1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7573/perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace/

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

December 21, 2007 by

  1. Revisionism and the Historical Blackout
  2. The United States and the Road to War in Europe
  3. Roosevelt Is Frustrated in Europe
  4. How American Policy toward Japan Contributed to War in the Pacific
  1. Japanese-American Relations, 1921–1941
  2. The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor
  3. The Pearl Harbor Investigations
  4. The Bankcruptcy of a Policy
  5. American Foreign Policy in the Light of National Interest at the Mid-Century

In 1947, historian Charles Beard told Harry Elmer Barnes that the foreign policy of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman could best be described by the phrase “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Barnes used the phrase as the title of his 1953 collection of essays by the leading revisionist historians of the era. This article is excerpted from the final chapter.


Paul Marks December 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm

In reality in 1947 the United States government was only just starting to understand the Communist threat to the world.

In 1945 most of the United States Army Air Force and the United States Navy was discarded.

There was massive disarmament by the United States in the 1945 – 1946 period.

And a policy of trying to keep on good terms with the Communists was followed.

This went to absurd extremes – for example in 1946 the government of China was told by General Marshall (under instructions from President Truman) that aid would be cut off unless the sucessful offensive in Manchuria against the Communists was halted, and talks aimed at peace and friendship undertaken.

How much of all this was the influence of pro Communists in the government and how much was just wishful thinking can be debated – and has been debated, hotly.

However, to say that the United States government wished for “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” is false.

It is true that President Roosevelt did not wish to see first Europe and then the world dominated by Nazi Germany.

And it is also true, that once President Truman understood something about the danger (an understanding that President Roosevelt never had)that he did not wish to see Asia and Europe fall to the Communists.

Neither President had a vision of the United States as some sort of free island that could exist in the long term in a sea of tyranny.

But then resistance to the Nazi’s and to the Communists was a position that Ludwig Von Mises (and other Austrian School economists) shared with these Presidents – however much he pointed out the errors in their domestic policies.

Supporting nations under Nazi or Communist threat was not about “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” it was about the struggle for survival in the world.

Of course a nation does not have to do this if another nation is prepared to take the burden – but President Truman came to understand that Britain was in no position to do such things as financially support the resistance to Communist advance in Greece.

A nation like modern Switzerland can be “noninterventionist” as long as a major power like the United States undertakes this role.

Just as the United States could once be “noninterventionist” when Britain was stong enough to carry this burden.

Although this did not stop Presidents as early as Jefferson sending forces as far away as North Africa when American interests were threatened.

And it is doubtful whether many 19th century “isolationist” Presidents would have tolerated regimes like that of Chevez, at least if such regimes had moved from antiAmerican speeches to antiAmerican actions threatening the lives or property of American citizens.

The world is not a fluffy place and never has been. And the struggle for survival is often very nasty indeed.

And those nations who are unable or unwilling to take on the burden of being a great power had better hope that another nation will safeguard their interests.

Who would protect American interests if America did not?

Or would private individuals and companies have been able to undertake such things as the resistance to Nazi Germany, or to the Japanese Empire, or to the Communists after World War II?

Ludwig Von Mises did not think so – but that does not mean he was an automatically correct.

But those who do not share Ludwig Von Mises’ opinions are under some obligation to explain how private “protection companies”, or whatever, would have defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Communist threat (and so on).

Not pretend that no such threats existed.

Brainpolice December 21, 2007 at 8:45 pm

This is why conservatism will never be entirely compatible with libertarianism. Liberty takes a back seat to anti-communism and foreign intervention.

Brent December 21, 2007 at 9:52 pm


In order for you to be correct, the U.S. Government had to declare war on the Soviet Union in order to stop the threat. Was the Soviet Union defeated through the use of military force?

I know some people always wish to imply this, but unless you know something a lot of us don’t, I am inclined to believe it never happened and the threat went away because it was internally flawed.

David White December 22, 2007 at 9:17 am


The further proof of your point (and disproof of Paul Marks’) will be the demise, sometime in the next decade, of the American welfare-warfare state, as the corruption of money that alone perpetuates it collapses under its own weight(lessness).

In the end, it comes down to the inherent contradictions of the nation-state itself, the modern incarnation of which — the “monster state,” in the words of philosopher Donald Livingston, that arose in the 19th century — has proved to be the most destructive force in the history of the world.

It must end. And it will end.

Jacob Steelman December 22, 2007 at 3:37 pm

This is a great article. It continues to show the lies and deceptions that underlie government and the political & bureaucratic power-brokers. Wars have always been a pretext for government expansion whether the Civil War, the Spanish War..and up to present day wars. The best deterrent to invasion is a completely free and prosperous people. Is the socialist system of government we have been pursuing in the United States so much different than the socialist government which an external government would have imposed? Is life in Iraq so much better under American imperialism than it was and would have been under the prior government? America’s greatest contribution to the world is be the beacon of liberty for all individuals of the world.

James Redford December 22, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Paul Marks, for the history on how the “capitalist” (i.e., mercantilist) ruling elite in the U.S. bankrolled Communism as well as National Socialism, see the below scholarly books by libertarian Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D.:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html

Note: Chapter I of the above book refers to a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch cartoon illustration by Robert Minor. This can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert-Minor-Dee-Lighted-1911.png

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Suffolk, England: Bloomfield Books, 1976) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Billings, M.T.: Liberty House Press, 1986) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.html

See also:

“Thyssen Funds Found in U.S.,” International News Service (INS), July 31, 1941 http://www.infowars.com/print_prescott.htm

Vesting Order Number 248, Federal Register, November 7, 1942 http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting.htm

“Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed,” John Buchanan, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 1, October 10, 2003

“‘Bush-Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951′–Federal Documents,” John Buchanan and Stacey Michael, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003

“How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power,” Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, Guardian (U.K.), September 25, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

“How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis,” Attorney John Loftus, former U.S. Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor and current President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, September 27, 2000 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html


Concerning the Pearl Harbor attack, as just another among many examples of the U.S. government’s use of staged pretext attacks, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew in advance and intentionally allowed (and provoked) the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. See, for example:

“The McCollum Memo: The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor,” WhatReallyHappened.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/

And that’s just one among many, many smoking guns proving that the Pearl Harbor attack was an intentionally staged pretext attack by the U.S. government. For many more such smoking-gun, Freedom of Information Act-released U.S. government documents proving that the U.S. government knew exactly when Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, as well as their efforts to provoke exactly this response, see the book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert B. Stinnett. For more on just some of that, see:

“Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?,” an interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano, The Independent Institute, March 11, 2002 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

And for a list of dozens of hardcore smoking guns proving the Pearl Harbor attack was an intentionally staged pretext attack by the U.S. government, see:

“Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies,” Mark Emerson Willey http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html


I’ll leave this post with some interesting quotes to ponder.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in a private letter only published after his death:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson–and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States–only on a far bigger and broader basis.

(From President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933; contained in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], pg. 373.)

Roosevelt in the above letter mentioned President Woodrow Wilson (“W.W.”). Below is what Woodrow Wilson himself wrote concerning this same matter:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

[A]nd we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

(From Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People [New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913] http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 .)

Here’s some choice quotes from David Rockefeller:

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. … There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive. … The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. … The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.

(From David Rockefeller, in his article “From a China Traveler,” New York Times, August 10, 1973, pg. 31.)

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

(From David Rockefeller, Memoirs [New York: Random House, 2002], pg. 405.)

Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt:

The word “Establishment” is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House.

Most people are unaware of the existence of this “legitimate Mafia.” Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation’s policies in almost every area.

(From Edith Kermit Roosevelt, “Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.,” Indianapolis News, December 23, 1961, pg. 6.)

Paul Marks December 22, 2007 at 4:24 pm

What has a declaration of war on the Soviet Union got to do with anything?

As for “liberty taking a back seat” – how would it have been pro liberty to allow, for example, Korea to fall to the Communists? Of course the late Murry Rothbard was even anti NATO – it was not just a matter of Asia, it was Europe (including where I am sitting) and everywhere else as well.

As long as there was not a full scale invasion of the United States itself (killing individual Americans or subversion within the United States not being enough – and the destruction of all American allies in the world being thought not even worth consideration), the late Professor Rothbard held to a principle of nonresistance.

This was not just wildly different from the opinions of Ludwig Von Mises – I have known full blown anarcho-capitalists who supported Western governments in the Cold War as the lesser evil to the Marxist regimes. So the idea that “if you do not support whatever Rothbard and co said you are not a libertarian” is a dog that will not hunt.

Murry Rothbard, quite correctly, pointed out the many absurdities in American and other Western governments economic policies – but he allowed this to spill over into opposition to the West itself.

Parrotting Marxist stuff about “Imperialist” America and calling Communist opperations “National Liberation struggles” is not liberarian.

Murry Rothbard, and so many people round here, forget (in they ever understood) the reply of Mr J. Owens when he was asked why he, a black man in segregated America, supported the United States:

“There is nothing wrong with America that Hitler is going to fix”.

One must not allow anger at the many faults of the United States and other Western nations to undermine basic loyality. Very many people both in the armed forces and, yes, in the intelligence services DIED for you.

You can urinate on their memory if you so choose – that was part of the freedom they died to protect. But they did not fight and die around the world out of a lust for power, and they certainly did not fight and die in the stinking back streets of the dark places of the world for high wages and big pensions.

I do not accept that to be a libertarian one must accept either Nazi domination of the world or Communist domination of the world. This seems a very odd definition of “libertarian”.

The United States can not long exist as an island of freedom (or semi freedom) in a sea of tyranny. The world will not just vanish if you shut your eyes to it – that Ludwig Von Mises understood well.

As for military spending.

This has declined from over 10% of G.D.P. (I know there are problems with the concept of “G.D.P.” but they are not relevant to this) even before Vietnam to about 3% of G.D.P. when President Bush came into office.

On the present campaigns:

One can certainly dispute the need for the Iraq operation of 2003 – my judgment at the time was that this was an error.

But the Afganistan operation was hardly “optional” the Taliban allied themselves with al Qaeda. No one forced them to do this – it was their choice.

And please spare me lines about how 9/11 was justified because the United States has bases in Saudi Arabia (only a few hundred miles from the holy places), those bases were put there as an alternative to getting rid of Saddam in 1991 – “none of the West’s business if Saddam had taken X,Y,Z,” perhaps, if one assumes that the world outside the United States either does not exist or has no effect on what goes on within the United States.

In any case Islamic radicals do not need the excuse of bases to launch attacks.

There were attacks as far north as Iceland in the 18th century, and I assure you that the Danish Monarchy did not have bases in Arabia.

As for Osama bin Ladin – he does not limit Islam to Arabia or to the Middle East.

To him “world” means “world” – there is no special exception for the United States. Indeed as the leading infidel power the United States is always going to be a very important target.

“Then the United States should not be a leading power”.

Fine we are going round in circles – as some people do not accept the need for leading powers.

UnIrWe December 22, 2007 at 4:27 pm

The Soviets were allowed to come into and stay in power as the “boogey-man” to justify continued militarization and expansion of the U.S. empire.

They collapsed through their own citizens acting or refusing to act under the “established” systems of control (ECONOMIC, SOCIAL & POLITICAL). They were not defeated by America. However, our Constitutional Republic was further defeated through the inflation, taxation and militarization of our lives.

You and I are We.
We The People.

Paul Marks December 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm

By the way.

If the United States was the evil, aggressive, “imperialist” power that the late Professor Rothbard and others presented it as, why did the United States not nuke the Soviet Union when the West had an atomic monopoly?

Oh, of course, the Soviet Union was not nuked because the evil Imperialists needed a perpetual enemy in order to justify giving government contracts to the military industial complex.

Hobson and then V.I. “Lenin” “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”.

Interesting how radical leftism, in the case of Hobson, and Marxism, in the case of “Lenin”, is presented as libertarianism.

The next step is to present the conflict with radical interpretations of Islam (parts of both the Sunni and Shia traditions) as “really” the fault of the United States, and created to justify handing out defence contracts to various corporations.

In reality the West has real enemies, and they are not enemies out of justified anger with our various misdeeds.

But some people will never understand this – at least they will not understand it till it is too late.

Paul Marks December 22, 2007 at 4:53 pm

A gentleman above points out the cooperation of businessmen with various nasty regimes.

Quite true.

As “Lenin” said “they will sell us the rope with which we will hang them” and, he might have added, “they will lend us the money to pay for it”.

There have also been very rich people with ideolgical sympathy for the enemy.

For example, not all very rich Marxists are to be found in fictional “James Bond” stories.

Sadly “the more things change the more they stay the same”.

For example, George Soros financed the defence of Lynne Stewart – who had helped Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman send messages to his terrorist personal in Egypt.

This was in spite of the fact that both George Soros and Lynne Stewart come from an ethnic group that would either be exterminated or enslaved should the said radicals have success.

Making vast amounts of money may be a sign of intelligence – but it is not a sign of wisdom. For intelligence and wisdom are very different things.

Ludwig Von Mises had plenty of both – but some people who tried to follow his ideas did not.

James Redford December 22, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Paul Marks, the 9/11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government from beginning to end in order to obtain more power, funding, and control over the populace–including to provide a pretext to invade and take over foreign countries.

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2).

That piece of evidence isn’t merely a smoking gun: it’s a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like (“like” in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

“Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863



“Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting,” CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn’t molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government’s account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there’s nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Steven E. Jones’s (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University) below paper:

“Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

“Experiments to test NIST ‘orange glow’ hypothesis,” Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html

“Experiments with Molten Aluminum,” Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

“A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel,” Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see “Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination” in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. … No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (WDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS) that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

“Revisiting 9/11/2001–Applying the Scientific Method,” Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

See also the below on additional physical remains of thermite in the demolished World Trade Center:

“Announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust,” ProfJones (Steven E. Jones), 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2007 http://911blogger.com/node/13090

Dr. Steven E. Jones_Boston 911 Conference_12-15-07_Red chips_Thermite.mov http://www.sendspace.com/file/aoi6hr

“Dr._Steven_E._Jones_Boston_911_Conference_12-15-07_Red_chips_Thermite.mov,” December 21, 2007 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147


Prior to the 9/11 attacks, high-level U.S. government officials stated their desire for a massive attack upon the U.S. in order to serve as a pretext for global domination and tyranny. Such as the Bush, Jr. administration stating in their own official policy report in September 2000 (i.e., before they even came into presidential office), commenting on what will be needed for the U.S. government in order to take over the Middle East,

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor.

From pg. 51 of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses–Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century,” Project for the New American Century, September 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf .

Here we see that the U.S. government wanted “a new Pearl Harbor” in which to terrorize the U.S. population in order to get them worked up into a war-fervor. And the U.S. government got its desired “new Pearl Harbor” twelve months later. How very fortunate for it.

In this same document the Bush, Jr. administration state their intent to invade Iraq even if Saddam and his regime no longer existed. So this invasion had not the slightest thing in the world to do with Saddam or whatever political system was in operation in that country–the U.S. was going to invade Iraq no matter what. From pg. 14:

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And from pg. 17:

From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene.

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American Century’s Statement of Principles ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz


Terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a subset of terrorism), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government’s mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:

“Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism,” TetrahedronOmega, September 30, 2005 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

Also see my below article:

“9/11 ‘Hijackers’ Trained on U.S. Military Bases,” TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58&mforum=libertyandtruth


More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own non-combatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that’s only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel’s website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens–certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people’s very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz the Civil War; etc.)

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies–massive conspiracies, at that–but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite insignificant by comparison.

Related to the above hellish misanthropy of governments, in the below post by me I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them–including homosexually anally raping them–and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:

“Crushing Children’s Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom,” TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth

Inquisitor December 22, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Ah, so warring around the world is what libertarians should be clamouring for. Yes, how stupid of us not to realize this (nevermind the fact that war inevitably gives the state all the more reason to justify its immoral existence.)

The American empire is no myth:


I may not agree entirely with Rothbard on foreign policy, but one thing I will not abide is libertarian war-mongers denigrating non-interventionism. If there is one thing the Marxists got right, even if only in part, it is their political theory – itself of course a ripped off version of that of the classical liberals.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: