All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:00
1679 The Death of the West Part 3: The 20th Century (audio to a video)

The long term effects of the First World War - the fall of the Free West, and the darkening skies of tyranny...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
This is The Death of the West, Part 3, World War I, and its aftermath.
Please review Parts 1 and 2 if you haven't already.
So, what actually happened to initiate World War I was a series of inter-family domino steps that resulted in the outbreak of worldwide hostilities, and it was an incredibly compressed period of time.
It occurred in five weeks.
The initial incident was, of course, that The Austro-Hungarian Emperor Ferdinand was assassinated by a member of the Black Hand Sarajevo independence movement.
And he was shot and he lay dying saying, it's nothing, don't avenge me, it's nothing, don't avenge me.
And then what happened was Austria-Hungary, which was facing a lot of ethnic rebellions within its own crumbling empire, Many historians believe falsely that the Serbian government was involved in the attack upon Ferdinand.
And it presented a list of 10 demands to take control of the investigation of the assassination in Serbia.
These were unprecedented demands and really was a takeover of the legal system within Serbia.
Serbia Agreed to all but part of one.
So nine and a half of the ten demands were agreed to, which was a diplomatic coup, and if it had been accepted by Austria-Hungary, there would have been no war, and the entire future of the 20th century and the 21st century would have been very different.
Unfortunately, Austria-Hungary did not accept the slight reservation about one of the ten points that it demanded from Serbia and declared war on Serbia.
Now Russia was bound by a mutual defense treaty with Serbia and so when Serbia was attacked or had war declared upon it by Austria-Hungary, Russia declared war Germany had a similar treaty with Austria-Hungary and then declared war on Russia on August 1st.
France was bound by a similar treaty with Russia and then declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary.
England, which was not bound by any formal treaty with France, ended up declaring war on Germany on August 4th.
Now this automatically brought all of England's colonies and dominions into the war.
This is what made it a world war, was the British declaration of war on Germany.
Japan was bound by a military treaty with England, declared war on Germany on August 23rd.
Two days later Austria-Hungary declared war on Japan and you're away to the races.
To hell. One of the reasons that this escalated so quickly was that, boy, you know, if you've ever been in the midst of family conflicts, you know that there's no ugly fight like a family fight.
And the World War I was essentially a family war.
Many of the European monarchies and leaderships were interrelated.
The British monarch, George V's predecessor, Edward VII, was the German Kaiser's uncle, and via his wife's sister, uncle of the Russian Tsar as well.
His niece, Alexandra, was the Tsar's wife.
Edward's daughter, Maud, was the Norwegian Queen and his niece, Ina, Queen of Spain.
Maria, further niece, was to become Queen of Romania.
The Kaiser was the eldest grandchild of England's Queen Victoria.
So this was a highly, highly interrelated set of leaders who were all declaring war on each other.
This was a war of a family mafia clan of statist leadership.
I think that's the first thing to understand.
There were some more practical considerations as to why the war escalated so quickly.
As Napoleon has said, all European wars are civil wars because many of the cultures are so interrelated and because the family dynasties that ran these countries were so intermarried.
There is in Germany, and there was in Germany as of the late 19th century, something called the Schlieffen Plan.
And the Schlieffen Plan said that if Germany ever got into a war with Russia, it had to immediately declare war on France unless France immediately declared its neutrality.
The reason for that Germany, of course, would always end up having to fight a two-front war nestled as it is within Europe.
And so it takes Russia a lot longer to attack Germany than it does for Germany to attack France.
And this, of course, happened again in the Second World War.
The whole idea behind the Schlieffen Plan is the moment that Russia declares war on Germany, Germany must immediately declare war on France and take out the French army, because Germany is twice the size of France and can do it relatively easily.
And this just starts in motion.
Once everything starts rolling, it became like a snowball going down a mountainside, ending up in an avalanche.
This all began. So the moment that Russia declared war on Germany, Germany demanded neutrality from France.
France refused to give it. Germany immediately began mobilizing to invade France because you take out France and then you take your armies off to the east by the time the Russians arrive, which takes a lot longer.
Russia is slower, more primitive, fewer railroads, less administration, less competence.
And so that is the German plan.
So this all began to snowball in absolutely terrifying ways.
It is really striking to think and to understand the degree to which there was no public consultation in this most astounding and disastrous decision in the history of governments.
This was the single worst series of decisions that governments have ever, ever made.
And I think that's really, really, no consultation.
We always say, oh, there's a social contract and the governments or this and that.
And none of the British colonies or territories were consulted.
None of the British people were consulted.
And ostensibly, it was Germany goes in through Belgium, always to attack France, because France has defensive lines on the border between France and Germany.
So Germany goes in through Belgium.
And I don't think they even bothered to declare war on Belgium, they just went through.
They weren't planning on occupying Belgium, they just wanted to get to France.
This really annoyed England and Belgium was portrayed as a plucky little boy in the schoolyard fighting up to a big bully and this aroused everybody's mom in the brain childhood trauma to the point where they wanted to lash out at Germany.
And, of course, the truth of the matter was that England was going to violate Belgian neutrality if Germany didn't.
So, once you start to dig into the actual ethics of the situation, you will always find that it's much more ambiguous and complex than we think.
I'm going to read from some particular bits of research.
I really want to get these facts across, and I'm not going to pretend to have memorized all of this, so I hope that this will be of some use.
The death of the West that began in 1914 is so, so important.
World Wars I and II, these are two phases of a Thirty Years' War that future historians will likely call the Great Civil War of the West.
Not only did these two wars carry off scores of millions of the best and bravest of the West, they gave birth to the fanatical ideologies of Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism, and Fascism, whose massacres of the people they misruled accounted for far more victims than all of the battlefield deaths in 10 years of fighting, World War I and World War II. A quarter century ago, Charles L. Mead Jr.
began his end of order Versailles in 1919 by describing the magnitude Of what was first called the Great War.
The author then detailed the Butcher's Bill.
By November 11, 1918, when the armistice that marked the end of the war was signed, eight million soldiers lay dead.
Twenty million more were wounded, diseased, mutilated, or spitting blood from gas attacks.
Twenty-two million civilians had been killed or wounded, and the survivors were living in villages blasted to splinters and rubble, on farms churned in mud, their livestock dead.
In Belgrade, Berlin and Petrograd, the survivors fought amongst themselves.
Fourteen wars, great or small, civil or revolutionary, flickered or raged about the world.
The casualty rate in the Great War was ten times what it had been in America's Civil War, the bloodiest war of Western men in the 19th century.
At the end of the Great War, an influenza epidemic we talked about last go spread by returning soldiers carried off 14 million more Americans and Germans.
In one month in 1914, French casualties are believed to have totaled 260,000, of whom 75,000 were killed, 27,000 on August 22 alone.
France would fight on, and in the 51 months of the war, would lose 1.3 million children, twice that number, wounded, maimed, or crippled the quadrant of the country.
Northeast of Paris resembled a moonscape.
Equivalent losses, equivalent French losses in America today would be 8 million dead, 16 million wounded in all the land east of the Ohio and north of the Potomac, unrecognizable.
That was the butcher's bill.
The German Kaiser Was once inquired of the British Lord Salisbury where he might have a colony that would not be in the way of the British Empire.
Lord Salisbury replied, we don't want you anywhere.
So this is an inter-family squabble of people being put down and fighting back.
It's very, very important.
I'm not even going to pretend that this one's going to be short, so please get comfortable.
I promise you it'll be worth it.
We will get to the role of colonies and the effects that they had on British and other Western policies.
We will get to that. I promise you it will be very interesting and startling for you to realize the truth behind this.
One of the things that I think is really, really important to understand is that The 20th century has been, I mean, most of human history has been around the manipulation of moral prestige.
So for instance, Germany was called the butcher bird of Europe and all of these terrible war atrocity stories were passed around.
But if you look at the actual facts of the 19th century, looking back from 1815 to 1914, from Waterloo to the Great War, Germany was in fact one of the least militaristic of the European powers.
Britain had had 10 wars in that century.
Russia had had 7, France had had 5, Austria and Germany had both had 3.
Only 3 wars.
This was not This was not the butcher bird of Europe who was going to destroy all of Europe and take over the world and so on.
There's only one war that Germany had really been involved in, one war of territorial gain that Germany had been involved in, which had very little productivity.
They just gained a few little bits of territory here and there.
This was not a nation destined or doomed to take over the world.
So, in 1907, preparing for the Hague Conference on Disarmament, the U.S. Secretary of State, Elihu Root, sent Ambassador Henry White to London to ascertain British views.
So, White was startled by what he heard into the stark realization that a European war involving Britain was a possibility.
White had several conversations with Balfour, one of which was overheard by White's daughter, who took notes.
Balfour says, somewhat lightly, We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.
White, you are a very high-minded man in private life.
How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral?
As provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have.
If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.
Balfour. That would mean lowering our standard of living.
Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.
White. I'm shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.
Balfour. Again lightly.
Is it a question of right or wrong?
Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.
I think that's a very, very important view into the mindset of the ruling classes around maintaining their standard of living.
And the last thing that I'll read from here before we go into the full analysis, let's just go very briefly.
Of course, one of the reasons that Germany surrendered was to maintain the army to prevent a revolution at home.
And Germany did not accept Unconditional surrender.
It was imposed upon them and of course it wasn't until 1919 that the peace declaration and the terms of the surrender were worked out, at which point it was too late to send the German troops back into battle.
And of course hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians had starved to death or died for a want of food, water and medical supplies.
As a result of the continued Allied blockade against Germany, even after the end of all hostilities.
This is why food, bread and freedom was such a powerful slogan.
Everybody who grew up or was around at the end of the First World War remembers the literal starvation of hundreds of thousands of people, which would be millions of Americans.
Imagine the starvation of millions of Americans as a result of a blockade at the end of a war.
That would keep people's animosity levels very high.
And so, of course, Wilson's famous 14 points was put forward.
14, 17, it sort of varies.
These were the points by which Germany expected, because this was enunciated and approved of by the allies, these points.
Of course, every time the government says it's going to do something, you can instantly expect the exact opposite to occur, and there was nothing different with the 14 points of Wilson.
And let's just see what happened with these 14 points that Germany accepted as the basis for its surrender.
Point one, calls for open covenants openly arrived at.
South Tyrol, Austrian for 600 years, was given to Italy under a secret treaty with Britain in 1915, and all German islands in the North Pacific were given to Japan to comply with a secret treaty with Britain in 1917.
These are just two examples of many.
Point two, absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas in peace and war except for international action to enforce international covenants.
The British didn't like that. Wilson dropped it.
Point three, called for the removal of all economic barriers and establishment of inequality of trade conditions among all nations.
But Germany was denied the right to enter a customs union with Austria and forced to grant unrestricted Allied access to her markets while being denied equal access to the Allied markets.
Point four, declared that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
Germany was forced to disarm, but the Allies, while demobilizing their huge armies and reducing the size of their fleets, never...
Fully did. Hitler would use the Allied refusal to match German disarmament to justify German rearmament in 1935.
Point five called for the free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims.
This was trampled underfoot as the Allies scrambled to seize and confiscate every German colony as well as the private property of German citizens who lived there.
Point nine read, a readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
Yet ceding South Tyrol all the way to the Brenner to Italy to honor a secret treaty made Wilson and the Americans appear to the Tyroles and their Austrian kinsmen as liars and hypocrites, as indeed they were.
Point 13 declared that an independent Polish state should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations.
But the Poland created a Paris held captive millions of Germans, Ukrainians and white Russians, ensuring conflict with Russia and Germany when those nations got back on their feet.
Point 17, enunciated on February 11th, 1918, amended on July 4th, was the self-determination clause.
You've probably heard about this. The settlement of every question, whether of territory or sovereignty, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned.
So self-determination is the key.
And this was complete nonsense.
This is the description. Of the peace process.
We went into the next room where the floor was clear and Wilson spread out a big map made in our office on the floor and got down on his hands and knees to show us what had been done.
Most of us were also on our hands and knees.
I was in the front row and felt someone pushing me and looked around angrily to find that it was Orlando, the Italian premier and leader of the Italian delegation, to the conference on his hands and knees crawling like a bear towards the map.
I gave way and he was soon in the front row.
I wish that I could have had a picture of the most important men of the world on all fours over this map.
This was all nonsense.
They were lied to. Wilson and the other leaders were lied to.
They were given false maps.
They were given false censuses, false demographics.
It was all complete nonsense.
Point 18 declared that all well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction without introducing new elements of discord and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe and consequently of the world.
There was scarcely a promise Wilson made to the Germans at the time of the armistice that was not broken and rejected by the time the Treaty of Versailles came in.
Lloyd George returned home grim but triumphant, awarded the Order of Merit by George V. He said, we shall have to do the whole thing over again in 25 years at three times the cost.
This was a peace that guaranteed future war because the peace of 1919 was a government program which achieves, as it always does, as always the institutionalized use of violence does, achieve the opposite of that which was intended.
So, I'm going to give you another theory to put all of this, hopefully, in context.
And I'm going to introduce what is perhaps an odd term, but I think it would be very helpful.
The term is a killbot.
A killbot is a man, usually a man, raised in such a traumatic environment that he has become a form of human predator.
I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories here, we're just going to look at the facts.
Whether it's planned or instinctual, I don't know, and it fundamentally doesn't matter.
Whether it's the instincts of lions hunting a gazelle, or the plans of a smoke-filled room of elite people, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
But these are the facts of the situation.
The state relies upon the initiation of violence.
The state requires a class of individuals who are willing to use violence against the unarmed, usually unarmed, and the innocent.
And the government is also always fearful of this military class, who I'm going to call the kill bots, because soldiers is a term that has too much emotional, to me, false emotional connotations to most people.
Now, the way that killbots were bred in the past was through...
I'm going to talk about England here, though I'm sure it's the same in most of the other countries of Europe.
In England, you had among the aristocracy.
The aristocracy were the most successful killbots.
They were the most successful hitmen in history.
And that is why they became aristocrats and got granted land, because they provided great murderous service to the head murderer called the king.
And you set up this system of education that's separated.
And this goes all the way back. This is the same thing that happened in ancient Athens as well.
You set up a system of education that separates young children from their parents and takes them away and subjects them to a brutally harsh discipline, corporal punishment.
Of course, all of this is specifically designed, consciously or not, it doesn't matter, but it's designed to produce An inhuman beast, a predator, a man who is so seethed with rage and humiliation and illustre violence that he can be set loose upon domestic or foreign civilians and he will rend them like a shark on a baby seal.
The training of this killbot class is essential to the survival of the state.
It happens to a smaller degree here among the military and the cops, who all have, I mean, to my knowledge and experience and research, all have these horribly traumatic...
History. Sorry, there's one more thing that I want to read with regards to this kill-butt class.
I think it's really, really important to understand this, and we will talk about one of the most famous kill-butts in history, whose name was Winston Churchill.
As Europe began to slide towards war, Churchill, who had been raised in one of these boarding school environments, as I went to one of these boarding school environments, when I was six, I was sent to a boarding school where I was caned and restrained, and there was all of this terrible stuff done.
This is because my family comes from the head killbot clan, right, aristocracy going back to the 11th century.
French originally, which is why my last name is French, we were rewarded with lands and titles in Ireland for our success in slaughtering peasants.
And that is the legacy that I have.
So I have some knowledge of this from a very personal standpoint.
And it took me literally years to regain my humanity after exposure to this, this kind of brutal education.
So I really do know what it's like on that side of the fence.
I think I speak with some authority here.
Churchill went through this.
And of course, Churchill gained his fame by escaping from his incarceration in the Boer War in Africa.
As And the killbots are constantly striving to chomp through the bit and let slip the dogs of war.
Killbots are constantly driving, will use any excuse to inflame, to propagandize, to manipulate, to lie, to falsify.
You can see this, of course, in the Iraq war, the recent Iraq war as well.
The cabinet, seven cabinet ministers in England were ready to resign rather than go to war.
In August of 1914, they did not want to get involved because they knew that it would turn it into a world war.
They did not want to get involved.
Neither the Kaisers' Germany nor Hitler's Germany had any plans or designs on England or the British Empire.
In fact, they both admired the British Empire.
They had no plans to destroy England, to invade England, to dismantle the British Empire.
And so England, knowing this, did not want to go to war.
The cabinet did not want to go to war.
On July 25th, when it appeared that Gray's call for a conference of ambassadors to halt the war, because there had been a conflict in 1913, and all of the cabinet ministers that were involved in that conflict in 1913 were still in England and could have resolved this, Churchill exclaimed moodily that it looked, after all, as if we were in for a, quote, bloody peace.
He hated peace. One of his biographers said, Churchill was the only minister to feel any sense of exaltation at the course of events leading to war.
He wrote to his wife Clementine on July 28, 1914, My darling one and beautiful, everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse.
I am interested, geared up, and happy.
Is it not horrible, horrible to be built like that?
And the killbot class was, you know, the murder class, was consistently agitating.
For war throughout this time, and this was catastrophic in terms of the public perception.
A lot of these people end up in the media as well, which is why the media is always so pro-war, because the killbot class, they're either physical abusers like soldiers or they're verbal abusers like people in the media.
So that is a truly...
And there's lots of examples of Churchill saying, even though he says at one point, even though I know thousands of lives are being smashed by the hour, I could not be happier.
I could not be more overjoyed at what is occurring.
He, of course, was responsible for the...
Invasion of the Dardanelles using the Navy and the military, where he put a whole bunch of British soldiers at the base of mountains in trenches, where, of course, the Turks could just shoot down at them to their heart's content.
It was a complete catastrophe, resulted in parliamentary inquiry, and he was forced to resign as First Lord of the Admiralty.
So let's look at this killbot class so that we can put it in the context of the 20th century, because you can't understand the 20th century or even the 19th century without understanding the killbots.
One of the reasons that the 19th century was so peaceful, and I would argue that it's one of the main reasons alongside private education, one of the main reasons that the 19th century was relatively peaceful was the mass exportation of the killbots, the mass exportation of the murder class overseas for most of Western Europe.
Spain had their empire, England had their empire, even Portugal had parts of an empire, France had some empire.
They had taken their murder class and they had shipped them overseas to go and slaughter people in other countries.
This took the cancer of the killbot class out of Europe.
This is another reason why people could actually get down to living their lives.
Because they'd shipped the murderers overseas.
They'd shipped all the killbots overseas.
And the one country that began to really inflame the conflict, the German, of course, had the history of Prussian militarism.
It was a real tragedy that Prussia was the territory that gained control over all of Germany when it unified.
But it was this country, Germany, that did not have a place to export its killbots that was one of the country's key in starting the war.
And it was the countries that had the biggest empire, who had the most killbots overseas rather than at home, who were the most reluctant to get into war.
Unfortunately the killbot class won and they began all of this.
When you have a war, you vastly increase the number of killbots in circulation, right?
Because you have to put them through boot camp, which of course back then was even more brutal than it is now.
You send them to war, they see all of their friends die, they stab, shoot and bludgeon people.
I mean, the First World War, there were two kinds of combat for the most part.
There were shells from 10 miles away landing on you and blowing you to pieces.
And there was diving into somebody's trench.
I mean, not counting the machine gunning in no man's land.
There was diving into people's trench and stabbing them.
It was a war of bayonets, like you were up close when you jammed your rusty blade into someone's innards and twisted it to make sure that as much internal damage could be done and then moved on to let the person die and be feasted on by rats as he died in the trench.
This was a truly psychotic environment designed to breed sociopaths, designed to breed and extend and expand the killbach class.
Once you have millions of killbots, where before you had only thousands or tens of thousands, you have a huge problem, because you have well-trained, well-armed sociopaths coming back to the home environment.
This was the greatest long-term effect of the First World War and of the Second World War, which we'll touch on very briefly at the end of this.
Why did government continue its expansion after the First World War?
Well, a central reason, of course, was the need to provide pensions and so on to the killing class.
The governments don't provide pensions to the killing class because it has great concern for their health and safety.
If it had great concern for their health and safety, it wouldn't have slaughtered them by the millions in a war.
It has to provide this money because it is afraid of a revolution.
It is afraid of the kill bots.
Coming to the politicians' houses and doing what Lenin did to the Romanovs, which is machine gunning them, the whole family, four daughters, the son, machine gunning them in a dank and smelly basement.
That is what the political class...
So they have to bribe the killbots who have returned, who are unfit for free market involvement, as most of them are.
It has to bribe them with pensions and healthcare and so on.
And the same thing is occurring now. It's not because they care.
about their health and welfare because they're already sending them in to be killed.
It's because they're afraid of a revolution.
This was a very big part of what happened after the First World War.
Now, another thing that occurs is you see a massive expansion of government programs after the First World War.
Particularly, of course, you see this in the 1930s.
Now, remember, most of the people who went to war were pretty young.
One problem you have when you go to war and hundreds of thousands or sometimes even millions of killbots come back into your society is most of these people are utterly unfit for the truly free market anymore.
I mean, they're utterly unfit for it.
They can't function that well in a free market.
And so what are you going to do?
If you have old age, sorry, if you have unemployment benefits and so on, then as these people remain unemployed, you have to just keep paying them.
I've worked with some of these ex-military guys.
They're really not good at free market stuff.
And you can't go from a rigid hierarchy of killbot aggression into a free, negotiated, peaceful free market.
The transition doesn't work very well at all.
And so you have to have government contracts because government contracts aren't in the free market.
So you have to have lots of money to give to the killbot class either directly through pensions, medical care and unemployment insurance or indirectly through the granting of government contracts or the hiring of these people into the government because they simply can't function in the free market anymore and you really can't.
So when you look at the need to manage and the need to contain the killbot class It's absolutely essential and fundamental as to why a country gets more and more socialistic.
You will always see towards the tail end of a war a massive expansion in government programs because you have to find some place to put these people.
Why can't the United States privatize the post office?
Politicians would never go for the privatization of the post office because over 40% of the people who work at the post office are ex-military.
There's a reason they call it going postal.
Because they're ex-military, the moment you privatize it, they're probably going to lose their jobs because nobody wants to work with these lunatics, if they have a choice.
The same is true for a lot of government workers.
So they're not going to privatize it because the whole post office was nationalized, so to speak, too Give a home for the kill bots to put a place where they didn't have to deal with market forces and volunteerism, where they could continue their crazy hierarchical abusive aggressions.
And what I hear about the post office is a pretty abusive place to work because lots of ex-military there.
Why is there a war on drugs?
There's a war on drugs because a lot of vets came back from the Vietnam, right?
1970, the war on drugs begins right towards the tail end of the Vietnam War.
CIA, 1948. Why?
So you've got a place to put the killbots.
So they don't come to the politicians and overturn society.
You need to have a quarantine for the killbots, where they're in a rigid hierarchy, they're not subject to free market forces, where they can enact their abuses against others.
The massive increase in the US prison population, the point where, what is it, 1.5 million Americans every year are arrested now?
This is all the killbot class being able to unleash their aggressions against domestic populations rather than against the military and political leaders who actually sent them to be traumatized to this degree.
Why can't you end the war on drugs?
Because you'd be turning hundreds of thousands of killbots into the free market where they can't function.
And what's going to happen then? Some seriously bad shit, of course, right?
And so this is something that this management of the killbot class is absolutely essential to understand.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand why governments grow and why privatization is considered so disastrous.
Ex-military people go into the military-industrial complex, which includes the prisons, which includes public and private security.
Why can't they get rid of Blackwater?
Because that would be to throw hundreds of thousands of ex-military lunatics out of work.
This is not considered productive by political leaders.
Can't say that I disagree with them, but this is the kind of effect that occurs when you go to war.
You have multi-generations of killbots who then in turn traumatize their own children, thus breeding more criminals or criminality or destructive impulses within society.
So... I think really it's important to understand, kill bot management is the key to understanding what has happened with governments in the 20th century.
You either need to bribe them, which means taxing the less traumatized, you need to give them contracts, you need to give them unemployment insurance, you need to give them medical care, or these very well-armed and very sociopathic people will come to Washington, which is not where they want.
They'd rather turn them loose on us.
In terms of arrests and letting the prison guards beat on us, rather than take responsibility for their own class's decisions to go to war.
So I think that I will stop here.
I do have something which I can post on my blog if you'd like to check it out.
I'll put the link below, which I won't get into here.
I think it's fairly well understood.
There were 10 major planks to the Communist Manifesto, and of course the 20th century was the fight against fascism.
And communism, fascism is nominal private ownership of business but state control of every economic aspect.
Communism is complete state control of just about every industry.
And I will post on my blog, how did we do in the fight against communism?
Which cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
How did we do in that fight against communism?
Did we win as a society?
And I think the argument is very clearly that we did not.
Because the fight against communism was a government program.
So what is it going to achieve? Largely, communism.
Thank you so much for watching.
I really do appreciate people's positive comments and I look forward to your feedback as always.
And if you have a little bit of time and money, this is a listener-supported program which has produced about 20 million hits in terms of podcasts and books and videos.
So if you find this stuff to be of use and you really want to help to spread it around, if you could share some videos, I'm very happy to accept donations and I wish you all the very best.
▲
Export Selection