie doesn't want to enforce Christian morality through the state and the Catholics and Lutherans want to keep them off their backs. And then again, the Democratic Party extending that to national affairs, saying, look, the same it's the same SOV to try to take away your liquor and help your school go to kind of take away cheap foreign products and rob your savings to inflation that the subject which you had. So either this is that that's not clear cut on the religious question. And certainly spirituality is promising that has not been on the net. And that I say is fine. I think you have the best I would imagine the U.S. didn't buy this one to be around being in this kind of every way of traffic. Then you still have problems by just saying one or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two or two orWell쟁 There was your work is if there's any government the argument for Industry thinking about the minimal status 차�issa the ones that want to keep keep going on or keep a Have released whatever you have to allow differing defense agencies and one territorial you have conflicts you have that one monopoly ahh that agency to defend people ahh these say but well we don't have me have one honestly within each country, but we don't have it over the world. So these same normal state-of-the-patches then say, well, okay, you got to confine your monopoly of coercion, at least to your own area, because if you get beyond that and start meddling in Belgium or something, then you have got, then you have eternal conflict, because it means that other states coming in will also end up here, and you have a constant inter-jurisdictional disputes between governments. So just on that basis alone, I'm gonna say we're confining, we have a state at all, we're gonna post it, since we have it, we should at least be confining the zone territorial area, where it can only oppress its own citizens and not oppress other states. Otherwise, I'd say you have eternal constant, temptation of constant conflict. Not on the same, I thought if it would be, because it's harder to find the real state after all it wants to be in line, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you know that you lost your impression of what you were doing on the United States. And yeah, that means that the American people had gotten to the United States. The United States, what? I'm pretending that somehow it was known and true that the American people had gotten to the United States. Well, you don't see me say this thing, I shouldn't make my position clear. And the goal of each state should not be to minimize mass murder of the world. The goal of each state should be to confine its own murder activity, because I don't think the American state's policy to eliminate murder of the world should just stop murdering itself, right? I mean, that's the difference. In other words, I don't consider that the American government or any other government should be the carrier of moral principles, which are confining activities to minimize its own murder. Otherwise, you'd have to catch a war or catch a peace. And if you take a big Russian friend, only these jerks out here, they have to claim as a Russian friend, they have to go out there and fight themselves, kind of, get an international lead you together and go into Europe, fly in there, that's what I'm trying to say. Get some voluntary and heavy sort of thing, all right. That's what I'm trying to do, I'm going to go out there on the brigade. Well, as you say, I don't think that the Russians tried the Russian, but that's, again, a perfect question that you can get into. I was in response to that, I was thinking of, he would raise the case of the Polish strikes in Monroga. It seems like the best American foreign policy to alleviate that situation would be to pull back from NATO, because the main thing that the Soviets are concerned about, the Soviets do have a concern about keeping Poland on their side and keeping a buffer between their own borders. But if they have less fear of American invasion, then they have less excuse to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and so on to invade Poland. So it seems like the best thing we could do for the heroic strikers in Poland would be to reduce the American government's threat to the Polish people, which is what justifies the Poland government's oppression over the Polish people and the Soviet oppression over there. Absolutely, no question about that. Russia has been invaded through Poland at least three times in the 20th century, in the long history, and long and sharp history of invasion. They're therefore concerned about another invasion. As you say, the American NATO threat, that was the whole thing. I mean, the Russian Imperium is falling apart anyway, even with this cohesion posed by the American threat. The American threat will eliminate the whole thing that's going on much faster. It's pretty clear. I mean, the war in the United States, you come out of Russia's spreading throughout the world constantly. Russia is falling apart. I mean, a whole communist Imperium is falling apart. China, of course, we know about. Although the right wingers, the Reaganites, took them 15 years to claim that China, to admit that China was no longer pro-Russian. First, they, for 10 years, they said it's all hoax. They're practically killing each other's throats all around the Chinese and Russian border. But for 10 years before that, wow, it's not the Kremlin plot. So you could slowly, I hope, Western Europe communists are falling apart. Only the Communist Party in the United States is still really devoted to Russia, and therefore, they might have nothing. And half a dozen only spoke over 70. So it's, and if this cohesion was imposed from the external threat, which is fairly, I mean, see, one of the problems about this whole, this whole nuclear weapons and missile system, one of the things that scares the Russians is that it scares me almost so, like I said about your religion. Is that the Russians have been concentrating on so-called dirty weapons, dirty missiles. In other words, if you're, you have your second strike thing, which was monstrous at the beginning of it, but at least with the second strike. In other words, if you have, if you, the idea is to deter the other guy by having a second strike capability, which will then wipe out the other guy's cities, then you have your missiles train in the other guy's city, right? Which is what Russia has been doing. So, so that we, we, we, we, we, you know, drop nuclear bombs on them and they'll wipe out and you go off washing it, et cetera. Now what the, so there, to do that, you have to want to wipe out somebody else's cities. The missiles can be dirty. They can be imprecise. They don't need precision. It doesn't matter if they drop a bomb on Greenwich Village or Forty Seconds Street. We won't wipe that anyway. However, if you're interested in a first strike, if you're interested in knocking out, then you're interested in knocking the other guy's missile style on that, then you have to be very precise. Have a, have a targeted thing with great precision so you don't hit the thing right directly. And the thing that scares, watching the scares of me stay for the last few years, we have been concentrating on very precise nuclear weapons, precise missiles, spending a lot of money on precision. What's the point of precision if we don't want a first strike? We don't want a first strike capability. The Russians have been desperately saying, asking for an agreement of no first nuclear strike. Neither side on this time, we constantly refuse to agree to this, you know, space. This is our main card in the world. We want to exercise our big stick across the world. The only thing we've got is nuclear weapons. We've got a big army. We've got to march into Russia and the infantry. So all we've got is our nuclear weapons. That's why we never give them up. That's why America is the major threat to the world peace and not Russia. One basic reason. One, you mentioned a confusion, libertarians and on foreign policy, confusing domestic policy, foreign policy. One point adding to this confusion is that unfortunately in the United States and England, and perhaps in Germany too, but off of America and Great Britain, the most militaristic, the most dictatorial, the most progressive status in regard to militarism were unfortunately, whatever, the most socialistic in domestic policy. Teddy Roosevelt with his anti-trust laws, Wilson with his regulatory commission, Roosevelt with his new deal, Kennedy with the Great Society, Carter with his stagflation and Department of Education. The most interventionist and militaristic regimes, the most fascistic regimes in a foreign policy sense has to an American or a British experience, personal experience, lifetime experience, has also been linked to greatly increased state power in the socialistic or communist extents of Rome. And consequently, it's very, very easy for Americans to believe when they're talking about Russia, Iraq, Belgium, Germany, that needless to say, if they're aggressive outside, they must be dictatorial at home, because this is their own person. Yes, yeah, but the person's brain has been filled with through their eyes on the media. I mean, with Russia, for example, Russia's foreign policy has been pretty pacific. I mean, wouldn't it be a kind of foreign policy? It's a very cautious, the basis of it has been that there are the homeless socialist motherland, that would guard their own hides, to the maximum extent, how will the world revolution, but basically the Soviet position, that's what I'm talking about. So the principal thing is that, faith-garde of socialist motherland, he's watched the Russian state apparatus, and, you know, let the other guard listen, let the other genius point it out. Yeah, virtual death, yeah, Soviet Union. Right, well, no, it's not even, it's very rational position in the point of view. It's felt that they were surrounded by capitalists, so-called capitalists states. And, well, they've got to do this to safeguard that situation, hope for the world revolution, and that's it. And not really commit their resources to it. For example, Stalin, after World War II, really scuffle with communists, he really does the best flow to the world communist movement. Hitler conquered most of Europe, okay. So as Hitler's retreating, as Hitler's regime is falling apart, the power vacuum developed, which is filled by the guerrilla movements in these countries, France, Italy, Greece, which were a guerrilla movement, mostly communists. So we could have easily had communist governments with France and Italy after the war, which would have killed NATO and everything else. Stalin told them to shut up, ordered the function of the communist parties not to take over, and submit themselves to a coalition headed by the goal of war with Italy. A couple of years later, and they're going to knife them, and the communists are going to knife them, they're out. And they did this because they took orders, because Russia subordinated the interest of the world communist movement, the interest of the foreign policy of the Russian nation state, which said he wanted peace with the West, he didn't want any trouble. So he scuttled and agreed, the same with someone if that happened, but it's a little bit warmer, but the communists had some AIDS with Pito, that's how I wrote that. So Stalin, if he wanted to, could have conquered Western Europe. Yeah, yeah, Stalin could have taken over France and Italy, or he's very easily, and he didn't do it because he wanted peace with the United States, almost at any price. And what he got for his pain was a little cold warm with it. So, and this is what, this is part of it. Don't forget, London's first foreign policy action was a magnificent appeasement treaty in Brussels across the way, so loud, but all of Western Russia, all of Western Russia was there. Ukraine, white Russia, all surrounded by the German army. And he put it over all the, not only every other party in Russia, but also the Bolshevik party who mostly against it, hated it, the Bolshevik Central Committee wrote about 10 of them wanting it, but none of them are sheer force of will and argument, just arguing with the guys and I finally got the peace treaty but what pops through. But that's typical of what they were willing to do in order to get peace, you know, people from there. So, and of course, Russia's expansion after World War II was solely and purely a function of the fact that Hitler would attack them in the 12th, 22nd and 14th levels. He, there's no revisionism in the program that. Hitler attacked Russia in the 12th, 22nd and 14th levels. Yeah, but they don't know how one provoked and dastardly the crime. It wasn't for those people. No, no, Russia, no, no, the question. I mean, it wasn't just so one provoked that he set the Russian army as almost defenseless. Stalin had such great trust in Hitler, keeping the attack, but he, he, the army, he's been nothing. Hitler almost won, they wouldn't have done if the Russian army had beefed up any, any, any people expect. So, that's common knowledge that Stalin was totally, so he wasn't trying to remote the war at all kind of contrary. Yeah, beefed trust in those crime, Hitler's Pacific intention. Hitler, unfortunately, Yeah, well, sure. And plus attacking, coming in the aid of Japan, which is, anyway, that's, yeah, but that, the, Yeah, close your expertise on how it happened to you, basically, Larry. I meant to ask a question from an economic point. Even a large number of liberals today more or less admit that a new deal didn't actually pull the United States out of the pressure or the world out of the pressure, but in fact, World War II did. And since, in fact, there seems to be a lot of evidence that, you know, who's irresponsible monetary policy had a major part in causing the pressure, and it's never really been adjusted from war to war. Now, they're getting farther and farther apart, they're still, they still did this thing, you know, that when things start to get bad, the economy can get a shot through a war. Now, that's nothing for a revelation, but what I'm wondering about is whether you feel that the real price for physical irresponsibility in World War II area, if the real price has ever actually been paid, or in others, are these wars actually have kept us from economic collapse? And if that is to any extent true, how much of the motivation of the war is involved with this? Well, I think World War II is definitely a motivation thing. The other side of the question is right. You know, for example, you got, you had 10 million unemployed in 1941, and you had wrapped 10 million people in the army, that's true of the employment problem right there. So I think, no, I think that's definitely true. There has been some liquidation now of us with cash on each recession. It's done some good work in limiting the investment, like 73-75 recession, it's pretty good in that sector. I'm learning a lot of the bad investments. It's still a lot of them, I'm looking at investments. Right, yeah, right, yeah, obvious. So there's still a lot to be done. I mean, whether or not the motivations for the other war, I don't think so, well, who knows, I'm a fairer, I'm a fairer than I thought it was. Maybe at normal or something. Certainly it is true that the more so-regalist residents are also the most. Well, one thing is that the, any time, let's put it this way, look at it in reverse, any time, about 10, 15 years ago, they wanted to eliminate the Brooklyn Navy, you know? And they said, well, even the Pentagon types, the Brooklyn Navy are absolutely, no military function whatsoever. They couldn't eliminate it, immediately the howl of every down there politician in the state. You can't do that, you eliminate 25,000 jobs, you know what I'm saying? And so they kept it, so maybe that's, if every time you create a military situation, you create a permanent power sign in your back, that's already an obvious situation you can't demilitarize. And then you have what are you gonna do with these people? Obviously, actually what you do do, if you have a free market, such as when the World War II demobilization, after World War II, the 10 million people were absorbed very quickly. And all economists predicted a big depression because of the economy was flexible enough. We reduced taxes and all of a sudden, the economy was flexible enough to take on these people, a good job, and all the rest of it. So the actual adjustment would take a very, very short period of time. The market just very quickly goes, you know, we don't know, remarkably quickly, you know? Peter? Do you have any comments, yeah, in the hard part of the World War II? Yeah, it's one of my favorite topics. I've been abjured by my colleagues in the Italian party that I should never criticize the party outside party, outside strict party channels. I think it's all baloney. So the foreign policy actually, the actual structure of the car campaign is such that the foreign policy has not been as bad as the other areas because the structure of the car campaign is to pitch, to tailor the image, it's all image anyway, to tailor the image of a campaign to what's what the car people themselves call low tax liberalism. In other words, to make Tom Wicker like us. Okay. And at the extent that this has succeeded, in other words, Tom Wicker likes us. And so there's Anthony Lewis and New York Times and Washington Post and all that. So if you're aiming like to have these people like us, then I guess the aim is succeeded. That's not my aim of life. Now, so the idea is to make two, so how do you get liberals to like us? Sort of liberal image they have is young little class liberals, sort of people who are reading New York Times and writing New York Times, right? How do you get, well, what do they like? What do they form? What do they guess? If you look down the checklist of deviations or car deviations from the true correct position, every deviation conforms to this image. In other words, not to, but the hopper of these people kind of like the hopper of the national campaign, right? Well, it's all bum-like, you know? It's all, it's just, you know, the heat of the campaign, Carcass speaking in St. Louis or something, it's usself. It's all accident, but all the accidents fit into one pattern. The accidents are never in the other direction. The accidents are all, I remember when I'm on my days, and I go for our right wing in the 40s, I used to say Eisenhower, the defense of Eisenhower, he was a bum-bler. And the right wingers used to say, aha, but if he was only a bum-bler, then he bum-bler once in a while in a pro-American direction, called communist direction. Okay, so this, so the bum-ling is always in this direction. In other words, the bum-ling is direction of the New York Times liberal, and what's the New York Times liberal position? Well, New York Times liberal, the gas nuclear energy, the favor of the ERA, it's a favor of the welfare state, but slightly more efficient, like a slightly lower tax welfare state. A lot of people say, well, not cut welfare payments at all until we achieve full employment. How does that mean? Anybody knows anybody economics goes on non-sets to achieve full employment. So, and of course, the same as immigration thing. And we've been pounding myself and other people were pounding away almost hysterically, the car campaign for a long time. We have certain marginal improvements, like we got them to, not to come out against Mexican immigration. In other words, the original car campaign position was the favor as libertarians, there's something like this, this is a typical pattern of the soul out, as libertarians, of course, if this were a libertarian society, we'd be a favor of open immigration, naturally. However, because we don't live in an open and free society, we have to have, that would be realistic. So we can't have more, too many Mexican immigrants, because they'll get on the welfare road. So as long as we have welfare, we can't have too many immigrants. They did come out to lean behind it. Yeah. Finally, this Clark's first position was that they shouldn't shoot the kill in the border patrol. I swear, I was in position, we shouldn't shoot the kill. I don't know what we're supposed to do, maybe we'll tranquilize our weapons. It's only after fanatical attack that they finally said, okay, well, the point is, the middle of New York times, liberals only like Mexicans in Mexico. They don't, that's a key on Mexican here. So, so this is the whole thing that's tailored in this kind of position. Okay, when you get to, when you get to the foreign policy and most of the New York time levels are pretty dovish. So the Salah hasn't been too great in this area. However, the New York, the Clark white paper on foreign affairs says, it's all, it's all ravenous stuff. And though it's all course benefit analysis, the emphasis is like this, well, West Germany and Japan are now rich enough to pay for their own weapons, pay for their own defense. Therefore, why should we pay for it? Well, I mean, I suppose it's a pretty good position. On the other hand, that's not what we've been fighting for for 30 years or whatever. In other words, the implication is that it's all technical. And the implication actually explicitly, Clark said that the 1940s and 50s were okay to pay for West Germany and Japanese defense because then they weren't strong enough. It's only now that they're strong enough that we should get them off our back. So it's purely a taxpayer thing, course benefit analysis. He's a favorite known as a venture, except he now included Canada and Mexico on our defense perimeter. Because after all, for Washington Bay, Windsor, Ontario, Detroit can only be next. And so Mexico is not part of the defense perimeter, except we can't have too many Mexicans in the country. So, and then he talks about phasing out NATO. You want to phase it out over a 10 year period. Why not a hundred? Well, why not a hundred? Why 10? I mean, it's like they used to say in Vietnam, the pro-Vietnam people at the end were saying, well, we have commitment, we have the soldiers there. We have to, it takes time to get them out. And the anti-Vietnam people would say, okay, three weeks, you got to use your resources, you got them the hell out. It would take only about three weeks, which it did, of course, to get. So, as a matter of fact, on the Clark white pair, I saw the first draft of it. And they said, he said 10 years in one of the, the director of communications of Clark and I said, why not five? Yeah, why not five, eight, 12, I forget what the difference is in that. It's all a numbers game. So it's, let's say, there's no principle. There's nothing about mass murder. It's all this cost-benefit analysis. And it's all, it's very gradualistic. That's how that's great. How do you deal with any approach by opportunity? Why, that is, that's quite a, yeah, by definition. In other words, that's what opportunism is, is diluting your principles in order to make the thing appeal to constituencies that you claim as a constituency, like in this case, New York High Liberals. Who are going to vote for Anderson? That's it. See, they might like us, but they love Anderson. Yeah, I don't see why I'm priming. Maybe he'll get their three million votes for Clark. I don't know, but I don't see why, I don't know why anybody would vote for Clark in all of the pair. I don't see it. I mean, he sounds like Anderson, looks like Anderson, talks like Anderson. Why would they vote for Anderson? I just don't understand it. I mean, for me, it's a sort of a, peculiar kind of situations. Actually, it's slightly, there's tax cut. Okay, this is a sore point for me because of the tax question. I did not sign the white paper. 48 economists signed the white paper. It's a rotten white paper. It's a white paper. It's true if Reagan came out with this thing that we'd all cheer. On the other hand, this is not supposed to be Reagan. It's supposed to be a libertarian candidate. So the white paper calls for the 30% revenue cut. Getting, as the hard people point out very carefully, this is not really threatening anybody. This is only getting back of the real budget of the 62 Kennedy administration. We're not cutting the federal budget more than, we're just simply getting back to Kennedy. Who the hell wants to get back to Kennedy? That's not my objective of life to get back to Jack Kennedy, right? So, the idea is that this budget will get back to Kennedy because it's stuck in my throat, I'm beginning with. And second of all, I said, well, the proponents of this policy said, well, this is only the first year after 11, next year we'll do such a thing. What do they say about it? They say, we'll do this the first year. Then, this is sort of a neo-laffarite thing. You know about the Laffer code. Then we cut this, we'll cut the 30% revenue cut. There'll be such a tremendous increase of productivity and jobs and everything. Then we'll have to worry about welfare because nobody will be on welfare. The only job we created. And the people will be so happy about this that they will then clamor for further cuts. And then we will give it to them. How long am I supposed to wait for this clamor at all? It says, unspecified clamor. So it means one year of 30%. They're already clamoring. They are not that clamoring already. They don't clamoring for a long time. So we have a 30%. So Reagan is calling for 30% tax for over a three-year period. And Clark is calling for 30% tax for over a one-year period. That's the big deal. That's where we're going to barricade. It's true that the Reagan cut is phony and a lot, but that's not the point. The point is we have not differentiated ourselves on the tax question. We're only slightly better than Reagan on the tax question. So it means not good enough. We're tailing behind the Sixth Liberty Amendment people. These poor bastards have been calling for repeal of the 16th Amendment after 20 years. We dismiss that as being radical or irresponsible. How we support the services of the federal government if we repeal the income tax, right? So that's, I mean, what we should have done is supposed to repeal the income tax. And also, the president. This is about Berglund, the senator, called to this cycle, the Senate can't thank California. We should call, say, as president. One of the things I've always asked the presidential candidate is, well, what could you do if a president of Congress is against you? I mean, it's kind of a weird question. Obviously, if Clark was really elected president, we have to move down to Congress, and also, presumably. Anyway, but even within this peculiar matrix, the president could do something which cannot be challenged by any court. The president has absolute power of pardon. Absolute power of pardon. So the president could announce, or Clark could announce right now, when I get elected president, quote, I will then immediately pardon all past, present, and future of Vickermost crime people, including tax evasion. This would make income taxes voluntary at least for four years, at least if he's impeached. So he doesn't do that. He hasn't got the guts to do that. He hasn't got the full vote. He didn't do it. He did? He did it. He didn't do it. He didn't do it. He hasn't done it yet. He's done it. He's done it. He's done it. He's done it. He called our members to remove a criminal and civil penalty. He did. He did call to the front of the press. He didn't have to make that a centerpiece of the white paper. Now with white paper he's talking about $2 million. Yeah, yeah, okay. Well, see the defense of the Clark people, I've had a lot of discussions with LP members about this. The defense says, no, well, Clark was good in the morning on July 15. He came out for immigration, that sort of thing. Well, I might reply to this as a hollow situation. We have to rely on the inconsistency of our candidate. That's really good in some places and bad in others. And not only that, one thing that has to be mentioned, if he's willing to compromise with a candidate when he has no real pressure on him, what's going to happen when HEWs are screaming, don't cut $50 billion on my government budget? What's going to happen when the CIE reminds them of the Kennedy assassination and the Pinochet coup? No, that's good point. Most ideological movements, there's always a problem of selling out and ideological movements. Most ideological movements sell out after they achieve power. And they begin to slow corruption in a certain place or on the edge of achieving power, right? It's just a little bit of a little bit of a lot that you can get power. But to sell out, when you have the expectation of maybe getting power in 30 years, that's kind of peculiar. That's the earliest sell out in my number. I have a question about the different kind of movement. I'm very good at it. Let's say that, given that this is kind of an agreement in three, and there's a part of I explaining, what is the sense of they say, you know, we find that some Central American country have developed the only good that works in the world? But I mean, what happens, you know, we can have an expectation of what will happen if we get caught, catch someone, violation of their human rights. Well, I'm not sure what they want to cut that. I'm not sure, but I'm not sure anybody got the answer. I mean, Lubitaren and not Lubitaren. The, presumably nobody's kind of developed a nuclear weapon if nobody else has it. But I admit this is a big call. I don't really know the techniques of it. I think there's probably a certain boycott that could be done, a boycott that had to be, a boycott that had to be the only way for something. Yeah, that's, I say, I'm not sure about the mechanics of this thing. What do you do about inspection and the lack? I would think that he had a, I mean, as I said, we have a problem more and more in the future of all the what's this made of. But I think if you're not using certain materials on the different nuclear devices that are not being used, you can sort of catch an advance out of that. Do you know that in space or would you decide that's the way the production process is? Yeah, I don't know what this guy's going to be doing with it, even if he gets it. I don't know. How he's going to use it. I would think something like that. I really don't, that was really a technical question. Just for the benefit of some non-libertarians, maybe you can illuminate the libertarian position and connections between energy and American foreign policy. I did, we're going to go fight for oil. I mean, how do we look at that? Well, it's a whole other topic line. I know it's a whole other lecture. Yeah, I mean, basically, you don't have to grab, as we know from extreme market economy, you don't have to grab the resources. You can buy it, that's the basic. You can buy oil, you don't have to own it yourself. So we can buy oil from companies, if we don't like it, it's the way the market works in general. I can buy a sandwich from McDonald's, I might hate McDonald's owner for some reason. There's nothing, I don't have to be a friend of McDonald's, you know, I don't like their products. The same way of buying oil. And so there's a lot of oil, there's a lot of energy in oil, probably South of the United States, which the American government is choosing to allow to be pumped or to produce on basis of another. So with a little lack, there's no real energy crisis. Crisis is probably a government control. We managed to design it in such a way that we can use most of the land in the United States, which is also taking off the market by the federal government, and Alaska. Heist control, which prevent domestic oil from being produced. Heist control is preventing natural gas from being produced. All sorts of restrictions prevent coal from being produced. There's a whole bunch of stuff, which if we eliminate the restrictions of being a farmer, that's literally the same stuff. And what specific proposals would you suggest that a military party, Pat Clark in the campaign, should argue for in regards to the United States government control, do you agree with that? The United States government is going to do what? The nuclear weapons of the United States government at this moment. Well, I don't think, I don't see what we're talking about. I'll give you a simple dyad. In other words, we don't need land-based missiles, which are superfluous, and also vulnerable. You can get them in so-called triads. All we need is the submarines and the bombers always in the air. I don't see why we need the bombers. Excuse me, submarines are enough, they're very leached. The old-style, so-called old-style submarines, the side of the submarine are 20, till the rush is 20 times over. And it can't be discovered, first strike. That's just the beginning. Well, I had a mind, actually, was it doesn't seem to be that return was taking your life seriously about last night, which we should. I think it would be very difficult for them, actually, to come out fighting over the unilateral disarmament. Well, I mean, since I think we could achieve multi-lateral disarmament, I don't see the point of unilateral. In other words, I think the Russians are willing to go along with multi-lateral disarmament. If I didn't think they were, I think I'm just sure they could set a unilateral. Since they are, there's not much point to it. The pacifists, by the way, though, in this country, are against unilateral. Their favorite unilateral is against multi-lateral. Somehow, I think it's more moral to have unilateral disarmament. But it seems to me that if we can get the whole show, why didn't I settle for a little bit of it? Yeah, yeah. Could you put a little more depth of why the Russians are black, they're from the United States. Well, since the American Empire is working with every empire, you're trying to run the whole show. You're trying to, they want stability for investments, for resources, for all sorts of stuff, for Rockefellers, or the world oil investments. All sorts of things, both political and economic. They both mesh in together, in an economic sense of popping up investments of all sorts. So, for example, I mean, just take one area of the economic political permutation, John Foster Dulles, one of the most evil people in American history, was Secretary of State of the United States Administration. He had written in 1940, a book called War, Peace, and Change, or 39 and 40, which took a diametrically opposite view from what appears in these 10 years later, 1950. 1950, that's, you could say, well, he's a young man, he might have changed, but he wasn't so young. He was 40 or 50 when he wrote War, Peace, and Change. He took a very realistic balance of power outlook toward Europe. He said, he shouldn't be in Europe, many of the Germans demanded correct, we should have adjustments to the Versailles Treaty and so forth and so on. He took, he'd be called a non-interventionist position in Europe and World War II. Then 10 years later, he takes a Wilbur Crusading position in America as a Christian morality and man as we crush totalitarian communism throughout the world. And he takes, in other words, his whole farm policy outlook changes drastically. Either, it's possibly could have had a, could have had an ideological conversion, but somehow I doubt it. That's also possible in his views, in fact, he was a lawyer and also relative of the Rockefeller family in the United Kingdom. I don't know if he's his wife or the first cousin of the Rockefeller Jr. And he himself was a lawyer for the Rockefeller family. And in fact, the Rockefellers were isolationists in Europe and World War II and they had no investments there. They didn't care about Europe. The other hand, they were interventionists in Asia. They wanted to crush Japan. They wanted to get worried about Japanese competition for oil and rubber in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, of course, the Rockefellers were hip-deep in the Cold War. It was a whole world-loved problem. They were worried about, I mean, it's taking over the worst. So that's just one instance of economic interests influencing foreign policy. I'm very directly. Also, by the way, his brother, whole Dulles family is on his brother. Alan Dulles is head of the CIA and practically as important as shaping the foreign policy and conducting assassinations everywhere. And his sister, Alan Dulles, is head of the Berlin Desserts State Department. We have three members of the same family running the tax. It's sort of an act of me. Take one more question. Do you see how that might go up and I don't think it's going to affect the possible? I think we're not, we're supposed to be when I was on it. I'm sure we're going to be when I was on it in the case of the French-naked power. For example, if I had not, I wouldn't be in that kind of situation. Well, I'd say I think this is relying on mass murder. That's the only way out. There's no other choice. There's no other possibility of movement on this arm. Actually, the American defense and guerrilla warfare is extremely strong. In other words, we now see more than ever that counter-guerrilla nations can't really conquer a guerrilla nation. Well, I think... Japan wasn't engaged in guerrilla warfare. I'm sorry, Japan was willing to sue for P-1 before her. There's no need to tolerate and felt obliterated by the government. If somebody that's willing, can't tolerate it, I think it's a lot of Christian development. I can see what people want about it. It's that leverage on getting other kinds of terrorist attacks. What territory were they asked for? I don't understand what they... What were they asking for? Were they occupying the United States? Were they here to want to occupying the United States? Yeah. What I'm saying is that certain people might use it, but what they should say, under any conditions, minimize that burden, which might be a valid point. I don't think there would be any point right now in occupying the United States. I'll say the uneconomic... What's your point? Yeah. Right. Yeah, I would. I would say we're multilateral first, if not unilateral. Okay, so we're going to have to both be unilateral. That's right. Don't forget even if there were only five hydrogen bombs, that would have flipped unacceptably for them. I'm trying to... I'm trying to... I'm trying to... Not somebody else, but in effect, you're saying, well, if he wants it, better, better, not in red and dead, but better alive. I'd like to thank... Sorry, last one.