All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:53
Our Enemy the State!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
It's looking pretty fine.
Is it looking good?
Yeah, looking good.
Where are you?
In my office.
But there are trains behind you.
Oh, I see.
You're working out of the train station now.
How is Laissez-Faire Books doing these days?
It's always good to know.
My business plan is I hope they never close the train station.
Yeah, right.
It's actually very interesting.
There's a story behind this.
I don't know if you're a fan of It's more or less based on a guy named James J. Hill is the model for the figure.
He's the guy in the white suit over there.
He's a 19th century, you know, railroad mogul.
And this is him, you know, and he's standing, this is early 1920s, and he's standing there with, you know, the You know, the old gilded, the aging gilded era, gilded age class of entrepreneurs.
They're admiring the 19th century version of the internet, which was the railroad.
Well, I must say, it does take quite a lot of money and power to show up to a macho train station in the coal-burning age in a linen white suit.
That is, you know, that's the boss, you know?
I don't shovel nothing.
All right, so we should start talking about Our Enemy the State.
Not just the general concept which we share, but the book.
Let me tell you my experience of reading the book.
And thank you for forwarding it to me, because I did have a few flickers of hope before I read the book.
And for me, it was like being a starfish at the bottom of the ocean, not too deep, somewhat deep.
I can still see the sun, like it's flickering up there above in the waves.
It's kind of pretty.
Every now and then clouds pass by.
There's an airplane falling out of the sky, going to islands and so on.
And then I see a whale swim over.
Oh, that whale is very pretty.
Look at that striped belly.
And the whale says, gosh, you know, I think it might be time to have a nap and never get back up.
And so the whale begins to descend towards me.
I'm like, wow, that whale's getting kind of big.
And then the whale lands on me, blots out the sun forevermore.
And I'm basically stuck with my nose half up a whale's butt for the end of time.
That to me was the experience of reading Our Enemy the State.
It starts off quite friendly.
It's got this great thesis, you know, and there's public power and private power and public power expands at the expense of private power to the point where nobody can imagine private power doing anything, which is why people say who'll build the roads, who'll build the railroads, who'll take care of the poor when all of this was done.
Goes on to a great segue about some of the financial motivations of the Founding Fathers.
Really eye-opening stuff.
Well-researched.
And as I can say, as an audiobook reader, that man can write a sentence so long that you can pretty much deflate into a black hole trying to breathe out to read it all.
I thought that was quite impressive.
Dude!
It's called the period.
Look into it.
But and then he really goes on to whether he has any hope for change and I'm really glad I read the book.
I really am glad that I read the book because boy if the government seemed too big when he was writing you know 50, 60 years ago I can't imagine what he would say now. 1935?
Yeah, yeah, so of course he was concerned about the massive expansion of powers under the New Deal, under FDR, in the Great Depression and so on, so he was concerned, like, my God, this government is huge!
And what was it, about 10% the size that it is now back then?
I think in the 1960s it was about 20%, like one-fifth the size it is now, so I assume in the 1930s, probably about...
10%, depending on how you measure it, but about 10% of the size that it is now.
And of course, the Federal Registry was tiny compared to what it is now and so on.
And America was yet to be the world's policeman, was yet to be the, you know, the oily smoke that got sucked into the vacuum of the collapse of the European colonial powers after World War II.
So it's just amazing to see how right he was.
And how powerful his document is.
I really, really strongly urge people to get a hold of this book.
It's really powerful.
And it went from exciting to illuminating to, oh dear God!
Oh my goodness, it's just so... What is his outlook for change?
Do you want to spoil the ending?
No, I think it's okay.
Why don't you explain his vision for Yeah, I mean, his basic thesis, of course, is that the state always and forever arises from predation and exploitation.
And the state is designed as a class exploitation mechanism.
And it's either grabbed by the middle class to control the rich, or the rich to control the middle class, and so on.
Mostly, it's the rich and powerful to control the middle class and the poor.
thus squeezing the middle class out of existence.
The smart and able in the middle class try to jump up the elevator shaft to reach the powers that be, but most people collapse into the fetid proletarian squirming masses never to escape again.
So he says it's a class exploitation system.
And his argument, of course, is very, very powerful, and it's something that I've thought about many times over the years.
And first of all, he says that because it provides people stuff for nothing, because if you have a flair for rhetoric and you have a presentable demeanor and you can appear credible to people, you can gain power through the state and then use it. you can gain power through the state and then use your set and your descendants are set because it is such a powerful mechanism for taking stuff and giving it to you for nothing.
It eliminates risk.
It eliminates competition.
And so it embeds this perpetual money and resource machine spraying at the upper classes forever.
And so it's irresistible as it stands.
It's irresistible for people to take control of that and get something for nothing because he talks about the basic biological drives.
All organisms want to maximize their resource consumption and minimize their resource expenditure and the state is perfect for that.
But he basically says as well that the state, and this is fantastic, I'm not quoting verbatim, but this is close.
He said, just as the money, sorry, just as the state has no money of its own, but only that which it takes from the general population.
So it also has no power of its own, but only that which it takes from the general population.
And that I think is a very, you know, I obviously concede I thought that was a somewhat original idea of mine.
But one of the great things about studying the history of any ideas you're involved in is you realize the degree to which it's all been said before by people smarter than you.
And that, I think, is really powerful.
And so normally, that would be the avenue for hope, right?
Because it's like, well, it only has the power that we give it.
And so the next thing would be to say, well, let's stop giving it that power then.
But that's not where he goes.
And I think that's the very interesting turn in the book.
Because I think he correctly identifies the source of the state's power, but he doesn't take the next step, which is to say, so let's stop giving it.
that power because I think the power of propaganda, which was even less then than it is now, and this is, of course, is prior to the Internet, is so great that he can only envision a very distant future in which, as he says, human beings may decide, you know, eons from now that giving the state all this power eons from now that giving the state all this power is not worth what it does to society in the long run.
But this is a future so unimaginably distant that we really can't concern ourselves with it in the here and now.
And he recommends for the few that understand a kind of a cultivation of the mind, a cultivation of manners of private life surviving in the meantime, right? - Okay.
Yeah, I mean, you don't go out and yell at a hurricane.
You just batten down your hatches.
And I really get the sense that he views the expansion of state power.
And I was interested in the degree to which he had studied or understood psychology.
There wasn't much of an indication in the book or in anything else that I'd read about him.
But he certainly did seem to be very interested in self-knowledge and some of his autobiographical works he does talk about his own motivations.
But I think like Jung he has this idea that the world is gripped in an unconscious model that people can't analyze, they can't become aware of, and because it's unconscious It is, in effect, unstoppable.
I mean, that which is unconscious for people is usually something that they simply can't change their behavior about.
The whole point, of course, is to try and drift what is unconscious into the conscious mind so you can analyze it and challenge it.
So I think he felt that the surrender to state power, the glorification of the state, the need for this hierarchy was so deeply embedded in people's psyches.
Not that it was innate to human nature because otherwise it could never be stopped.
It was so deeply embedded in people's psyches that it had the energy and impersonality and inevitability of an endless natural storm.
And it takes many forms.
The nationalist impulse, the desire for a risk-free life, dependency.
All these features, right, that sort of lend themselves to the statist way of thinking, or the unwillingness to throw off the oppressor.
Yeah, I mean, to me, I'm reading more into him than he actually said, but I would hazard a guess that he would say something like, where force is used, there is a wound, and culture is that which grows up around that wound to pretend that it's not a wound or to pretend that if it is a wound, it's for surgical reasons of health rather than as a simple attack.
And so the scar tissue of the justifications for the use of force is so embedded in people's lives.
It's like, you know, if somebody's grown up speaking English, it's like speaking English to them and asking them not to understand English, you know, to try and speak a different language than statism.
And so I think he felt it was inevitable and I don't know the degree, I couldn't find out much about the degree to which he was an activist in his youth.
I mean I know he wasn't like a sort of flag carrying, well that would not be particularly appropriate for his state of mind.
I know he wrote of course lots of books, lots of articles and I assume that he tried to change people's minds and then closer to the end of his life He did seem to believe that reason and evidence would not sway the majority, and it's really interesting to see the degree to which that has or has not changed since his day.
I think it was probably quite true in his day, and the events that have transpired since have, I think, confirmed that thesis quite well.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think it's true.
I like about reading Albert Janak is that you don't get, you get surprised a lot of the times because his rhetoric and his outlook are not really well represented in official civic culture today.
I mean, this is not a guy who's like obviously right-wing or left-wing in any conventional, you know, modern sense.
I mean, we've got a real, almost an aristocratic outlook that he's intellectually clearly very high level, right?
But that gives him a kind of an independence to look at, almost like with a bird's eye view of the political constellation out there as being sort of external to his own mind, which gives him a very beautiful objectivity, didn't you think?
Yes, I did.
It's almost as if he sprang like one of the Greek gods, you know, fully formed as sort of an alien visitor to his own culture and had that kind of objectivity to look at it in an unbiased way.
And I think that obviously to me is the mark of a mind of considerable discipline, of considerable self-examination, and of a willingness to not partake in the false relationships that are founded on delusions or illusions.
And he was a bit of a solitary guy.
I think he was married for a few months and then fled that and did complain about – or not exactly complain, but did say that he had a kind of solitary life.
And that, of course, takes – I mean, that takes great strength of character.
I mean, it's hard enough, even in the modern world, to go against the general.
And so when I say culture, everyone thinks I'm talking about, you know, Charlie Parker and, you know, paintings and so on.
What I mean by culture are the beliefs that we have about what is necessary, what is virtuous, and so on, that are not founded upon any reasoning from first principles or any historical evidence, but rather is an ex post facto justification for the way things are.
You know, nobody at the beginning said, there are no roads, so we need a state to build the roads.
Nobody said that, because there were roads, and there were railroads, and there was charity, and there was great healthcare for the poor, and there was help for the aged, and there were all of these great things run by churches, and friendly societies, and local associations.
Kiwanis groups and all that.
So nobody at the beginning said there is this desert of humanity with no roads and no help and nothing and we're all, you know, Hobbesian nature, reddened tooth and claw, all that.
And so we need a state.
That never ever happened.
What happened was all of these things were in place and were working really well and the state came along and displaced them in order to gather power, allegiance and control unto itself.
And so for me, when people say, well, without the state there's no roads, It obviously doesn't come from any historical place, because there were great roads before the state.
And with great roads, there was a limitation on human expansion, there was a limitation of resource expenditure to move around, because the roads cost money, whereas now they're free, so to speak, so everyone drives everywhere.
And there was great charity and all of that.
So when people say, well, without the government we wouldn't have these things, that's what I call culture.
Because what it is, is a justification after the fact to say, well, we are controlled, we do Have guns to our heads.
We are managed like serfs.
We do live on these tax farms.
So let's make up a world in which that's good and the alternative is worse so that we can live or find a way to justify how we're controlled.
And I think that he, again, this is only overlapping what Nox said, but I think his argument is people, the whole culture changes when the state expands.
It's not just, oh well we have 10% more government power and 10% less private, I wish he didn't use the word public and private power because it makes it sound like two sides of the same coin.
But we have 10% more violence and 10% less voluntarism.
But that has enormous effects on what people justify, on where intellectuals go, on the arguments that are put forward, on the news stories that are put forward.
It changes the whole culture.
And I think he feels that the culture hardens and becomes impervious to evidence, because it's based on a rejection of evidence to begin with, so no evidence can move it.
Narc is one of these figures that I wished I had known him.
I almost feel like I did meet him, you know, since I've read so much of his work, but it never fails to captivate.
So I learned a lot from him about how to think, or the attitude to take towards the passing scene.
I appreciate very much his, I guess I would call it an aristocratic anarchism, essentially.
His capacity to be distant and not be buffeted about by the trends of his time, and yet He's a brilliant observer of the trends of his time.
And almost no word of politics, other than the politics of the Founding Fathers and the degree to which they basically revolted because they wanted to continue land speculating in the West.
But almost no mention of contemporary politics, which is for a man who is incredibly devoted to analyzing politics, the lack of... I mean, I think that's what makes the book so valuable now.
And it's one of the reasons why I sort of get drawn into politics from time to time because those videos and podcasts are so popular, but I do try to avoid it because he has a timelessness to it, because he's dealing with history we all know about, and certainly I was incredibly illuminated by his analysis of the American Revolution.
But he has almost no reference to contemporary politics.
It is an incredible analysis.
It's incisive and powerful and quietly passionate in a way that I just think is like the tide.
You know, it's not like a little wave that goes crash, boom, bang and throws surface around.
It's the tide.
It moves the whole ocean.
It defines the shape of the land.
I think his passion for the subject is so powerful that it's not anywhere in the book.
It is like the whole spine of the book.
You know, I'm glad you brought up the point about his analysis of the Founding Fathers, because to me that was the great surprise in revisiting this book.
I mean, I have to admit that there's a whole series of books that exist within the libertarian tradition, I guess you could say, that are kind of classics.
And I wrote the other day that I think probably the worst fate that could ever befall a book is for it to be called a classic, because then people just assume That they already know its contents, or that its contents are already absorbed into, you know, in a way, so you don't actually have to sort of mix your labor with it.
I found this was true with Mises' Socialism.
I did an informal poll of a number of people.
Everybody knows about the book.
I couldn't find anybody who'd actually read it, you know?
And I'm afraid that Albert J. Knox's book, Our Enemy, the State, is in a similar category.
People figure they already know what's in it, so they don't actually take the time to go through it.
I think I might have been in that position myself, although I'm not entirely sure, but reading it, there's a section, what you would call revisionist history, of the founding period was just mind-blowing, really.
I mean, so radical and so, you know, objective and so much departing from the civic religion, you know, where we're supposed to worship these guys and act like they're, you know, the creators of the great republic or whatever.
Yes, well, of course, he takes the incredibly radical step of not taking people's language at face value, but taking the shocking and appalling jump-off-the-cliff step of actually comparing their actions with their ideals.
And, I mean, that, boy, I wrote in an article recently that cynicism is just politics plus time, because, you know, politics is the words, and then you look at the actions, I think that's what people are facing with Obama now, is the comparisons between the idealism that comes out of his mouth like a bunch of angry, savage doves that peck your eyes out.
So you can't see what happens afterwards and what he's actually done.
And this is something that we seem to keep having to go over and over again.
You know, like the abused wife who goes back to her husband because the husband says, oh, honey, here are some roses.
I'll never do that again.
Okay.
And it's like this horrible cycle.
And he really, I think, in his analysis of the founding fathers, both their economic motives, which I had never heard.
I mean, I got a master's in history from Ivy League University.
I went to three great colleges, all of the Ivy Leagues ones up here in Canada.
And the...
Boy, and I've read a huge amount of Tom DiLorenzo and Tom Woods and Ron Paul and all of the, you know, really great historians in the libertarian tradition.
I never heard this thesis.
I mean, and so he's very much, would be very skeptical, I think, if not downright opposed to political activism.
His analysis of the Founding Fathers does take away, I think, the Garden of Eden myth to do with the founding of America that is so essential to thinking, well, we've just got to get on back to that garden, brothers and sisters, and everything will be great.
The way he analyzes it is really powerful.
And again, I don't want to give many details away because I really, really want people to read this book.
It's a great read.
It's an easy read.
It's a powerful read.
And it's not that long a book.
And, but I've never, I've never heard.
So if people think they know this book or know Nock, they don't because he is very much not, there's only a tiny overlap, maybe five or 10% between his thought and contemporary libertarian thoughts.
So he's incredibly worth revisiting.
I think it's a kind of fork in the road that libertarianism had, which was, you know, to pursue, to pursue truth.
And as Voltaire says, cultivate your own garden.
Don't go out in the world and try and reform it.
Cultivate your own garden and spread through relationships that which is great and noble and true and good in the world.
But there was a fork in the road and I don't know who pushed it because I'm not a big... I don't know much about libertarian history or anarchist history in the 1930s.
I don't know which was the Keynesian work, in a sense, that pushed people towards political action, but I'd like to read that one too.
I don't understand it either, Stephan.
I mean, it's very interesting to me to try to figure out the place that this book had in the history of ideas, because, I mean, it's difficult for us to conceive of, but of course everything had to be printed.
If you're going to read it, it had to land into your hands.
So you had to get it from the local library, which not likely many local libraries had.
So how many copies were produced?
You know, who read it, what effect it had.
I mean, these things are very mysterious to me.
I don't really understand.
Of course, it's hard enough to even imagine the 19th.
You know, we're talking about the midst of the Great Depression, you know, rising of the blue laws, you know, the regimentation that was going on, the rise of the corporate state in the name of helping the middle class, which you saw through just completely.
So I don't really know what place it had, but I'm just glad that with this edition, you know, we're going to push it out probably to more people in one day than have read it And decades, you know, maybe.
Yes.
Yes.
So let's let's talk about it.
And it's great.
You know, I wish we had sort of Kindle records of downloads for the 1930s, but it's it's hard to know.
But I think we do know that he went into the great Lysander Spooner black hole of doesn't quite fit in our round hole or square pegs.
So he really because he's hard to put into and because he's very much against A lot of the, dare I term it, hysterical action which gives people comfort in the face of an ever-growing state.
To me, before you knew about science and physics and climate and so on, if you needed rain, you'd just go out and do a rain dance.
Obviously it didn't have anything to do with bringing rain, but it helped control your anxiety about there not being rain.
Anxiety management.
If you live underneath a volcano and you don't understand geology and you can't, for whatever reason, maybe you're hemmed in by other tribes, you live at the bottom of a volcano and the volcano erupts occasionally, you've got to live there and to deal with the stress of living there, and you imagine that if you go sacrifice some virgin then you appease the volcano god, but it has nothing to do with actually changing or altering the situation, but it has to do with managing your own anxiety about the situation.
I've got to do something!
And to me I see a lot of political action and other things that people do that is not the cultivate your own garden thing.
To me, it's like a rain dance, you know?
It's like, well, the state's getting bigger.
That's really stressful for me.
That's anxiety provoking for me.
So I'm going to do all these elaborate rituals designed to manage my anxiety.
Does it actually change the state?
Well, no.
The state just keeps growing bigger and bigger and doesn't even care.
But what it does do, which is why people keep doing it, is it does help manage their anxiety.
But I think we have to face that anxiety and find better ways of doing it.
And I think he had done that.
I think he... I really think he had done that.
There is...
A resignation, a resignation is a negative word, you know, it's a bad word.
Oh, you just resigned to your fate and so on.
It's like, well, if you are in fact unable to change the system based upon, you know, politics or other things that people are doing, then not doing that is a sensible thing.
If it's not going to work, then not doing it is a sensible thing.
An amazing legacy.
I mean, he left a brilliant literary legacy that's still with us today.
So he did, in fact, do things.
And it's not, I mean, this is a very, I guess you could say political book.
It's not political activist, but, you know, it's analyzing politics, I guess you could say.
But things like his other book that we put out in the club called Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, you know, I read that over the course of three months one summer.
And it was one of those moments in my life where I can distinctly remember, almost like it was like a physical thing, the transformation that that book alone put me through to highlight What it means to become intellectually independent from the religion, you know?
That is a freeing thing by itself.
I mean, if you can wake up every day and confront the passing, you know, crap of the world with a distance and with knowledge, then you sort of stabilize mentally and emotionally.
In a way that you can continue to persist in living a good, full, and productive life despite everything that's going on around you.
You're not consumed by the system.
And Albert J. Knock gives us, I think, a good example of how not to be devoured, but rather maintain your own mental, intellectual integrity and independence.
Right.
I like that phrase, the passing crap of the world.
I think you have found the title for your next book.
It just popped into my mind as an old Doors song called Cars Is By My Window.
Crap goes by my window like the waves down on the beach.
No, no, listen, I mean, it's what it is.
It's like a whole bunch of monkey poo throwing that's going out past the window.
Okay, so let's talk to people about, let's switch to full-on laser brain marketing mode because this book is coming out through the Laissez-Faire book club, which I am, you know, promoting and certainly people can help out my show and Laissez-Faire books by ordering it.
But let's talk a little bit about, ooh, the juicy goodies, the big baskets of fruit just beyond the very low dollar wall of the Laissez-Faire book club.
Yeah, it's ten bucks, and you get this book, and you get your introduction, but I mean, it kind of opens it now, like it opens a whole world of literature.
We're being very careful about curating these books week by week.
I mentioned Mises' Socialism this week.
We have a novel coming out by Isabel Patterson, but we've produced, you know, Henry Hazard, another book by Albert J. Nock, and all, Gary Kerr.
New works, Hans Hermann Hoppe and Wendy McElroy.
And I have some things lined up that I've gotten sort of good about shutting up about these things because, I mean, I would love to just list for you everything I've got coming up.
But the point is that now with this model, we have a tremendous, you know, incentive and a kind of a commercial dynamism at work where I'm going out and seeking new books.
We're using a lot of creativity with introductions and with production values where everything's produced DRM-free.
So you enter the club and you've just got this world of literature.
And with it, I think, comes something that I am only really recently realizing is extremely important.
You know, we're flooded with information these days.
You know, it's just unprecedented how much.
And yet, we don't have any more time than we've ever had before.
So we need to choose carefully what to do.
And sometimes people just shut down in the face of so many options.
One of the purposes of the club is to provide a curation and, I think crucially, inspiration to sit down with a little bit of discipline and really throw yourself into the great works from the past and the present, in the world of liberty, as a means towards acquiring that sort of distance and that sense of internal freedom that Albert Janow speaks about.
So that I think is the real goal.
It's not just to publish books.
It's not just to make videos.
And I make a video about every book that we produce.
But it's to provide that kind of inspiration, the cultivation of the free life.
That's the goal.
Yeah, I mean, just because we don't like gatekeepers doesn't mean that we don't need guides and And I think that I have a habit, I think like a lot of people, of just looking at the contemporary writings in the field and assuming that, well, the history stuff just led up to what is now.
So, you know, it's like reading a newspaper from 1940.
It might be interesting, but you don't really do much of it.
But one of the things I've gotten out of the Last Day Affair book club is there is a fantastic tradition.
Where we are is not the inevitable accumulation of all these books in the past.
There were lots of forks in the road and some of those forks in the road are really worth exploring because certainly the road we're taking now is not making the state any smaller.
So it's worth backtracking and looking at some of the other options and expanding and getting a sense of the history.
I mean, libertarianism does feel like a very recent phenomenon, but of course it's older.
than the, what do they call it, crapitalism, crony capitalism.
It's older than the sort of mixed economy that we have now, the classical liberalism, the Ricardo and Smith and Bastiat and all the 18th century writers.
It's older and it's really worth looking at the roots because the tips of the tree branches that we're on now a lot of times don't have a lot to do with the roots of where things started.
It's worth backtracking.
It's worth getting a sense of the history so that we don't feel like a leaf in the wind but we're a tree that actually has roots that goes down in history.
Once you realize you're part of a very lengthy and powerful tradition.
And part of a lengthy and powerful battle between voluntary and violent.
To me it gives me a sense of like a boat with a ballast.
The fin underneath the sailboat that keeps it from tipping over.
I think digging into that history.
But who knows what to read from all of these books?
And that I think is the Last Day Fair Booklist.
Ten bucks a month.
LFB.org forward slash Stefan.
S-T-E-F-A-N.
Or you can go to LFB.org to just sign up.
These are books that are, you know, carefully selected.
You know, really thoroughly reviewed.
That have meaning.
to the movement that have meaning to the history of what it is we're trying to do that gives us a sense of weight and momentum.
I think that it's sometimes not available from reading magazine articles or blog posts or just news articles.
Marching in parades or gathering to hear politicians speak.
You know this is a much better use of your time.
I mean it's about cultivating A voluntarist civilization, you know, so if we can all do this, then we can become a network that gets more productive, more wonderful, smarter than the state itself.
I mean, if you look at, you know, any great revolution against despotism in history, it's always consisted of something outside the state getting larger and larger and larger and more wonderful, and eventually just overtaking history and determining The path forward.
I mean, that's my short history of what happened in the Soviet Union.
It wasn't through political activism.
It was through black markets, through education, through people deciding to take the future in their own hands and building with others who believe the same way.
And eventually, the state is just kind of overwhelmed by the sheer building of liberty that's going on around them.
That's where I see it.
It may not happen in my lifetime, but I feel like the Lesley Fair Club is making a very valuable contribution To this eventuality.
Yes, so I think what you're saying is we're not wrecking balls, we're termites.
I feel that that also would be a very fine t-shirt to put out for the movement.
Well, Jeff, I wanted to just leave it at that.
Thanks again for the opportunity to read the book before it went out.
I very much enjoyed writing the foreword.
Perfect guy to do it.
I was so glad.
As I began to think through who could do this, I both wanted you to do it because you're very popular as marketing, but I felt like you would bring extra insight to the books.
I'm anxious to read what you've written.
I'm very happy to have this interview with you today.
LFB.org, sign up for the book club.
It's really, really worthwhile.
Ten bucks a month, you get all the goodies.
I'll list the goodies below in the video and a link to join.
I guess we'll talk with the next book that comes out.
▲
Export Selection