 This is Mises Weekends with your host, Jeff Deist. Fantastic. Well, thanks so much for that. As you can see, we're doing our Mises Weekend Show live this week, wrapping up at the end of our 2017 Mises University week. It's been a fantastic high-energy week with a lot of great kids from all over the world and some great faculty from all over the country. And I'm very pleased this weekend as last year during Mises U to be joined by the founder, chairman of the Mises Institute. Please, a round of applause for Mr. Lou Rockwell. Lou, I'd like to ask you this first. We're spoiled. We have so many resources around us. The digital revolution has made so much information available to us. But talk about the libertarian universe. When you were starting this organization in the early 80s, it was quite a different scene. There was no question. It was very, very different. And in the early days when we started the institute, we were thrilled just celebrating. When we heard somebody from somebody either by letter or by phone, they were interested in Mises and Austrian economics. And of course, the question was always, how do you hear about us? So obviously today that is a very different situation. So we've been able to touch the lives of millions of people all over the world. But in those early days, we were a much tinier minority than we are today. I think really Austrian economics had been, if I want to say in decline, but it had not been growing for some time, especially since the death of Mises. And there was Murray Rothbard, obviously. And Murray Rothbard capable of doing anything as a one-man band. But one-man band would like to have some accompaniment too. So having Murray's help was a tremendous aid, having the blessing of Margaret von Mises. Mises's widow, who was our first chairman, was a huge help. But absolutely getting people to know about the institute was the big trouble. We were very lucky to have Ron Paul's help. He wrote about us and helped us raise money to his own people. Something almost unheard of in the world of direct mail, let alone political direct mail for a member of Congress to write to his own donors about something else. That's how much Ron believed in what we were doing and still does. I must say he still is a very great supporter. So we tried to reach out to everybody, as we do today, interested in Austrian economics, both in the United States and around the world. We wanted to find graduate students, we wanted to find undergraduates, high schoolers, professors. There were very few professors. There are far more today. Far more graduate students, far more undergraduates, far more people on all walks of life, finance and law and all the professions and who were interested in Austrian economics. And of course it is accessible to the intelligent laymen, unlike the mathematicalized business that they give to the post-Kinsey and the rest of the stuff that they teach and spread today in universities, which of course is just as messed up in that area as they are in so many other areas, whether it's history or English or all the so-called social sciences, except at places like Grove City College, are pretty much a mess. So that's all the more opportunity for us. And we've grown in influence. And of course the web has made all the difference in the world. It has enabled us to have all these books for free and all these papers and all these videos. Anybody who's speaking to the people that are watching this online, who's not spent some time on Mises or to see the unbelievable amount of resources that are available to you for free, spend some time. And today we have students who recommend other students. As Jeff pointed out at the beginning of this conference, we have professors who themselves are students here. And it's just the Austrian school here and around the world, 26 different Mises institutes besides us, is growing. It's maybe the greatest international movement in economics, except for Marxism. So we have much to fight. We have the state against us as always. We have the culture increasingly in Western society against us being subverted by, as Bionic Mosquito puts it, the Gramscians. It follows Antonio Gramsci. So there's a lot to fight against, but there's a lot to fight for. We've got such clarity, such truth, such brilliance on our side. And that was true when just Murray Rothbard was in the room by himself. And of course, how lucky for a school of thought to have two unbelievable geniuses in a row. I mean, it's very unusual. Mises and Rothbard is quite an amazing blessing, a permanent blessing to us. And of course, we're looking for others, unlikely but not impossible. But we've got a lot of brilliant people working. It's just very, very encouraging. I think we bother the other side. You might think their attitude would be, we're on top of the world, Paul Krugman or whoever. We're running everything. They're a little bit of a sense, entirely irrelevant, forget it. But there's a reason that we bug them. It's a reason we drive them crazy because they're worried. They, I think, have some understanding of the fraud that they're perpetuating. And they worry about the truth. It's the attitude of the baloney to the slicer. They're concerned. So I think I thank all of you for being part of this and being here this week. We look for great things from all of you. People online, too, who are members of the Institute or just supporters, friends or just people searching. We welcome everyone and we're thrilled at the increased attention. We're doing great and thanks to all of you for being part of it. I know you mentioned to me, unlike most of us, you had an opportunity to meet Mises. You were an editor and you've told me not only about his manner, his old world manner, but also about your own trepidation in meeting him for the first time. You know, I was just thinking today. It was 50 years ago that I had one of the great things happen to me in my life. I had my bar. I worked at Arlington House Publishers, the conservative book club, which was the only book publishing house in the country open to anything that wasn't left wing. We published Mises, we published Rothbard, we published a lot of conservative things, too. Neil McCaffrey, who was the president, great entrepreneur, great man, learned it in many, many different ways. He called me into his office and he said, how would you like to be Ludwig von Mises' editor? I was 23 and I was stunned, but of course thrilled. We were bringing back into print theory and history, bureaucracy, and also a new publication by Mises, which was the historical setting of the Austrian school. And so I got to work with him mostly with Margit von Mises. But the first time that I was going to meet them for dinner, trepidation is not quite the word. I was very nervous about it and I found both of them to be extremely welcoming. And subsequently, Murray Rothbard wrote about Mises saying that he was a gentleman from an older age, just somebody representative of an older and a better age, as the way Murray put it. But he was charming, smart, beautifully dressed, beautiful manners. And I could see why he reminded Murray of what must have been true in the old Austria-Hungarian Empire and the old Europe before World War I and World War II did so much to destroy Europe, of course, but the whole Western world. But it was a tremendous experience to work with him. And then later when I started the Institute, I worked a lot with Margit von Mises, who was a tremendous lady. Murray called her a one woman Mises industry after his death in terms of making sure that all his books were translated and print and just in stirring up interest for Mises. She was very smart. She had been an actress and a play translator in Vienna before they got married. She was very strong-willed and she knew what she believed and hard worker until almost age 100, she would get down on the bare wooden floor of their apartment in New York and do exercises every morning. I mean, she was that kind of lady. And once when she was going, this is after his death, going to Alpbach in Austria where they used to go in the Austrian Alps. And Mises, there's a great photo someplace of Mises in his later hose and Mises loved climbing mountains and she did too. And so she's going back over there and she takes a cab downtown to get the tickets from Lufthansa. And as she is going into the revolving door, catches her foot, she's thrown to the ground and she's in the middle 90s by this point. Gets up, gets the ticket, goes back to the apartment and takes the flight. And I thought anybody else at that age would be, all their bones would be broken, their hips would be broken. They'd be in the hospital for the rest of their lives, not Margaret von Mises. And she was just intensely dedicated to Mises. It was really a wonderful thing to see, it was a wonderful thing to be associated with her. And you better not cross her though. She was tough but beautifully mannered, beautifully dressed. And again, somebody from an earlier age, an honor to know them, an honor to be able to help carry on their legacy. You know, Lou, I don't want to embarrass you, but there are going to be young people someday talking about how they met Lou Rockwell when they were young. And people know a little bit about your background, but could you just tell us a little bit more about how you personally, first and foremost as someone coming up through the conservative side, became fully and completely anti-war, and also how you came to accept what we might call a Rothbardian conception of full anarchism. Yeah, I did come up through the conservative movement initially as a boy. And of course, one of the things about the conservative movement is love of war. They love war and it's true today as it was true in those days. And in fact, Bill Buckley, former CIA agent who really helped change what the American right before World War II, the American right had been pretty much, it's not entirely, but pretty much anti-war. They were opposed to Roosevelt taking us into World War II, and the intellectuals who comprised it bothered all the pro-war people. And just as the State Department right at the beginning of World War II set up a special group of historians to make sure that there would be no historical revisionism after the war as it happened after World War I, when people had looked back at the disaster, the horrendous civilizational disaster of World War I and thought, you know, really this shouldn't have happened. And here's why it happened, how we try to avoid it in the future. Very, very powerful movement intellectually and politically. So they wanted to prevent that. And one of the things that I think the CIA set Buckley and there are other members of the National Review Editorial staff, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, others who had been CIA associated, they wanted to change what were then the remnants of the old right, what Murray Rothbard called the old right, from before World War II and make them pro-war. And so there was a conscientious effort to purge everybody from the old days and it pretty much worked, unfortunately. Not entirely, but pretty much. Rothbard of course never succumbed. But people died off or just lost their jobs, typically the way these things work. So there was a period in the 50s and 60s when it was very unusual for anybody right-wing to be at a war and I would say it was my reading. Reading people like Garrett Garrett and John T. Flynn as well as I mentioned first of all, my father's influence, my dad was a Taft Republican. In fact, my first political memory as a standing outside in my new overcoat and he's pinning a Taft for President button on me. So this is before this would be in the early 50s because as Tom Woods pointed out, Eisenhower stole the nomination from Taft at the Republican Convention for the 54 nomination. But my dad didn't like war. Probably I think there was some personal reasons because his other son was killed in World War II in what they call friendly fire. You're dead, but it's okay, your friends killed you. So that had of course an impact on him. But he was ideologically affected by the old right too and like Robert Taft he was anti-war. So that because of him and because of my own interests I started to read the anti-war people. So pretty early on I was not a buckly-eyed. In fact I despised William of Buckly and everything. He stood for and he was a colossus in the American right. I mean he really bestowed the world and it's an interesting reminder to all of us how quickly your footsteps disappear from the sands of time and the waves come up and you're gone. Buckly was a huge deal. I think it's not true anymore. I'm not even sure how much people read him. He was the author of bestseller after bestseller after bestseller. He had a hugely popular television show, hugely popular speaker at colleges and universities and published in a very important magazine, National Review. It's all pretty much gone. I think that Murray Rothbard and then of course Ron Paul are responsible for the fact that there's so much anti-war feeling among libertarians and among conservatives today too. Not everybody is a follower of the John McCain's of the world. And as we're living at a time right now when we have a concerted effort, a massive concerted effort to bring about a war with Russia in a way that never happened in the old Cold War. They loved the Cold War, the whole military industrial complex and so forth, a way to spend vast amounts of money but not actually get hurt. They wouldn't get hurt. Nobody was going to nuke Washington D.C. for example. That sort of thing is then nevertheless they were careful never to take things too far not to threaten the other side. Those kinds of concerns seem to have no effect in Washington today. They're happy to threaten other countries. There was the Admiral of the Pacific Fleet just recently said that if he were told to of course he'd be happy to nuke China. Well, what is the point of that except to stir up a war, stir up war fever and to make the other country think, do they mean it? Do we have to watch out for a first strike? And then of course if they're on a hair trigger it can lead to a first strike. They don't mean to give because they think they're being attacked. Same thing with Russia. So I think I was thrilled when in the Pew polls after Ron Paul's last run for president when they looked to see why young people supported Ron Paul and they started out thinking well it's probably pot. Nothing wrong with that by the way. But it turned out that by far the issue among young people who loved Ron Paul that was most important to them was war and peace. You guys don't want to go through what people my age went through about fear of being drafted to go and shoot people who never did anything to you in Vietnam and maybe be shot. These things are pretty much forgotten. We all know about the 58,000 Americans who died. There's a big memorial to them in Washington. But Martin Van Krevel, the great Israeli military historian, estimates that the U.S. in Vietnam and in Cambodia and Laos killed between six and seven million people. Their names are not on the wall in Washington, of course. So could something like that happen to us? I don't think North Korea is capable of launching an ICBM over here despite the propaganda. It's a very, very poor country. But certainly the Russians and the Chinese are. And to stimulate a nuclear war, I mean are these people crazy? I guess it seems to me that the neocons, unlike the previous power elite, which we can in shorthand say that sort of the Rockefellers, the neocons actually seem to have a crazy gene that they would be risking what could mean the end of the world or certainly the end of the civilized world. How many generations would be impossible to even go into large areas of the earth that used to be cities and farms and factories? What are they doing? So I think it's far more interest, unlike when I was a kid in the anti-war cause, Mary Rothbard laid the ideological groundwork. Ron Paul, the Ron Paul movement, picked up that. Mary of course worked with Ron, loved Ron. They were very close friends. And Ron carries that on. He's got a great institute, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and has a daily show. I hope everybody watches the Liberty Report, which is on YouTube every day. And he's fighting the fight. Virtually nobody in Washington agrees with him. Maybe there are three or four congressmen, 135, maybe there are one or two senators out of the 100 that reflects American politics. Where we've just recently seen, I'd like to think Trump is going to veto it. I'm afraid I don't believe you will. But there's another horrendous set of sanctions that has been passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress. Really an act of economic war against Russia that also badly damages Europe because it prevents European countries from trading with Russia. The U.S. is the exceptional nation, of course, thinks it should be able to tell Germany or France who they get to trade with. And so they're forbidding trade with Russia. The sanctions have already hurt businesses in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe. And now they're really stepping it up. And sanctions are, by the way, acts of war literally. I mean under international law. And certainly when any Americans have been subject to sanctions, everybody's outraged. And rightly so. It's a terrible thing. And we have all these people in Washington who are always blabbing about free trade, but some of the sanctions are great. It's okay to threaten people that don't you dare trade. And we see what happened in Iraq because of the sanctions. 500,000 children killed, as the U.S. State Department said and Secretary of State said, we think it's worth it in order to try to pressure Saddam Hussein to leave office. By the way, sanctions never have that effect. You can think of all the times they put sanctions on trying to pressure people they hate in other countries to get out of office. It never happens. That's a very strange thing. Politicians don't want to get out of power. It's a shocking statement to make. So the U.S., it's a tough time for anybody believes in peace because we have the U.S. holding itself out as the exceptional nation. But what they mean by that is the rules don't apply to the U.S. In fact, the U.S. gets to apply the rules to everybody else. The rules don't apply to it. And if it decides to bomb four or five countries at the same time, kill a lot of civilians, you're a terrorist if you don't like that. If any other country were doing that without U.S. permission, of course, the U.S. would be bombing them. So it feels it can bomb anybody. It can sanction anybody. It can assassinate anybody. It can drone anybody. And sometimes Americans wonder why people in other countries are afraid of the U.S. They don't admire it. They're terrified by it. So I don't know what's ahead, but the peace movement such as it exists, and I think we've seen, but since George W. Bush went out of office, the left-wing peace movement pretty much doesn't exist. There are a few people, but the vast numbers of, when they had marches of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people against the Iraq war, it turned out they just hated Bush. Well, that's a good thing to hate Bush. But it's insufficient. So we have to depend on libertarians and conservatives who are pro-peace to fight this fight. It's, of course, an essential fight. And it's thrilling that there are so many people involved in it, so many people reading. And all you have to do is just read Rothbard, read Ron Paul if you've not on war questions. And Ron Paul, a man of peace all his life, Murray Rothbard, a man of peace all his life. And they show us the way. And this is in so many other areas. It was still a long journey, I would imagine, from Taft, Republican, anti-war or not, to Rothbardian anarchists. And it's an uncomfortable journey even for a lot of libertarians. Talk about how you reached that. Well, it's true that I was, this is a terrible thing to admit, I was a menarchist. So that's absolutely true. And it was reading Rothbard. And when you read Rothbard, and there were other great writers before him and after him, Mollonari before him and others afterwards that could help you arrive at an anarcho-capitalist position. But Rothbard just seemed to be unanswerable. And I got also to talk to him in person about these issues. He was very persuasive. And in helping me understand that the market is capable of supplying anything that's necessary, including defense, including policing and that having a monopoly that decides its own income and decides its own amount of work that it's going to do doesn't exactly work to the public good that the state always seeks more resources, seeks to suppress dissent, seeks to do less work so that we have a vastly increased number of cops, for example, starting with the Clinton administration and just vastly increasing the number of police. And yet crime rate goes up. And of course, a lot of times the police are committing the crimes. So you just, you know, if you read Rothbard, you think about the arguments he's making. I think you, and you do so with an open mind, you come to the conclusion that the greatest enemy of men or certainly the greatest earthly enemy of mankind is the state, that it is a gang of thieves writ large. It operates exactly like a gang of thieves. I don't like to compare it to the mafia because, excuse me, the mafia is a much better operation. They don't wage wars on other countries, among other questions. So I think it really was Rothbard, but it's true that this was very, very politically incorrect and I'm not going to mention the organization. There's a great organization, a great man that I was able to be affiliated with just as a supporter and a friend. And for them, they were libertarians. The worst thing you could be was to be an anarchist. And they ended up expelling Bob LaFave, the great Bob LaFave, and Murray Rothbard, and Baldy Harper, who went on to found the Institute for Humane Studies, for being anarchists because that was the, you know, you had to believe in the government. And I was affiliated with them even before I became an anarchist. But I must say it immediately struck me as odd, as a libertarian, that the first thing is, you have to believe in the state. I mean, you know, why anarchist ultimate? Well, that's just nonsense. And so I think it's our job as libertarians to tell people about the state, to tell people about the nature of the state. Rothbard's monograph on the state, anatomy of the state is one of those pieces of writing that's life-changing. I think you don't read that without being changed. Maybe you don't agree with it, but it affects you. And they're rather great works. Hoppe's Democracy of the God that Failed is a book like that too. I would say all of Rothbard's books are like that. Life-changing. So it's one of the reasons we make all this stuff available for free. We can't do it with Hoppe's book unfortunately because of copyright matters. But everything we can make available for free on the web we do because we're in business to have people read these things and be influenced by them. We're entrusted with A Great Treasure by Murray Rothbard and the works of Mises are available to us because they're in the public domain for the most part. We have, of course, a tremendous library and it's a great trust and it's our job to make it available to as many people who will be interested in it. More and more people are interested in these kinds of ideas. I also think the whole, in the libertarian movement, the strong anti-anarchist feeling is pretty much gone. Not that everybody's an anarchist by any means but the sort of hatred of anarchists from the days when I was a kid seems to me to be pretty much gone. That's a huge development. So we need to get to the point where everybody's an anarchist. Not yet, we're not there yet but things are much, much better from a movement standpoint and ideologically. But you were pariah, of course, if you were an anarchist for a long time and people believe in the Constitution. It's David Ritt Spooner and other people. So it's, you know, in the American tradition is menarchist in terms of the Founding Fathers and all that. Jefferson knocks biography, Jefferson talks about Jefferson believing that really the best way to organize a society is the way the Indians did it with no government but he said that's only suitable for savage and not for a civilized man. Unfortunately, but Jefferson had an interest in anarchism and he thought that the Indians didn't have states and of course that's correct, they didn't. So it's, we're making progress. We've got the right ideas and the boy are they needed. We're living in, maybe we face another crisis like 2007-08 in terms of the economy. Who knows what the Fed is capable of doing to us? Who knows what the state is capable of doing to us? I must say as much as I dislike the state it never would have occurred to me when I was younger that they would be spying on every single thing we do. Every, we didn't have emails but every letter, every telephone call, every telegram, every spying on our homes, spying on every aspect of our lives, spying on our businesses, spying on our colleges and universities, spying on what we're doing right here, hi guys. I mean that's, you know, it's, what kind of an institution does that? They're not protecting us by the way by doing that. For the state, the enemy, the main enemy is always its own people because they're the ones who can threaten it. So that's why they spent so much time propagandizing us in public schools and through the media and every other way possible. And it's why they demonize opposition to themselves and it's why they want to know everything and everybody's thinking and doing so they can crush it when they feel like it. If they feel it's in their interest. The good thing is, as I just mentioned a second ago, they're afraid of us. They're afraid of us so they don't do everything to us they would very much like to do. And I hope you've all read D. Labuetti's great essay on the, Mary Rothbard wrote one of his magnificent essays to his introduction to it on D. Labuetti was a 16th century lawyer in southern France and he had to write under a pseudonym but he said all the political scientists, political philosophers are interested in why, how do we prevent people from not obeying the prince? Terrible thing if people are not obeying the king and his government, how do we, you know, it's an amazing thing and astounding thing that some people don't want to obey. What do we do about that? And D. Labuetti said, you know, the astounding thing is why the heck does anybody obey? I mean it's not in your interest and he talks about how all governments depend on the consent of the governed and the people in the state are a minority even in a democracy which on purpose tends to disguise that still the people who are the net beneficiaries of the state versus the vast numbers of people who are the net losers because of the state. The people who are in the state and beneficial in the state are always afraid of us and they require our consent otherwise they wouldn't be propagandizing to us to the extent so he said, if only people would withhold their consent the whole apparatus would come down. Hume wrote about that, Mises Rothbard. There are reasons, there are many reasons to hope but it's a fight and I guess it's a fight that has been taking place really through all of human society from the very beginning there were people who wanted to use violence and force to do evil and to enrich themselves and then there were those who didn't want to be ripped off and wanted to be left alone, raise their families, take care of their livelihood and they didn't want to hurt other people. So this has been going on from the earliest times but we have much more opposition today, more knowledgeable opposition, more passionate opposition and it's one of the reasons they want to surveil us on everything. I'd like to think when I first started my website lewrockwell.com I had a friend who worked high up in the Pentagon and she told me that she said I want to warn you that you're on the list, the CIA's list of sites that they should keep an eye on and I thought, hey that's a great thing, that's like a medal. So they don't like us, they fear us and we actually don't have to put up with it. So great you guys are all prime for the future is all I can say. Thinking about this, could you give us your definition of the deep state and do you think as a result of the deep state, as a result of technology we are more or less free objectively than let's say when you were a college undergraduate? Well I think that the deep state is the this by the way this term comes from Turkey which famously had a deep state, a permanent group of generals and military contractors, people who had the secret police but also the former secret police who formed a permanent interest group very very powerful and pretty much running everything. So that's certainly developed in this country since World War II we have a permanent group of people interested in war and rumors of war vast amounts of money are at stake. So it's the visible people, it's the CIA and the NSA and the Pentagon and the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Coast Guard and I just heard a rotten ad for the Coast Guard today claiming that the Coast Guard saved people in this disaster they intervene and I noticed a lot more government ads like the Soviet Union and they're saying how great that they intervene in this crisis and save so many lives and of course as happens in every single crisis the government spends most of their time preventing private people from helping that was in all the disasters in this country whether it's FEMA or the Coast Guard or any of these other agencies they're actually active in hurting people but of course claiming. So you've got all those agencies we also have agencies we don't know about they say there are 16 federal intelligence agencies maybe far more than probably are more assassination agencies that we know about but also there are all the military industrial companies I mean it's Lockheed and Martin Marietta and Raytheon and there's a huge number of them and in the areas around Washington where these people conglomerate the civilian employees of these companies affiliated with the deep state it's the richest or far the richest part of the country that's definitely the way to get ahead to be spying and killing and promoting killing and spying and so I think we've seen certainly in the Trump presidency these people being extremely powerful certainly there are many people in the media there were some great senatorial hearings held by the late senator Frank Church in the early 1970s he was a Democratic congressman from Idaho looking into what the CIA was doing as far as the media and what they were doing in every other way and these hearings are still available you can find them online but he showed that the CIA had people in every single newspaper which was a big deal in those days the AP and the UPI news agencies and television stations and they were controlling columnists they were pretty much controlling the official media more purposes of war and military spending more military control in the US empire which as far as I can tell they want to run the solar system I mean it's not just the earth and there are only two countries on earth of any economic and military significance not controlled by the US it's Russia and China so who are the demons they don't like Iran of course too but Iran is not by comparison a small much smaller poor country but they overthrew the US installed dictator that of course can never be forgiven that's why they must be hated and demonized forever so the deep state consists of all the intelligence agencies the ex-members of the intelligence agencies military industrial companies their current executives their ex-executives and also higher members of the officer corps ex-generals, ex-amorals probably ex-carnals too this is a vast number of people they have power I guess unprecedented in human history to spy, to control they're not sure of themselves and they're right not to be sure of themselves again like the whole of the state itself they have to worry about the people but it seems to me they've become astoundingly open during the Trump administration and did Trump actually mean what he said when he was campaigning about a new American foreign policy but not overthrowing other countries trying to have friendly relations with other countries in the terms of George Washington talked about so many years ago I'd like to think so but I don't know if he did mean it he surely has been stymied and an open lomeration of the two parties which also have aspects of the deep state in them of the media of course and of people within the government resisting and wanting war so it's interesting I would say it's revealed it's quite a wonderful thing that the phrase deep state is being used that was until Trump even though the phrase existed and we knew what it meant it was unknown to the public now it's known that there is such a thing that such a thing exists and certainly all the deplorables as Hillary called them don't like the deep state they don't I mean it's more recent in-depth analysis of why Trump won in the various counties he took and so forth show that the areas of the country they're most affected by war where the most kids had been killed for example went for Trump I hope he wasn't just a fraud like every other politician except Ron Paul but anyway the deep state certainly is afraid of him and was worried that he meant what he said so we see all this tremendous battle but again with the more we learn about these things the more about and of course this is not just something that happened now these people are capable of many terrible things and that's happened in American history whether we a lot of people think that the Kennedy assassination was an act of the deep state for example because of his his intention to be friendly with the Russians and not have a to try to have a more peaceful world I don't think there's any question that Richard Nixon who I think was by and large a horrible guy but nevertheless responsible for detente that has peaceful relations with Russia and China that's why he was taken down not because he was more of a crook than the other guys or because he was listening had tapes in his office, LBJ did FDR did, Truman did we were all supposed to think Nixon was new about this so he had to go and I think there's a lot of evidence a huge amount of evidence that the deep state wanted him out of there because of what he'd done in terms of foreign relations so this is not a new thing it's even more powerful than it had been because of the NSA and because of its ability to listen to us and store everything I was used to think that they would have trouble with much as they were listening and they would have trouble storing everything well of course it turns out that it wasn't true they don't have trouble storing everything and being able to go through everything in pretty quick order so deep state's a threat deep state exists it's a self-conscious beast and of course it's just part of the entire state which is I think again the great enemy of mankind on earth well we have time for one question left Ron Paul gets this all the time he certainly got it when he was in congress it's a question young people ask they come to you or they come to Ron and they say Lou Rockwell what should I do I care about liberty what should I do how do you answer that question well I would answer it the same way Ron Paul answers it which is say what do you want to do I mean it's not you can't prescribe something for somebody else's life what do you want to do what interests you what is where can you contribute that's true in the division of labor and it's true in the ideological division of labor so it's it's what interests you but certainly to be able to answer that question even for yourself first of all you have to read you have to read everything that you can get your hands on and Mises Institute is dedicated among other things to making all that available to you so the way to answer that question is to just fill your head with many great ideas as possible think about them study what other people have said what other people have lived their lives what they've achieved what unbelievable horrors they've created and resolve to be different resolve to make a difference and but again everything has to be based on what you want to do what stirs you what interests you it could be you know it you can be an Austrian economist and teach Austrian economics at a college or university that's a very wonderful thing to do you can be a lawyer who's interested in the cause of liberty you can be a physician you can be a factory worker I mean you can be not you guys but I mean it's that you can be you know there's room in all areas of life for people who care about liberty and because liberty is under attack constantly and I'm sure has been from the very beginning it needs defenders it needs promulgators and you know that's what we look to you and to other young people in this country and all over the world to fight for but just remember all of you who are young in this room you are rich in the most important commodity of all and that's time so let's have a big round of applause from Mr. Lou Rocco thanks for that and I'll see you soon on YouTube